True crime enthusiasts - the Scott Peterson case (and a hobby of mine)

[Sac Arrow]

So, the thread on non-aviation hobbies got me thinking. I write detective/crime novels. And one of my hobbies is amateur sleuthing. And even before that, the Scott Peterson case has always bothered me.

If you don't know, Scott Peterson was convicted of the 2002 killing of his wife and unborn baby, and dumping her body in to the San Francisco bay. To sum things up, I think they have the wrong guy. An opinion that, is very unpopular. But I also have a high school friend who personally knew him, and she thinks he's innocent too.

To recap, Scott Peterson's wife Laci went missing on December 24th, 2002 from their Modesto residence. Immediately, from day one, authorities suspected him of her abduction and murder, and theorized that he killed her and dumped her body in the bay by means of a fishing boat on or about December 24, 2002. They didn't have either a body or sufficient evidence to arrest him, but they kept a close eye on him.

Fast forward to April, 2003. Authorities find Laci Peterson floating in the water, in the location where they said Scott Peterson had dumped her. They then arrested Scott Peterson, who was living in San Diego at the time. He was subsequently charged and convicted. Easy case, right?

Here's the problem. She was found, floating in the bay, body nearly intact (the flesh was all there) with her baby floating beside her over four months after the fact. So, she could not have possibly been dumped in the bay in December of 2002. When a body is dumped in to an ocean, it immediately starts decomposing, and initially gasses will form internally and the body will float. As the skin and tissue degrades, the gasses will leave and the body will sink. Then, between decomposition and marine life, the flesh will normally be stripped within a week. The bottom line is that her body hadn't been in the water for more than a few days when they found her.

So, for Scott Peterson to have been the one to dispose of her body, he would have had to drive all the way from San Diego to the North Bay, retrieving her body from a freezer somewhere along the route, dump it in the water, in the same location the authorities already think it is, then drive back home to San Diego. That would be an insanely stupid thing for Scott Peterson to do. It makes no sense at all.

But it does make sense if someone else was the killer. And there was known to be a serial killer abducting women in the North Bay at the time. It didn't make big news, but it was in the news. If I was a serial killer, I would absolutely dispose of Laci Peterson's body in the location where the authorities suspect she is. He would be convicted in the trial and the heat would be off me.

The four month gap in the timeline is, in my opinion, a huge problem. As a juror, I'm going to need the prosecution to explain the discrepancy. But the reality of the situation is that Scott Peterson had already been convicted in the court of public opinion from the get go. As far as the jurors were concerned, the trial was just a formality. He had no chance of getting a fair shake.

I'm not apologizing for Scott Peterson. He had a girlfriend. He wasn't a model husband. The public loathes him probably more rightly than wrongly. But, I think the killer is still out there.

What do I think happened? Who knows. My best guess is that she was abducted by a serial killer, and either kept alive for four months, or killed and kept in some form of cold storage, and then disposed of in the bay. Either way there is a huge unexplained discrepancy in the timeline. I couldn't have convicted him based on the evidence at hand.

Opinions? Most POA'ers are not West Coast but a few are and may have something to chime in on.

 

[Zeldman]

I vaguely remember the event, and vaguely remember thinking he was being railroaded during the trial. I think it had something to do with the condition of the body when found or where it was found. Don't remember what made me think that though.

 

[Matthew]

I remember that being all over the news…so I chose to ignore it.

Now, it sounds interesting enough to look into.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

Ha, I today live in a "murder house"; the murder in question (of a Procter & Gamble scientist) is unsolved.
We're true-crime addicts.

 

[Ed Haywood]

State forensic pathologists testified that the condition of the body was consistent with having been weighted and submerged in the bay for several months. None of the defense experts refuted this at trial.

 

[Sac Arrow]

State forensic pathologists testified that the condition of the body was consistent with having been weighted and submerged in the bay for several months. None of the defense experts refuted this at trial.

I know. I don't believe that for one second. Frankly, his defense team sucked.

 

[AvNavCom]

I write detective/crime novels.

I've always been curious. Do you start with the murder and motive, and then work backwards to obfuscate it? Presumably then the lead character would unravel your obfuscations along the way. Or do you already have the whole thing in mind and then organically write it to see how your characters figure it out?

 

[AV8R_87]

Do you start with the murder

That can be read in a couple different ways....

 

[Racerx]

Much like the Steven Avery Teresa Halbach case, shows like this aren't exactly on a fact finding mission. We get one very biased side with no rebuttal.

 

[Sac Arrow]

I've always been curious. Do you start with the murder and motive, and then work backwards to obfuscate it? Presumably then the lead character would unravel your obfuscations along the way. Or do you already have the whole thing in mind and then organically write it to see how your characters figure it out?

