Benutzerrezensionen

I'm just gonna keep this short and simple - for a true crime documentary, it's fairly thorough and gives a satisfying account from all sides from beginning to end. But Nancy Grace is in this WAY too much. She may have been a prosecutor long ago, but she is strictly an entertainer who makes big bucks off sensationalizing stories like this. Maybe some clips of her show here and there would have been fine, but they brought her on as if she was some cornerstone of the investigation. Frankly, it's kind of embarrassing and highlights a serious problem with cases like this that get publicized. Maybe that was the intention, but it didn't feel like it.

Boy, after all these years, the tragedy of the case just hits me in various ways. I did NOT follow the case / trial when it was happening but thought I had a general idea of what was going on but after watching this I'm blown away by how lax the investigation and court trial seemed to be.

Another really scary side note is how vested people were in the verdict when they didn't even know these people! Folks were behaving like they were at a sports game: cheering for the verdict. What the hell? A young mother had been murdered along with her unborn child, and their father was found guilty of the crime. What are you cheering for?

Some deep seated issues were on full display. Seems as though it is very likely Scott Peterson did not commit the murder. Although I must admit, if he didn't do it he has some of the worst luck ever!

I was watching the early episodes of this with a fully open mind and it hit me towards the end: how on earth could this guy not have done it? Yes, the evidence is circumstantial but a pregnant woman was killed and it would be the most insanely bizarre set of circumstances and behaviors if he did not do it. Sadly, he's a handsome man and has garnered a following of loopy female supporters

No question this was a horrible horrible crime. Did Scott cheat? Yup... does that make him an idiot? Yup... did he lie about his girlfriend? Yup... does that make him a killer? Can't be sure. All I know after watching this documentary is it appears the jury didn't get the full evidence and it really makes you wonder if he got a fair trial. One thing is for sure, Nancy grace was still emotionally attached to her own tragic past and it's clear she was biased and fueled the fire of guilt. I think if this went back to trial today and ALL the evidence was admitted, I think there would be a different verdict. This was terrible for everyone involved no question about that. But I think if you go into this documentary with a very unbiased viewpoint, it's hard not to see there was a bigger picture at play. I lived outside Modesto when this happened and I hope it goes to trial again and all the evidence is allowed and the media doesn't fuel the fire.... very well made documentary no matter what side you are on about this...

Sad, he had no pity for his wife and unborn child. I feel sorry for his family, he is never getting out. He is as guilty as sin. If all these claims made in this documentary are true, why weren't those people called to testify? Because they didn't want to commit perjury or be shown as a liar(s). He is going to die in prison.

Shows both sides, really liked it - but left me terribly overwhelmed and defeated... i am in my early thirties and i feel paralysed by this s*** quite frankly. tired, of society and people. wtf is happening to common sense and broadening your horizon?

so many absurd factors playing into what should be a fair, objective, neutral legal process, in which facts are layed out - for the prosecuted & victim somehow ultimately.

• the media

i am again disappointed by humanity. look at what things morph into. the media: sensationalistic jodeling about their personal emotions (there is even a mini bio on nancy grace's destiny thrown into..) when they should be reporting news as in facts. otherwise go write a blog and call it 'nancy's thoughts on'. ( to me, it was disgraceful to watch her getting so much attention for craving attention. i could not yet understand what qualifies her to comment on pending investigations, trials etc... she was never a judge as far as i know? you can watch her ego literally exploding when somebody laughs at her sarcastic sum ups & provoking interpretations.) gomez lady is no better. if these 2 ladies were an instrumental, pivotal voice in "news"-reporting ( i don't know how much air time they have on US-tv? ) i see no light at the end of the tunnel. but i guess... yes, what is a life compared to the ratings of news-shows?

