What was the motive?
If it was just because he already had another honey, murder seems a little drastic. Was there a big insurance policy or something?
Well, if he was involved, and if he got away with it without ever even needed a lawyer, he’d be able to be with his new honey with no divorce fees, no alimony and no child support. Even factoring in the cost of a funereal and all, I’d think that would add up to a lot of money for him in the long run.
She could potentially have had another honey, too, or he might have thought she did. He might even think the baby wasn’t his. Or he could have been pissed at her for some reason. Or he might just be a sick fuck.
Anything is possible, even him being completely innocent.
Sometimes people are selfish bastards that have no sense of right or wrong.
And yes, there was a substantial insurance policy.
I don’t know if the guy did it or not, but I’m glad that it’s looking like Laci’s family will at least have the (horribly painful) comfort of knowing what happened to her.
Yeah, since when are there logical explanations for murder?
If murderers were intelligent, rational people, they might not be doing it.
Where is Scotty, by the way? He is speaking through his lawyer, but he got into the wind when they found those bodies.
Doesn’t look good. In fact, he looks worse than he did before, and that was pretty damn bad.
Um…he could just be psychotic…then thinking that murdering his wife and unborn son would seem reasonable to him…perhaps he didn’t want the burden anymore? If he did do it, I can’t even imagine a punishment severe enough, unless of course someone tied an anchor around him and dropped him into ocean, conscious of course…
Margo
I haven’t followed this case, other than the prospective life insurance policy payout what is the evidence against him?
I have seen one single mention of a bone being found near the Berkeley Marina. I am waiting to see if there is a DNA match as this would represent substantive circumstantial evidence. Three critical criteria used when judging the possibility of murder are motive, location and opportunity.
Motive: New romantic interest, prevent birth of unwanted child and heir or collecting life insurance policy
Location: At cohabited home or near Berkeley Marina
(subsequent to husband’s stated last contact with wife)
Opportunity: Scott Peterson has produced evidence to show he was legally at the Berkeley Marina the day of his wife’s disappearance. If even one single bone from his wife turns up near there it is damning coincidence. The torso was found only a few miles away. So far, this guy has been about as convincing as OJ Simpson. There had better be a pattern of this chap going to the same or different local marinas in the days and weeks preceding the murder. If that pattern of attendance is absent, it makes for a singular exception. Someone please tell me if December 24 was opening day for a popular game fish.
He should have had lots of receipts from the same or various local marinas. Had he not such a conspicuous single piece of evidence (the Berkeley Marina receipt) to support his alibi, a complete absence of receipts might not be construable as anything significant. Keeping some sort of time based record is a consistent part of well planned murder. There has been mention only of this one receipt, not a number of them. Scotty had plenty of opportunity and location to plot and execute this crime. His lying about there being no “other” woman only repudiates his credibility the worse. His disappearance on the exact day of the body’s discovery is a capstone to his conduct. This has all been a veritable Carnival of Coincidences[sup]©[/sup].
Yes, I’m waiting for the DNA results matching the bone. No, I don’t think he’s innocent. Were I a married man, it would be extremely difficult to leave my gravid wife home alone the day of Christmas Eve.
From CNN today:
Haj
Thanks, Haj. Was just going to post the same. It is still conspicuous that the bodies washed ashore two miles from the Berkeley Marina.
If he did kill lacy, and hid the body, then he is assured that he cant possibly collect the insurance for at least 7 years. Even then, some insurance companies would have to be sued in court to pay if they still suspected the beneficiary murdered his policyholder.
Furthermore, he cant even sell his house, or get any money out of that for at least 7 years.
As a suspect, he cant get a decent job anywhere. I doubt if he will be making very many sales anymore, no sales, no commissions.
Financially, he is much worse off now.
99.99% of men who have affairs, do NOT kill their wives, so I doubt that his affair had anything to do with a motive.
I really dont see any motive anywhere for him to have done it.
I think most murders by people you know are just spur-of-the-moment things - no motive, except somebody got really mad and killed the other person before they got hold of themselves.
No cite for that, but it’s one of those things you always hear.