Good question. Really, both. They aren't necessarily all "murder mysteries", more government conspiracies that usually involve murder but not necessarily. I don't formally outline, but I have the plot figured out and fill the insides. And sometimes I will decide to shift gears, or abandon and do a complete rewrite if things aren't going well.

I say "hobby" but it's a serious hobby. I do make money and have a following, but I don't make enough money to pay the bills. I fall in the category of sub 1% self published authors (more like 0.01%) who are successful in terms of sales.

Now I also write for a living, too. Proposals and technical reports. Those are all strictly outlined, as in I literally write the table of contents and fill in the sections. And I have no problem switching between fiction and technical writing.

I write action adventure, eg. Bourne series, etc... those always start with a bang.

 

[Half Fast]

Now I also write for a living, too. Proposals and technical reports. Those are all strictly outlined, as in I literally write the table of contents and fill in the sections. And I have no problem switching between fiction and technical writing.

I did lots of proposal writing and proposal management. (Won ~$2B in new business for the company. Did I get even a measly 1%? HA! Yes, I'm bitter. But I digress....) There's a very thin line between a good proposal technical volume and a good piece of science fiction.

I used to tell my teams, "If we don't win the contract, I expect us at least to win a Hugo Award."

 

[Half Fast]

Help me out with this part:

Scott Peterson was convicted of the 2002 killing of his wife and unborn baby,...

Here's the problem. She was found, floating in the bay, body nearly intact (the flesh was all there) with her baby floating beside her over four months after the fact.

So she delivered the baby sometime between being murdered and being dumped in the bay?!

Something here doesn't make sense....

 

[Sac Arrow]

Help me out with this part:




So she delivered the baby sometime between being murdered and being dumped in the bay?!

Something here doesn't make sense....

Correct. Something doesn't. Maybe it was expelled during the decomp process, I don't know.

 

[Half Fast]

She was found, floating in the bay, body nearly intact (the flesh was all there) with her baby floating beside her over four months after the fact.

Uh, this part seems in conflict with what Wikipedia says, FWIW.

 

[GoFly]

That autopsy reads like a fairytale

 

[Ed Haywood]

That autopsy reads like a fairytale

Have you read the autopsy?

 

[Lindberg]

Yes, guilty and in prison. Are you asking if he actually did it? No one alive but him knows for sure, but a jury that heard all the evidence---in an adversarial proceeding, not Wikipedia or a Netflix special---thought so. Absent something very compelling that the jury didn't know, that's good enough.

 

[Ed Haywood]

I don't believe that for one second.

You have training in forensic pathology?

 

[2-Bit Speed]

I remember following a court case some years ago and being absolutely appalled by the reporting. I watched the trial from beginning to end. I may have missed three witnesses over the course of a few weeks. The jury's decision was absolutely predictable unless your only information came from the press. It would take great effort to convince me this jury was wrong.

 

[Ed Haywood]

I remember following a court case some years ago and being absolutely appalled by the reporting. I watched the trial from beginning to end. I may have missed three witnesses over the course of a few weeks. The jury's decision was absolutely predictable unless your only information came from the press. It would take great effort to convince me this jury was wrong.

Yah, but that Judge Ito guy ...

 

[Half Fast]

There’s a reason that the Founding Fathers ensured the right to a jury trial rather than leaving the verdict to a bunch of folks on the Internet....

 

[Racerx]

There’s a reason that the Founding Fathers ensured the right to a jury trial rather than leaving the verdict to a bunch of folks on the Internet....

Cuz the internet was 220 years away?

 

[Sac Arrow]

You have training in forensic pathology?

We both know we can hire a ****house expert to support whatever claim we need to make our case.

 

[GoFly]

Have you read the autopsy?

Only read what was in half-fasts post. Not a forensic pathologist or investigator, but it seems like there would be a lot more damage to a dead body over a 4 month period. Also, hard to believe that a babies body could somehow come out of the womb after death of the mom. I don’t have a dog in the fight, but that seemed odd.

 

[Racerx]

Only read what was in half-fasts post. Not a forensic pathologist or investigator, but it seems like there would be a lot more damage to a dead body over a 4 month period. Also, hard to believe that a babies body could somehow come out of the womb after death of the mom. I don’t have a dog in the fight, but that seemed odd.

I've literally seen the remnants of a dead cow that had exploded from decomposing. It's not pretty.

With this case we're talking 4 months later and in 45 degree water. Things slow down. Depending on where she was, the lack of oxygen also slows down the process.

 

[Lindberg]

We both know we can hire a ****house expert to support whatever claim we need to make our case.

So there are no objective standards for experts who testify in court?

 

[Lindberg]

Only read what was in half-fasts post. Not a forensic pathologist or investigator, but it seems like there would be a lot more damage to a dead body over a 4 month period. Also, hard to believe that a babies body could somehow come out of the womb after death of the mom. I don’t have a dog in the fight, but that seemed odd.