• single individuals, so narrow-mindedly making it about themselves... it's astonishing

why did amber inject herself so prominently into this? how do a few dates with him qualify her as a character witness? if this is a really legit step/ action in a legal process, i am truly afraid. people who met me 4 times could decide over my life? apropos being afraid - i did not understand why she stated so many times that she was scared. of what? talking to him on the phone? i suspect more it's the adrenalin of being part of sthg exciting.. tapped phones & cheating, a disappearance & possible murder! you only see this on primetime tv! she got a massive kick out of being involved in this.. everyone would, of course , it's the adrenaline. but she really milked it. this is & will be the highlight of her life. and she will tell herself years from now 'she did the right thing' - 'for the family' ... she will say 'she just had to come forward and tell "the truth" '... distorting the obvious insertion and dramatization of her role. does that only make me sad? (hasn't anyone read the spectacle by Dubord?) the 'pretty lady' on tv arguing for his guilt mentioning possible strangulation instead of asking for facts and posing genuine questions? didn't/ don't viewers think this is somewhat breaching the line? who is she to imply that? & gomez lady about how her connections and how the people just like to talk to her. and she is so this and that.. nancy, her face and loud voice roaming free over the whole screen when she should put more energy into double checking facts. truly disturbing.

• the jury

the handling of the jury was like sthg out of a soap opera. the judge not declaring a mistrial.. - i never understood people saying they trust the jury, they just want a trial.. a jury is made of humans. humans have egos. many of them bigger than they should be. if a bully is preferred over questioning attorneys or doctors on a jury then...i rest my case.. there is nothing else to say..

so yes. i am left speechless and under the impression that the law and justice-system is nothing but a platform for marketing campaigns and a stage for judge-wannabe's.

excited to see the next docu about this case in 10 yrs ... maybe we can see some parallels to the michael peterson case...

( i personally wouldn't take his 'unemotional' demeanor as a sign for it. he wasn't spectacularly emotional when he was charged, nor when he was convicted -- i wish more people would be interested, care for and dive into psychology - there is a 2 part essay about this sort of behaviour (scott peterson is also mentioned as an example) it talks about being/acting so 'aloof'/robotic... in "unusual" situations... look it up. also.. who wouldn't turn into a shell-shocked stone in his place - if he is innocent. this is the ultimate trauma, leaving you with no orientation at all. there is no up and down. there is only wobbly nothingness. you don't trust anything you perceive. this again brings me to the masses in front of their tvs. surely most of the viewers experienced trauma in one way or another? how can everyone be so judgemental and not ashamed at all? )

You can think Scott Peterson did this. But the criminal legal system hinges upon reasonable doubt - "such doubt as would cause a reasonable person to hesitate before acting in a matter of importance." So do I think OJ Simpson killed Ron and Nicole? Sure do! Do I think that, in court, the prosecution prove this beyond a reasonable doubt? Nope! Not guilty is not that the defense proved the defendant is innocent. Rather it is that the prosecution could not prove the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Remember that when you watch this show.

This show was very well done. Makes you question everything. Well, everything expect Nancy Grace is the village idiot. How on earth is she relevant- what is wrong with the world where someone with that personality can be successful?

So, years later Scott Peterson's sister and others want DNA testing done on a piece of duct tape. People, think about it! If those "burglars" kidnapped and killed Laci and her unborn son, they would have had to take her body in a boat out in that bay and dump her body overboard. And surely someone would have seen them. And you can't launch a boat without a ticket at the marina. Scott claimed he went "fishing" near that little island area, close to where part of her body washed up and the baby's body washed up. Wake up people and face reality! He did it and must pay, the rest of his life behind bars.

Miscarriage of justice for sure. I thought he was guilty (thanks to the media), but now, not convinced that he killed anyone. He definitely deserves a FAIR trial, especially where his life is one the line.

The jury played out like a soap opera- you need to watch this to see how the jury sentenced a man to death and couldn't even tell you WHERE, WHEN or HOW they were killed! UNBELIEVABLE Jurer #7 Rochelle Nice (who isn't so nice) lied on her jury form and made lewd comments and treated trial like a joke. Most of the jurors took an unsophisticated, uneducated bourgeois approach and ended up looking like idiots.

And finally, I lost ALL respect for Nancy Grace. I used to watch her show and thought she was a well informed reporter, now I realize she just a bag of hot air. She's all emotions and little substance (like the jurors).

I'm going to donate some funds to get help Scott get a fair trial and then hope they will find the real killer/killers.

