# Scott Peterson: sociopathic killer...benign prior to Laci. Why **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 2, 2004, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-peterson-sociopathic-killer-benign-prior-to-laci-why/277615 "2004-12-02T01:47:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Smartass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@Smartass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smartass)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2004, 10:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-peterson-sociopathic-killer-benign-prior-to-laci-why/277615/41 "2004-12-05T10:00:27Z")
> [@MadSam](#): > > If a “within the range of normal person” did NOT commit the murder, that person would scream out his innocence… Well, this is what you would expect, but I think there is still some room for a “within the range of normal” person to behave differently. Let’s assume that he is innocent for a moment, in which case, presumably, the fact that he was having an affair did not necessarily mean that he would prefer for his wife to be dead. Here is this person who he has shared his home with, who is carrying his baby, and she disappears, then turns up brutally murdered. This is so “outside the range” of what most people expect in their lives that it would be pretty damn shocking. Next, he finds himself accused and on trial for the murder. For weeks on end, his affair is all over the news and everyone is talking about him as if they knew that he killed his wife. The situation is pretty unimaginable for me, and if I were in it, I think I would have a hard time thinking of it as “real”. Knowing that you’ve been exposed as someone who will lie, and knowing the negative picture that most of the public has of you, what would you say on the witness stand, other than, “This can’t be happening. I can’t believe this is happening.” Your alibi has already been publicized. That doesn’t really leave too much for you to say on the stand beyond “I didn’t do it. Honest.” Plus, when you testify, you’ll have to answer very pointed questions about your love life. I can see where you might feel that opening your mouth might do more harm than good. On the other hand, it’s possible that you’re right and he is guilty and doesn’t want to trip himself up by lying on the stand. Either way, I don’t think we can quite say he is out of the “range of normal” just based on what we know. -VM ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2004, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-peterson-sociopathic-killer-benign-prior-to-laci-why/277615/42 "2004-12-05T17:22:45Z")
> [@MadSam](#): > > Where did you get the information that the killers involved in the Holocaust were normal, non-sociopathic people? Thousands of everyday Germans were in support of Hitler’s Final Solution. A cursory review of history will tell you that not every person associated with the Holocaust was a raving, cloven-hooved, sociopath. There have been a number of [books](http://http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=62-0679772685-0) written on the subject, actually. > [@](#): > > My question to the teeming millions including you with the face WAS: > > Can you conceive of yourself in the same situation killing the mother and baby? > > Yes or No? No. But like I said earlier, I can’t conceive of eating putrefied bull dicks, either. However, plenty of “normal” people do, given right the cost. My point is, just because you and people like you can’t imagine committing brutal murder doesn’t make Scott a sociopath. Do you think OJ is a sociopath? Yes or No? ---
**Author:** ![OliverTwistofLime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/b487fb/32.png) [@OliverTwistofLime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverTwistofLime)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2004, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-peterson-sociopathic-killer-benign-prior-to-laci-why/277615/43 "2004-12-05T18:39:02Z")
To answer your question…about OJ being a sociopath…my answer is yes. Face. those involved in the Holocaust didn’t have cloven hooves and certainly were not raving maniacs…No, I’d say that they were on the surface pleasant, grumpy, likeable just like OJ and Scott Peterson. Bundy appeared to be a nice guy. I maintain that a normal, healthy brained person would weigh all the “misfortune” he must endure, realize the consequences of performing 2 murderous acts and divorce her, pay the child support and continue to breathe fresh air ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2004, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-peterson-sociopathic-killer-benign-prior-to-laci-why/277615/44 "2004-12-05T18:55:42Z")
From what I understand about the lack of real evidence at the trial, were I on that jury I would not have convicted him. Maybe I have an unrealistic view of the powers of investigation from watching Forensic Files all the time, but from this chair the state didn’t meet its burden. I do think he did it, though. I can see conviction without a body if there is forensic evidence, a scene where a murder likely occurred, etc, but a murder conviction that has a body but no forensic evidence? I don’t know. The prosecution’s absurdly long case was like a dog and pony show. I’m really disappointed with the whole affair. Generally, though, I think many people would kill if the situation were right. In fact, I’d probably consider them not normal if they never had such a thought cross their mind. I’ve known people who contemplated suicide rather than face a divorce, sometimes you just feel trapped in your own designs and the mind thinks strange things. I look at it more as a crime of opportunity than a strictly premeditated murder, though in this case, given his proximity and access to the victim, some premeditation would easily go along with it. I doubt it was planned in a Lex Luthor sense, but rather his relationship with the victim afforded him more leeway in planning. Overall, a scummy guy, but I doubt he has any kind of disorder. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2004, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-peterson-sociopathic-killer-benign-prior-to-laci-why/277615/45 "2004-12-05T21:49:24Z")
> [@MadSam](#): > > To answer your question…about OJ being a sociopath…my answer is yes. So you think there is an organic reason behind his crime? Is there any reason why you think this might be other than because he did something unconceivable to you? If that is all it takes to make someone a sociopath then that would probably make most burglars, vandals, arsonists, shoplifters, and rapists sociopaths as well. And yet I haven’t heard of any study showing that most of these criminals have brain chemistries signficantly different from the law-abiding. > [@](#): > > Face. those involved in the Holocaust didn’t have cloven hooves and certainly were not raving maniacs…No, I’d say that they were on the surface pleasant, grumpy, likeable just like OJ and Scott Peterson. Bundy appeared to be a nice guy. You’re basically saying that on the surface Scott, Bundy, and those involved with the Holocaust might have looked normal, but they had an underlying disorder that enabled them to do what “normal” people consider to be unthinkable. I disagree that it has to be like that. To me, it looks like your reasoning is an attempt to reconcile the actions of a seemingly “normal” person with a heinous murder(s). It may be a hard reality to face, but regular average Joe’s can do majorly fucked up things, too. > [@](#): > > I maintain that a normal, healthy brained person would weigh all the "misfortune he must endure, realize the consequences of performing 2 murderous acts and divorce her, pay the child support and continue to breathe fresh air The problem with that approach is where do you draw the line? Most “normal” people can’t imagine participating in the Abu Gharib prison scandal, but are we to conclude that those who did participate all have personality disorders? What are the odds of that many sociopaths working together like that? ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2004, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-peterson-sociopathic-killer-benign-prior-to-laci-why/277615/46 "2004-12-05T22:06:42Z")
