El asesinato de Laci Peterson

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...

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!

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?

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.

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? )