RIP sweet Laci and Baby Conner xo

I have just watched the 3rd episode, and find it odd that others gave this series a score of 1! It is well done, objective and very informative. I have been aware of this case from the day it all unfolded, so it was great to see the ins and outs. I was going to say, yeah Scott is guilty, but as much he had a motive, was a cheater and acted odd during the whole sage, I am yet to see concrete proof beyond a reasonable doubt that proofs his guilt, surely people can't be found guilty and put on death row based on no real hard evidence, and besides that there is enough doubt that comes from witnesses that contradict many angles to his guilt, sure he is a cheater and so on, but I am yet to see hard evidence he is guilty, no witness, no DNA evidence linking him, no crime scene, and and based on that he is on death row?

Now many will say he cheated, that's motive, his wife was found in the same waters where he went fishing, he must be guilty! Well again it is at best circumstantial evidence and in my eyes not enough to convict some one. The few witnesses that came forward that raises all sorts of questions as was his wives body in his boat or not when he went fishing, was his wife in the park walking the dog and so on seems to have way more weight to it to show he did not do it, as to the evidence so far shown that got him a seat on death row. If you look at those points alone the law can not convict you of that horrible crime, so far the evidence is very circumstantial driven by human emotions and a bunch of reporters hell bent on their way of justice. I also think the police did not follow up enough on certain things, the breaking in across the road, dismissed by the word of the criminals that broke in, whilst a reporter that was there 24/7 did not see their van and the day they broke in, witnesses that saw Laci walking her dog, again the police just brushed all that away way too easy.

Now my gut feeling tells me he did do it, but again show me hard evidence he did it, I am yet to see any, but then again that's after 3 episodes, maybe there is more coming to really indicate he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, if not he has been judged and found guilty by the media, and surely that's not how we want our law system to work, and maybe it explains why he is still alive today.

I am sure some readers will disagree and say hang him high, but let's be objective after 3 episodes, look at the evidence, don't go with your gut feelings, don't feed off the media as that's not proof.

Not sure if I will add to this review after watching more of this captivating series, but for those that voted with a 1 for this series need to reconsider as I gave it a 10 just based on how well this series is put together, regardless if Scott is guilty or not.

Being from Modesto I was very interested in this series. I know the area from which Laci disappeared and was eager to watch this series to confirm that he was guilty. So much for that! I'm not sure I've ever seen such compelling evidence that he is NOT guilty. He's a loser for sure, a cheater and a liar, and an incredible narcissist. But guilty of murdering Laci, I'm afraid not. Or if he is, then he is quite possibly the most oblivious human to walk the planet.

For those of you who are so certain that he IS guilty, I'm guessing you're also the people who think O.J. is innocent. You clearly had your mind made up prior to watching this show and are not going to change your mind no matter what. Well, maybe if you had video of Scott being in Tulsa during the 4 hours surrounding her disappearance. But aside from that you're no better than Nancy Grace - who, by the way, should be put in a jail cell along with Gloria Gomez just for behaving the way they did during the lead up to the trial and the trial.

There is not one piece of solid evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) that points to Scott being guilty. There is a ton of evidence that he is narcissistic, a cheater, and a liar, and incredibly apathetic - but evidence that he is guilty? Not one shred. The fact that the police lied about the burglars who robbed the house across the street should be evidence enough to get him a new trial. That nobody thinks it's important that the witness who saw the van that day not only told police, but that the police then said it was a different day (when in fact, the front of that house was covered with news people the day the police say the place was robbed) is just insane.

Like I say, I was CERTAIN that he was guilty. Would have been the first to convict based on what I'd seen and heard in the news - but it's simply not true. It's a shame that the police can't ever admit wrongdoing and try to right the fact that this guy sits on death row and I'm about 90% sure he's not guilty. I can't say 100% because I wasn't there.

A good series - it clearly does lean toward trying to defend Scott - but that's not what changed my mind. I can see that for what it is. It's the lack of evidence, the fact that the jury was biased, the crazy alternate juror who ended up convincing some of the folks to vote guilty (she should be put in jail along with Nancy Grace and Gloria Gomez - they should all share a cell), and the fact that most of what we'd seen/read in the papers was distorted so badly that we didn't have all the facts.

It's a shame - I'm sure, as he said, that he was convicted by the media and his apathy certainly didn't help matters. I'm guessing he'll be thinking about that for many years to come.

