Scott Peterson: sociopathic killer...benign prior to Laci. Why

Great Debates
21

One thing’s bothered me since the Peterson verdict came in. I’m certain it will become a focus of the inevitable appeal. For all the evidence that was presented in the trial, there seemed to be no evidence that the murder was a premeditated one. I don’t necessarily mean evidence that Scott was telling people beforehand that he planned to kill Laci. There was also no evidence from the crime scene that indicated that the murder was not a “heat of passion” crime, or that Scott had necessarily intended to kill his wife.

Consider this scenario: Scott returns home from work. Laci confronts him about his mistress. Violent struggle. In the midst of the struggle, Laci dies. Was this a hot-blooded or cold-blooded crime? Was this a premeditated crime? With a modicum of certain forensic evidence, those questions might have answers. But in the Peterson trial, even very basic questions, such as “Where was the murder committed?”, “When was the murder committed?”, or even “How did Laci die?” didn’t seem to have any solid answers. If prosecutors couldn’t even make an argument which encompassed reasonable answers to those questions, I have a difficult time believing there was sufficient forensic evidence to prove premeditation.

And without premeditation in the murder, the characterization of Scott as a “sociopath,” “psychopath,” or any other form of deviant is on shaky ground. You come home from the firing range one day and you catch your wife/husband/partner in flagrante. Next thing you know, there are corpses on the ground and you are holding the smoking gun. Were you an unknowing sociopath? Or did you a “normal” (for lack of a better word) person who committed a crime in the heat of passion?

Granted, it may be that the murder was in fact a planned event, and that the cruical evidence to that may come out in the appeal. I think the “who” in the case was amply proven; the “why” might have to wait to Round 2.

22

Excuse me, “are you a ‘normal’”…

23

You know when I first heard the case this was the scenario I envisioned. I think the boat and researching tides was the tip off to premeditation, as they couldn’t find anyone who knew about the boat. Scott claimed Laci knew he purchased it, but then Scott said a whole lot of self serving things that lacked veracity.

24

The utter lack of evidence of a struggle is also a clue that this was premeditated. If it was a spontaneous crime, there is a much greater likelihood that there would be evidence of a struggle.
Not to mention the concrete anchors.
I think he truly just thought he’d get away with it and therefore it was OK. I think he is and probably always was a sociopath.

25

Why is it that people think there always has to be a neurological or psychological disorder to account for “normal” folks doing shitty, horrible things? Sometimes, even seemingly “normal” people can perform the mental gymnastics necessary to rationalize crimes like murder and theft, if they think the benefits to such actions outweigh the costs. Not everyone’s conscience is calibrated to the same sensitivity. What may be unthinkable to one person may be tolerable in another, given the circumstances.

That said, I don’t think we can rule out a crime of passion in the Peterson case. Perhaps domestic violence was a part of the relationship and it got out of hand on Christmas eve. Perhaps the scenario that Duke described occurred. The only one who knows is Peterson.

26

I think the key in what you said is “seemingly normal.” Scott Peterson seemed normal, but he wasn’t. A normal men doesn’t plan the murder of his wife when she is 8 months pregnant and then woo one of his mistresses from her candlelight vigil.

Either Scott was the well-rounded, all-American hail-fellow well-met kind of guy up until he decided to opt for double murder rather than divorce…

or

He has been cold-blooded for a long time and has been able to hide it well.

I’m not a shrink and can’t make a diagnosis, but he doesn’t sound like he has much of a conscience to me. (I remember reading that he stored a lot of stuff in the nursery, for example.)

He made some foolish mistakes. Most sociopaths are bright, but that doesn’t mean that they are geniuses. I would think that they would be a little cocky and assume they can get away with a lot. Not all of them are beserk and crazed and serial murders.

Are you certain? I would have thought that maybe half of all criminals incarcerated for violent offenses might be anti-social.

Unlike mood disorders and some other mental conditions, personality disorders are particularly hard to treat, so I have read.

I believe what you are thinking of is the definition of insanity. Someone who doesn’t know right from wrong may be legally declared insane. That person might be found “Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity.” Someone with an anti-social personality disorder is not insane. (IANAL)

27

Quick question. Is being a sociopath the same as saying someone is amoral? Or is there a further distinction between those two?

28

My personal experience in dealing with criminals- almost all of those with a violent crime in their history who have any diagnosis have a diagnosis of anti-social personality disorder. Plenty of those who are not violent also have it. The only group in which it’s not very common is those whose criminal histories are exclusively related to their own drug use.

29

And let’s not forget that anti-social personality disorder doesn’t only lead to a life of crime, it may result in great success in business or politics.

30

And getting back to the OP’s question about brain changes, I saw research years ago that indicated that not only do sociopaths have identifiable differences in brain formation and activity, the changes are identifiable even as children.

31

The anti-social behaviorist is almost always a pathological liar and this fits Scotty to the hilt.

I disagree that “normal people” will kill another human being in a crime of passion and certainly not like S. Peterson killed Laci and Baby.

