Opiniones de usuarios

After watching the Netflix Unabomber documentary, I tread lightly onto any crime biopic by the streamer as they seem to not only sympathize with but end up defending really horrible people: the first being an environmentalist; and here because supposedly Scott Peterson was victim of a rabid media...

Perhaps the latter is partially truthful, but there's cause and effect because very, very few killers have been as obviously guilty as Peterson...

He tells police he went fishing in a specific location and the bodies of Laci Peterson and unborn child Conner just happen to turn up there a few months later...

There's no doubt to Scott's guilt, none at all, for anybody... and it's understandable that Scott's family will back him: but too much time's spent on their side of things, and they make zero sense, and Peterson was NOT a victim.: The only victims turned up where he supposedly went fishing...

Good parts of this doc are footage of Laci we've never seen, other than her dancing to New Kids on the Block, which was shown over and over when she was missing while the negative aspects have already been mentioned: we don't need sympathy for this devil... it'd be far more interesting to show just what an insane sociopath he was...

As for Scott's bigwig defense attorney Mark Geragos... on the one hand, yes, Mark was just doing his job... But he's become a mad scientist in the lawyer field in STILL thinking that Scott is innocent and not shutting up about it...

Mark played the game and lost in this particular case, so get over it... Your client admitted to fishing in the same location the bodies washed up...

The thing is... reasonable doubt goes TWO ways... If you have doubt about the fact that maybe Laci was kidnapped by those burglars (who, unlike Scott, begged for and took lie detector tests)... and that her body was dropped exactly where Scott fished just to frame Scott... in order for there to be reasonable doubt about that, you need to prove, on the other side, that those guys actually could have REASONABLY done that in the first place...

It's like OJ... They basically showed that a racist cop was the one working on the evidence but WITHOUT showing EXACTLY HOW Mark Furhman could have possibly spread OJ's blood and DNA throughout the crime scene...

Thankfully, the Peterson jury understood that to have this kind of reasonable doubt, you have to look at it both ways instead of putting out a farfetched conspiracy and see where it lands. Believing in crazy things does not create reasonable doubt...

Anyhow, there are better docs on Scott on YouTube.