Siege writes: \> Folks, it seems like at least once a week there’s a story on the news about a \> man killing his wife, whether it’s a murder-suicide, a man hunting his wife down \> at choir practice where she was the organist, then leading the police on a \> chase, or a respected school principle being killed by her husband because she \> wanted a divorce. The single most common sort of murder is a husband/boyfriend killing his wife/girlfriend/ex-wife/ex-girlfriend. Most murders are acquaintanceship murders: husbands/boyfriends killing (ex-)wives/girlfriends, wives/girlfriends killing (ex-)husbands/boyfriends, parents killing children, children killing parents, friends killing friends, etc. If I recall correctly, 65% of murders are acquaintanceship murders, 30% are murders committed in the act of another crime, and 5% are everything else. I’m not qualified to make a judgment on guilt in the Peterson killing, but if it happened as described by the prosecution, there’s nothing new or interesting about the case. This is the ways murders have always been. ---
**Author:** ![Stuffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f17d59/32.png) [@Stuffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stuffy)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2004, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-peterson-sociopathic-killer-benign-prior-to-laci-why/277615/47 "2004-12-06T03:58:56Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > He was the husband. The police always assume the husband is guilty. Since it was “high profile” they could just ignore it. They compiled a large slew of evidence that wouldn’t normally be enough to show someone had been a carpool lane cheater, and then thew in stuff that just 'sounded good". They completely ignored evidence that would be good for Scott- to the point where the judge was giving them a hard time about it. They complety ignored other possible supsetc. They followed up numerous leads, in addition to interviewing hundreds of sex offenders. They also interviewed and gave lie detector tests to a pair of robbery suspects operating out of that neighborhood. So I have to ask, got other suspects? > [@](#): > > They then went in to the jury with a confusing mish-mash of stuff they claim was physical evidence that showed Scott did it (but none of it showed anything even vagauely like that) and a huge slew of evidence that Scott was a lying cheater. They had no good motive either. The one jury member that had kept copious notes about the “physical evidence” (or complete lack there of) was dismissed. The jury did just like the prosection wanted them to “it’s such a heinous crime that someone has to pay for it”- and that someone was Scott. The juror that took copiuos notes, asked to be removed. Rather than deal with the rest, can you be more detailed? Having been bombarded with coverage all day long for months, perhaps I could clear a few things up. > [@](#): > > Here’s the problem with saying Scott is a sociopath- once you remove the murder of his wife from the equation- there is no evidence he was anything at all but a normal guy. No torturing pets when he was a kid, no other signs of violence. I think you’re confusing sociopaths with serial killer. > [@](#): > > Let’s look at the list "There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 18 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following: > > Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest. _No- no criminal past_ Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. People commit criminal acts all the time without getting caught. > [@](#): > > Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure > impulsivity or failure to plan ahead. _yes, he cheated on his wife- so do half of american males_ He didn’t just lie to his wife, he lied to: His mother, his father, his friends, the police, Barabara Walters, various news reporters… All documented on various subjects. > [@](#): > > Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults > reckless disregard for safety of self or others\*. Nope\* Got me there. > [@](#): > > Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations.\* Nope\* Depends on how you define irresponsibilty if you ask me. There’s been plenty of anecdotal evidence that his parents have bailed him out of financial difficulties. > [@](#): > > Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another _Nope_ Let’s see a newly married Scott Peterson is caught having an affair. Then is having yet another affair while said wife is missing. Sounds like indifference to feelings to me. Oh here’s another. Your wife is missing do you a) Help lead the search efforts or b)throw your fliers in a dumpster and proceed to have a conversation with your girlfriend. Just to save you time Scott Peterson chose **b**. > [@](#): > > I think he was framed. Ok help me out here. You’re setting out to frame Scott for murdering Lacy. Why on earth do you weigh down the bodies? It would have been a slam dunk if said conspiritors had simply dumped her in the Bay, Lacy washes up in a week, Scotts in Jail by Easter. Yet said conspirators did exactly what someone not wanting to be caught (say a significant other) would have done. Part two ot this supposition; someone is pissed enough with me that they’re framing me for murder. Now me, I tend to notice when I’ve upset people enough to flip me off in traffic, I’m certainly going to remember that I pissed off someone enough to murder my family. I also think I’d certainly be able to point the police at them. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2004, 8:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-peterson-sociopathic-killer-benign-prior-to-laci-why/277615/48 "2004-12-06T08:41:50Z")
Geragos has paraded the following people in front of the jury: -two of Scott’s HS buddies -his parents -two friends of his from college(one from his golf team) What is all this supposed to do? They are all saying that Scott was a “really nice guy”. Is this supposed to make the jury feel guilty? Personally, geragos should have used the insanity defense…portraying Scott as a normal guy who just went stark, raving mad for a few days, would make more sense! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-peterson-sociopathic-killer-benign-prior-to-laci-why/277615.md?page=2)