Think about yourselves. Imagine you are in his situation:

  1. don’t want to spend the rest of your life with Laci

  2. do not want to get stuck with a baby and the child support for the next 18 years

3…enjoys the lustful relationship with Amber

Would you KILL Laci and her baby knowing if you get caught, Big Bubba will substitute for Amber and you will be looking at 4 walls for years and years?

I don’t think so. But if you think I’m way off base, let me know.

32

Even if Scott killed Laci in an unpremeditated “crime of passion,” what he did next was carefully planned and executed. Instead of calling paramedics, who might have saved his unborn son, he chose to go out on the boat, dump Laci’s pregnant body, dye his hair, put together some money and a passport, and head for Mexico. Was all that a “crime of passion”?

Sociopaths do understand the difference between wrong and right They just don’t care about following the right path.

33

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 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.
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.
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

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

Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
reckless disregard for safety of self or others*. Nope*

Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations.* Nope*

Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another Nope

The individual is at least 18 years old (under 18 see Conduct Disorder ). There is evidence of Conduct Disorder with onset before age 15 years and the occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of Schizophrenia or a Manic Episode"

So instead of “three (or more) of the following” - we have one. he was a horndog. :rolleyes:

I think he was framed.

34

I agree with you that Scott does not seem to fit the classic pattern of a sociopath. That’s why I object to using the label as an explanation for how he could do such a thing. Isn’t it possible that he could do this without having ever exhibited textbook signs of a personality disorder? Just because he doesn’t have a criminal history and didn’t torture little animals as a child doesn’t preclude him from being a murderer. Most people think OJ murdered his wife and friend in cold blood, but would people call him a sociopath? No, they just call him a murderer who let hate and jealousy get the best of his conscience. Why does it have to be any more complicated than that?

Perhaps Scott was framed. The fact that he led an average, non-deviant life before the death of his wife is not evidence of his innocence, though.

35

Other than him lying to Frey (and on TV, when asked if he killed his wife), what other evidence do we have that he is a pathological liar?

There has been plenty examples of “normal” people doing horrible, horrible things in history. At the risk of Godwinizing this thread, how do you think the Holocaust was carried out if it wasn’t for the direct and indirect support of normal, non-sociopathic people? Do you think all 1st degree murderers are sociopaths? I don’t.

Frankly, I can’t imagine going on a show like Fear Factor and eat putred cow dicks, but that doesn’t mean that everyone on that show is a aberration.

36

Where did you get the information that the killers involved in the Holocaust were normal, non-sociopathic people?

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?

37

Did it strike anyone a bit odd that Peterson’s reaction to the verdict was, reportedly, nothing? I’d think that any “normal” man would react very emotionally to being found guilty of such a killing, if he were truly innocent. It was almost as if he just sat there and thought, “well, damn, they got me, oh well…” It would seem that this would fit the profile of a sociopathic killer.

This (lack of) reaction to the verdict and the multiple pieces of circumstantial evidence should give me confidence he’s guilty. However, (and I’m very hesitant to add what counts as unsubstantiated gossip to this discussion) I’ve been told by someone intimately involved in the case that this story is no where near it’s conclusion and that some very interesting things may be developing. My source didn’t provide any details, but they say Peterson may still win this upon appeal. From what this person hinted, some of DrDeth’s assertions may be not too far off the mark.

38

They weren’t “normal”, in the sense of being killers, but that still doesn’t mean they all fit the clinical definition of sociopath.

39

That’s kind of a trick question, though, isn’t it? For one, your 3-point synopsis most likely does not cover all of the man’s circumstances. For another, I can’t really imagine myself IN his exact circumstances, much less what I would do in them.

I will say this, though: For every person, there is probably a situation that could make them angry, frightened, or protective enough to kill another. For most of us, though, if we hit that point, we probably wouldn’t be focused on whether we would get away with it, at least not at first.

In contrast, one of the things that marks a sociopath is a complete disregard for others. It’s not that they don’t understand right and wrong, or that they are unaware of others’ pain. They just don’t care. For them, other people are sources for or obstacles to their pleasure–and little else. Which means that for a true sociopath, the decision to kill is probably almost directly proportional to their perceived likelihood to get away with it. If they are sure that they can, they may go ahead and do it just because they find it interesting, much like their childhood experiments with animals.

The murder of Laci Peterson by her husband (assuming he did it) would not strike me as casual enough to indicate the behavior of a sociopath. A selfish man, definitely. Someone in an emotionally precarious place, possibly. If he’s not a sociopath, you would expect that, in his mind, there is something that “justifies” the act. In the same way, OJ probably feels that Nicole must have hurt him in some way that justfied revenge.

Not that this would make it any less despicable. In fact, these types of acts pretty much define the term. Nonetheless, I would say that this is something different from the calm serenity of a sociopath killing someone as a way to pass a slow afternoon. These guys are arguably not even human.

-VM

40

If a “within the range of normal person” did NOT commit the murder, that person would scream out his innocence…demand to get on the witness stand and explain everything in great detail as it really existed.

A guilty man generally will not testify. An old saying comes to mind: " When you are backed into a corner *, tell the truth.