This docu series presents so much evidence pointing away from Scott Peterson... and it actually isn't new evidence but evidence that the police as well as the media glossed over. Very well done.

He looks guilty af.

From the first minutes of this documentary he calls his wife from the marina on the"murder" day, he left 2 vocal messages to his wife, like why do you need 2 vocal messages? One on the home phone and one on the mobile phone, in one of the messages he clearly mention the hour like 2.15 pm and he starts to give a lot of details, he goes on to explain why he cant be on time for whatever, too much explaining on the phone for a normal day in a life of a normal couple,(if im late for whatever, i dont even call my wife, even if i call, ill be quick, she dosent need an entire book of explanations) i mean like wth? Why do you need to mention that, like every fking little detail?

I know its a small thing to pick at!!! I cant help it!!! But if i kill somebody i will be sure to mention every little detail like he did, to be left on the record like some kind of fckd up alibi..... From the start he goes against everything the police is trying to do to get him off from the suspects list.

If he didnt do it, i still think he needs to suffer bcz of his behaviour from the first day and his stupidity during the entire thing.

This show goes to show doubt about Scott Peterson's guilt. After watching the show, I definitely think there should be an appeal. The show was very informative, very interesting and it tells info that was overlooked and not included in the trial. I *think* without Amber Frey's testimony, Scott would have been found innocent. I have a hard time thinking well of anyone who runs to Gloria Allred.

This documentary was well put together. I enjoyed watching it. All in all, they poked holes in the idea of Scot Peterson's involvement in his wife's murder, but there was still substantial evidence of his guilt. What does jump out at you is the fact that police officers are framing cases against people when the evidence is not there. Lying, leaving critical parts of statements out, even planting evidence seems to be a universal ideal nowadays. And they use the media as outlets for false information to corrupt a fair trial. Sad. The series was great, cops framing cases is sad.

Like so many other people I believed the media hype at the time this story was in the news, besides isn't it 'always the husband'? Now that I've become more familiar with how the criminal justice system doesn't necessarily work well and the media is just trying to sell papers or advertising space or whatever I wonder about this case. Yes, this series was possibly biased towards Peterson being innocent, but we've heard the other side ad nauseum. Whether Scott Peterson is innocent or guilty he did not receive a fair trial. Every single piece of so-called evidence was circumstantial and could be viewed in a completely different way than it was interpreted by the police, the media and so many people invested in this case. Besides all that Peterson was convicted for was having an affair, being a liar and carrying on with his gf even while Laci was missing. But, is it so unusual for people having affairs to lie, don't they pretty much all lie to someone? There was also the big deal about how he acted. How many males would be showing emotions publicly in a similar situation? I can only imagine how it would be to be under so much scrutiny whether guilty or innocent. 24 hour media, the police, basically everyone watching him. So he may be guilty or he may be innocent, but come on people he deserves a fair trial.

Honestly I have more doubts than certainty/clarity after watching this series. I was in my teens when this atrocious crime was committed and publicized in the media and just like the rest of America thought "for sure he did it!". But now after seeing this, I'm not so sure; there's just not enough "concrete" evidence (no pun intended) and the trial seemed more like a witch hunt than an actual trial. The jury was so unprofessional and I just feel if I'm convicting someone to DEATH there better be absolutely no doubt & proof! I see a lot of reviewers saying it's one sided and I disagree. Obviously, Laci's family thinks he's guilty so no need to interview them (and relive this tragedy) but since clearly a lot of important information & evidence was left out during the trial and not given media or police attention the series wanted to showcase that (reason his lawyers/family are speaking) For example, the neighbors that claim they saw Laci walking the dog; the boat capsizing, the burglars... and where is the DNA?? It just raises more questions. And yes Scott Peterson was no saint- he was a cheater, porn addicted liar and probably stupid/bad person but does that make him a murderer? I just don't know. I feel this documentary is more about the flaws in our justice system, trials, police departments/ investigations & juries (I'm not even going to start on that strawberry shortcake lady bc if we'd just go off of looks alone she'd be in jail! And yes I'm being biased with her just like she was biased with the trial) The media and attention definitely swayed their votes- all of it just seemed very mishandled. What's really sad is if he didn't do it- then who did? And did they get always with it?! Only God knows!