According to the scientists who actually studied the situation, the fetus came out with her internal organs when her entire abdomen ruptured from decomposition.

 

[geezer]

Decomposing was retarded greatly by lack of oxygen, due to the sealed plastic bag. Once the bag ruptured, discomposure accelerated,, the bodies were released, and floated to the beach.

I have been on a number of juries, and the one case that made the papers was wildly miss reported. The only fact that I recognized was the name of the convicted person.

 

[Ed Haywood]

We both know we can hire a ****house expert to support whatever claim we need to make our case.

Where were the defense experts in this case?

 

[midlifeflyer]

So there are no objective standards for experts who testify in court?

There are standards. Since it’s going to be the judge’s call as gatekeeper whether or not to let the jury deal with it, subject to fairly limited appellate review for abuse of discretion, how objective is open to question.

Most states follow some version of the federal Daubert standard or the older Frye You can google that for more a deeper dive, but it comes down to the judge looking at factors such as internal standards and controls, peer review, acceptability in the scientific community, potential for error and falsification…

 

[Lindberg]

There are standards. Since it’s going to be the judge’s call as gatekeeper whether or not to let the jury deal with it, subject to fairly limited appellate review for abuse of discretion, how objective is open to question.

Most states follow some version of the federal Daubert standard or the older Frye You can google that for more a deeper dive, but it comes down to the judge looking at factors such as internal standards and controls, peer review, acceptability in the scientific community, potential for error and falsification…

It really was a rhetorical question for the poster who claimed that anybody could have a fake expert testify about anything. California follows Frye, generally accepted to be an objective standard (see what I did there?).

 

[mark.staggs]

My wife and I joke that we've watched enough true crime stuff (Forensic Files, Dateline, Joe Kenda, etc.) as part of our bedtime ritual that we could probably successfully get away with murder. To be clear to the Google search engines, we'd never! But, you watch enough of these shows and see all the ways criminals screw up you learn what not to do.

As for the Scott Peterson thing, yeah, I think he did it--Occam's Razor and all. But, I do think the awful, parasite of a person, Nancy Grace, and others like her really do hurt the whole process by immediately jumping to conclusions and convicting people before they have their day in court. This makes some, including me, overcompensate the other way and be more suspicious of the media. In my opinion, that's why some are skeptical of the outcome of this case and others like it.

 

[Half Fast]

My wife and I joke that we've watched enough true crime stuff (Forensic Files, Dateline, Joe Kenda, etc.)....

SWMBO watches that stuff. What frightens me is that she takes notes.....

 

[DJTorrente]

My wife is hooked on CSI/NCIS type police procedurals. If I ever go missing, she'll make it look like I offed myself then dumped my own dead body in a bay.

 

[Hengelo]

As true crime goes, I think you'll be more interested in the Barrick Gold story, or what exactly was going on with Don Johnson and those bearer bonds...

 

[Sac Arrow]

Where were the defense experts in this case?

Good question.

I mean, granted, no I'm not a forensic pathologist, but I grew up around the ocean, and I've read lots of pathological reports on crime and accident victims found in the sea, and it's hard for me to comprehend how a body could last that long in that type of environment.

At a minimum, I would have wanted to get an independent expert opinion on the matter. His defense attorneys were... let's just say that I wouldn't want them if I got jammed up in a similar type of situation.

 

[mryan75]

Here's the problem. She was found, floating in the bay, body nearly intact (the flesh was all there) with her baby floating beside her over four months after the fact.

Except for the fact that a simple google search confirms that this isn’t true:

“Laci Peterson's body was found as a badly decomposed adult torso in the San Francisco Bay in April 2003, months after her disappearance, with her unborn son Conner's body found nearby; both remains showed advanced decay from being in the bay, but forensic experts noted difficulty in extracting specific evidence due to the harsh conditions and marine life, with only the torso largely intact.”

‍

 

[mryan75]

I know. I don't believe that for one second. Frankly, his defense team sucked.

Or it was true. I’m going with that.

 

[robin ardoin]

Cuz the internet was 220 years away?

True... Al Gore was not even born at that time!

 

[eman1200]

Here’s a clear, fact-based summary of the Scott Peterson case:

Background
Scott Peterson, from Modesto, California, was accused of murdering his pregnant wife, Laci Peterson, and their unborn son, Conner, in December 2002. Laci, who was 27 years old and eight months pregnant, was reported missing on Christmas Eve.