Anyone know about the dog?
S.P. said he last saw her when she went to walk the dog.
When he got home she was gone. Was the dog missing too?
The dog was in the yard, with its leash still clipped on.
Zenster said
On thing to consider is, of course, that Mr. P does not have to prove anything. From what I’ve read, he certainly seems to have been acting guilty. However, we all know that what we read in the paper is not always the complete picture, and that the prosecution, not the defense, has the burden of proof. If there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, I for one feel that throwing him into the water alive with chains around his neck and torso is too light a punishment. But I can’t think what an appropriately horrible punishment would be.
An online article mentions how Peterson would wave at the detectives trailing him. An excellent point was how the $500,000 reward for leads brought not one single tip out of the woodwork. Evidently, it is rare that such a large sum fails to elicit a valid lead.
And now for the good news:
Since the police were never able to eliminate Peterson as a suspect, they were monitoring him very closely. Not only did they tap his phone calls but they had a location transponder on his vehicle! All they time Scott Peterson was giving them the run around, they owned his @ss and were keeping on a plate in the icebox.
I don’t know why, but that gives me a really good feeling. I’d also like to congratulate the detectives on their excellent foresight. Peterson’s arrest was made because authorities feared he might flee to Mexico. Extradition from that country prohibits Capital punishment.
I know that the state must first legally prove Peterson guilty in a court of law. I also know there is one major question that all murder cases revolve around; Who stands to gain by this crime? Scott Peterson is the only nonrandom person who had anything to gain by his wife’s death. His failed attempts to conceal that fact are a potent prejudice against his ostensible innocence.
As to how he should pay for his crime? Margo’s anchory thingy worked real well for me. I’m certain that ancient punishments like impaling or being drawn and quartered might prove worthy methods of dispatch should this cretin be found guilty. The thought of a husband mudering his wife as she carries his own child goes beyond comprehension and into the realm of pure horror.
I know that he is innocent until proven guilty, but I still have a bad feeling about him.
If they guy didn’t do it, then he’s been getting shitty advice so far! he has done and said everything wrong. Some of the wierd stuff- no-one saw him where he said he was fishing; why would he leave for more than 1 day on Xmas Eve; he has tried to sell their house since she disappeared, but couldn’t without her signature; he sold her Range Rover to buy himself a new truck; he is/was having an affair with a woman in Fresno while his wife was pregnant, and maybe before.
His mom was speaking out once, trying to explain away some of her son’s behavior since Laci’s disappearance. She said that he sold Laci’s Range Rover because she wanted something safer. WHAT?!? Living in Modesto, a 4x4 comes in really handy in the winter, and there is no safer model than the one she had. Didn’t he recently say that it was because he needed a truck to haul manure in, and the cops wouldn’t give his back? Where did this “Laci wanted it this way” story come from? Probably the same place as this gem- he tried to sell the house after she went missing because she wanted to move. Really? Without saying a single word to a family member or friend? Not likely.
I’m sure the whole new truck thing had nothing to do with financial gain. After all, the difference between the cost of her car & his truck (both new) is only about $40,000. :rolleyes:
As for the selling of her car, if I am distraught about the disappearance of my husband, I don’t start getting rid of his stuff. What if, at the end of the day, it’s all I have left of him? And as I said in the OP, he is contradicting himself when speaking about his motivations. Guilty, or just stupid? I don’t know.
I’m trying as hard as I can to not pass judgement, but it’s not working. If he did do something to her, I hope he ends up in a really nasty prison, like Corcoran, being somebody’s bitch for the rest of his natural life, and for a while after his natural life ends.
And while it may be true that most men who have affairs don’t kill their wives, it seems that most men who kill their wives have had an affair. No cite of course, YMMV.
[sup]ITALICS ADDED[/SUP]
Extra points for creativeness and originality.
So far this case boggles the mind. Why indeed? I’m leanng towards the “he’s psychotic therefore it seemed like a pretty good idea at the time” reason. It could have been a pre-holiday domestic spat gone terribly wrong and he’d rather take a chance on hiding it than face most probable prison time, though. In any event, a terrible tragedy.