No I don’t. I was responding to @hajario who questioned @DrDeth about the statement “the more horrific the crime, the more the jury wants to find someone guilty.” That’s why Rule 402 limits evidence that would exaggerate the horrific nature of crime more than it would be probative.
I did follow this case pretty closely. I lived near to Amber Frei, my own child is named Lacey and the AOL board about this case was one of my first message boards.
I’m convinced he is guilty. He hid the boat purchase from his entire family. He made the blocks at the storage yard he rented and they never found any of the blocks, if I recall correctly. He wasn’t going to have to pay Amber for child support, but he was going to get to have sex with her. Several phone conversations between Scott and Amber were taped. The one where he is telling her that he’s in Paris at the Eiffel Tower, he is actually at a gathering for Laci. There were many lies. He told Amber before Laci ever went missing that he was a widow. Again, if memory serves. It has been a long time.
He was tired of being married and he was a spoiled brat, which seemed obvious to me from the behavior of his mother. These are just my opinions.
If they find reason to free him, then so be it. But I don’t expect they will.
I’m afraid the fact there’s no forensics left. The fact that there were jury problems.
And public opinion may have swayed the jury to a guilty verdict might be just that, a technicality .
He’s wouldn’t be any more innocent but he will be free to try it again. He’s already a narcissist who thinks he’s smarter than everyone else.
There will be scores of groupies who would love to get to him on the outside. He’ll have his next victim served up, so to speak.
I don’t see any reason to be alarmed by the fact that the IP is looking into the case. If they find something, we can discuss what they found and whether it warrants a new trial. Like others, I don’t think it’s likely. Remember, the US Supreme Court has held that even actual innocence is not grounds for appeal. To get this guy released, they’d really need overwhelming evidence that he didn’t do. That is a much harder bar than saying the state didn’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Again, this is the Los Angeles Innocence Project, a brand new organization with almost no track record. They are not the same organization as the Innocence Project.
I’d like to point out that another word for ‘circumstantial evidence’ is ‘evidence.’
There is rarely a video of people committing crimes such as murder. Circumstantial isn’t a dirty word. It’s how people are convicted each and every day and have been for hundreds of years.
Why are you so cock sure that the only options for Scott were to be married or celibate?
He was dating an attractive fun woman. She happened to have a child that didn’t interfere with their relationship. If Scott had been single, he could have dated Frei for months or years without marring her, and then broken up with her if she pressed for marriage if he wanted to. I don’t have any difficulty seeing that Scott didn’t want to be tied down, didn’t want to be married and certainly didn’t want to be a father, but was eagar to be in a fun, sexual relationship with an attractive woman.
I don’t disagree with anything you said.
I have no problem with the idea that Scott didn’t know what a scruple was, and could cheat left and right at the same time.
My issue is with the prosecution’s theory that he planned the murder of his wife because it would free him up to be with Frei.
First, as you have pointed out, he already was with her, and second, to be with her in marriage, the only thing getting rid of Laci specifically freed him up to do, couldn’t happen if no one knew Laci was dead. And last, given that a secondary motive mentioned by the prosecution was that Scott didn’t want to be a father in the first place, to me, suggests that he would not be interested in marrying a woman with a small child.
It’s a nit to pick, in my opinion, because when you get rid of the “wanting to marry Frei” motive, you lose planning, and open up the possibility that he killed his wife in a fight, unintentionally-- maybe intending violence, just not to kill her, or maybe being out of control, and having no formed intention.
Here to ask the really important question: I thought the girlfriend’s name was spelled “Frey.” Has everybody been getting it wrong all these years?
That being said, I think that Scott Petersen is a waste of oxygen, and I have not lost any sleep over the fact that he’s in prison. But, it’s never a bad thing to make sure that justice is properly served, so if Innocence Project LA wants to have a look, that’s their prerogative. I won’t be surprised when they come to the same conclusion the jury did, either. Guilty!
Free to be with her doesn’t necessarily mean free to marry. It could mean free to date openly.
Yeah, but it was only sporadically, since he had this wife to deal with. And the constant need to come up with excuses was surely tiring.
As noted, it could just be freeing to date her. I didn’t follow this case; wasn’t the girlfriend in another town? With a missing wife, he’s free to move closer to the girlfriend and increase their activities.
As I said, I didn’t follow the case, but if this is the prosecution’s theory it’s not bad: if this person is a sociopath who has no empathy, his wife is nothing more than a serious impediment to his pleasure, in the form of a girlfriend he preferred. So he had no qualms about killing her; it served his interests, and that was the only thing he considered.
No, it is circumstantial evidence- its right there in the name. It is a type of evidence, and yes, you can convict just based upon it- especially if it is solid, like fingerprints or DNA- which they didnt really have here.
You dont need a video, a witness or a confess is good too.
Yes, the motive was weak, and the evidence was weak, but the crime was really horrible.
No, you’re right. Everyone in the thread has been misspelling her last name.
I’m watching the aforementioned documentary. Almost done.
So far: Do I think he had a fair trial? No.
Do I think it was first-degree murder? Hell no.
Do I think he killed her? Hell YES.
I think an argument over something, probably the affair, got heated, he went nuts. However there really is zero evidence of any violence or cleanup in the home or warehouse.
Still, the story of the men following her walking her dog, eyewitnesses, etc., doesn’t seem to be investigated. BUT, how and why would this story even be possible? Two men abduct her, kill her, don’t rob her, take her back through the woods (daylight) drive her out the marina, attach anchors to weigh her down and no one sees anything??
If the two men following her really did the deed, Scott probably paid them for it. 
Certainly not random. Then it WOULD be first degree!
Hmm…
Sure. And most of us know OJ killed his wife.
BUT- there was most certainly reasonable doubt in the OJ case, so the jury made the right call.
I think there is also reasonable doubt in this case, altho I am pretty sure he killed her. There is little doubt the cops railroaded thru the investigation, “knowing” he killed her, and ignoring everything else.
But if there is reasonable doubt- he has to be acquitted. Or else our justice system has failed.
Username/ post noted.
In this specific case the best Petersen could hope for is a retrial and then potentially an acquittal.
Yes, exactly.
IMO he did it, he might not have had a fair trial, there’s a very remote but not impossible chance that he’s innocent, and he’d probably get convicted in a fair trial anyway because the evidence will seem overwhelming even if not absolutely conclusive.
So naive. It has been thoroughly adjudicated the mere “actual innocence” is no bar to a just conviction.
It really seems like hearing the phone calls in their own voices was what pulled the jury toward conviction. (?)
Amber Frey said something on the phone calls like, “You told me your wife died last year on December 9th.” Was this even questioned? If so, being the cheating degenerate he is, I imagine that was his macho pickup line.
Edit: Like the Animal House ruse!