Key Events
• Disappearance: Scott claimed he had gone fishing at the Berkeley Marina the morning Laci disappeared. Her family and the community launched a large search effort.
• Public Suspicion: As the case gained national attention, media coverage intensified. Peterson’s extramarital affair with a woman named Amber Frey became public—Frey cooperated with police and stated she did not know he was married.
• Bodies Recovered: In April 2003, the remains of a fetus and, shortly after, Laci’s body were found along the San Francisco Bay shoreline—close to the area where Peterson said he had been fishing.
• Arrest: Scott Peterson was arrested later that month while carrying large amounts of cash, camping gear, and dyed hair, which investigators interpreted as possible evidence of flight risk.

Trial (2004)
• Prosecutors argued that Peterson killed Laci at their home and disposed of her body using a small fishing boat.
• No direct physical evidence linked him to the crime; the case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, timelines, his behavior, and the affair.
• The defense argued the evidence was insufficient and suggested the possibility of a kidnapping or unknown perpetrators.

Verdict and Sentence
• Conviction: In November 2004, Peterson was found guilty of first-degree murder (Laci) and second-degree murder (Conner).
• Sentence: In 2005, he was sentenced to death.

Post-Trial Developments
• In 2020, the California Supreme Court overturned his death sentence due to issues with how jurors were selected, but it upheld the convictions.
• In 2021, he was resentenced to life without the possibility of parole.
• In 2023–2024, further legal actions centered on whether juror misconduct warranted a new trial; courts ultimately denied a retrial.

Current Status
Scott Peterson remains incarcerated in California, serving life without parole. The convictions still stand.


Here are the major controversies and debated issues surrounding the Scott Peterson case, broken down clearly and fact-focused:

⸻

1. Circumstantial Evidence Only

There was no direct physical evidence tying Scott Peterson to the murders—no blood, no DNA, no eyewitnesses.
The entire case was built on timelines, behavior, movements, and inferences. Supporters of Peterson argue this makes the conviction questionable; prosecutors note that circumstantial cases can still be strong and legally sufficient.

⸻

2. The Affair (Amber Frey)

Peterson’s secret relationship with Amber Frey was a major factor:
• The prosecution used it to show motive: escape marriage and fatherhood.
• The defense argued it was embarrassing but not evidence of murder.

Public opinion turned sharply against him as soon as the affair became known, which many argue affected jury impartiality.

⸻

3. Behavior After the Disappearance

Controversial actions that raised suspicion:
• Selling Laci’s car.
• Inquiring about selling the house.
• Seeming unusually calm, according to investigators.
• Having cash, camping gear, and dyed hair at the time of arrest.

Critics say these points don’t prove murder; prosecutors pointed to them as evidence of consciousness of guilt.

⸻

4. The Location of the Bodies

The remains were found where Peterson admitted going fishing:
• Prosecutors said this was almost impossible to be a coincidence.
• The defense argued that the Bay was enormous and that knowledge of his alibi was public, so a perpetrator could have staged it.

This remains one of the most disputed pieces of the prosecution’s theory.

⸻

5. Timeline Uncertainty

Neighbors reported seeing Laci walking their dog after the time prosecutors said she was already dead.
These sightings were not used at trial. Supporters argue they were credible; prosecutors argued they were unreliable and contradicted other evidence.

⸻

6. Break-ins and “Other Suspects”

A burglary occurred across the street around the same time Laci vanished.
Defense teams—both original and later—suggested:
• Laci may have confronted burglars.
• Kidnappers could have taken her.

Police said the burglary happened after she was already missing and found no evidence connecting it to the case.

These alternate-suspect theories remain central to modern debates.

⸻

7. Juror Controversy (“Juror 7”)

This is one of the biggest post-trial issues:
• A juror failed to disclose that she had previously been the victim of domestic violence.
• She also obtained a restraining order while pregnant, under circumstances similar to Laci’s situation.

Courts reviewed whether this was intentional misconduct:
• Some argued it showed clear bias in a case involving harm to a pregnant woman.
• In 2022–2023, the court ruled the misconduct wasn’t enough to overturn the conviction.

Still, this remains one of the strongest legal challenges Peterson has had.

⸻

8. Media Impact

The case became one of the most saturated media stories in early-2000s America:
• Heavy focus on Peterson’s demeanor and attractiveness.
• Continuous national coverage, often opinion-based.

Defense teams argued that it made a fair trial impossible; courts have repeatedly rejected that claim.

⸻

9. Modesto Police Investigation Criticism

Peterson’s supporters point to issues such as:
• Limited forensic testing.
• Failure to pursue alternate leads.
• Overreliance on behavioral interpretations.

Police counter that all credible leads were investigated early.

⸻

10. Ongoing Claims by Innocence Groups

In recent years, innocence-project-style reviews argue:
• The timeline used at trial had inconsistencies.
• Dog-tracking evidence was unreliable.
• A possible fetal-growth timeline might create doubt about the prosecution’s timeline.

So far, courts have upheld the conviction.