Who’s to say that they wouldnt have held the body? It could’ve been that they contained it in a freezer or cooled plastic cauldron and transported it all the way to the Marina when the alibi location was reported. The opposite also could have occurred if the body had been left in a different but controlled body of water before being taken there. It cant be ruled out simply because the body had took so long to be found. Another thing is the Marina is a vast place, it could have originated from another area of the East Bay such as Emeryville or Point Molate in Richmond both with access to the Marina. I also am not insinuating that the burglars where the culprits, in fact im saying these wouldve been suspects that are completely unaccounted for rather than on the suspect list police gave before sentencing Scott.

the weights was because the main objective would have been to obviously make sure the body never surfaced but it was also a precautionary measure to dump it in the Marina in case that if it ever showed up it wouldnt lead back to these supposed unknown suspects and would instead further damage the credibility of Scott

That scenario doesn't fit the evidence though...

Scott left home at 10:08 (he said Laci was inside mopping wearing black pants) and Karen found Laci's dog with leash dragging 10 short minutes later at 10:18. Karen said there was no one in the backyard, and when she looked into the windows the house was dark and quiet. Laci is gone at that point. The Medina's across the street were still home at that time so they weren't being burglarized. None of Laci's shoes were missing from the house, including her walking shoes which were exactly where she kept them. Scott came home that night and found the dog with leash still attached in the backyard just as Karen left him. Laci was found wearing the cream maternity capris pants she was described wearing the night before.

It is a fact that the police didn't actually announce exactly where Scott fished until January 4th or 5th (after the burglars were arrested). The supposed unknown killers would have had to have held the body from December 24th until then, in hopes that maybe Scott was alone that day so he didn't have his own alibi. Instead of dumping a body they had no connection to just any where, they decided to frame Scott. So they took the body to where he fished (which was full of searchers looking for Laci) without being seen. We know this because the medical examiner stated that the bodies had been in the water for that amount of time. The killers wanted to frame Scott, so they WANTED the body to be found there - but instead they decided to weigh her down so well that it took four months and a large storm to bring her up?

There’s always that possibility

I also wonder if perhaps Scott Lord Lacey to the boat Storage area maybe he told her he wanted to show her a surprise he got for her dad and then he actually killed her there.

Some people have brought up the fact that they think he might even tried to poison her because she was having a lot of sickness or maybe even try to cause a miscarriage like Chris Watts did.

Agree… and another complete monster

Yeah, I think that if we could’ve been flies on the wall, we would’ve realized that their marriage was not ideal in anyway, and that he was likely emotionally abusive, but she desperately wanted a baby the fact that he could murder her and know that he was extinguishing the life of his son at the same time just shows the kind of horrendous subhuman he is

I forget who said it, but Scott would have to be the absolutely most unlucky person in the world to have so many coincidences going on at the same time to be innocent.

Well, because he’s a narcissist, he doesn’t think he’s wasting anybody’s time. He thinks that the only thing that matters is him.

And I’m not persuaded that just because there’s no evidence in the home that he didn’t kill her. He could’ve strangled her. And he could’ve also maybe knocked her out and then brought her to the boat Storage unit and put her in the boat there didn’t they her hair in the boat storage or boat itself. Something completely new.

YES!!!

Bingo… that and the fact that he turned Connor’s nursery into a storage area within like a month. I think he also tried to put the house on the market.

It's not very sensible because it is a fact that the exact location that Scott fished wasn't released by police until Jan 4th or 5th. So IF someone wanted to frame Scott they had to hold the body from December 24th until at least that time. They had to HOPE that Scott just happened to be alone all day so that he didn't have his own alibi. Then instead of just dumping the body there so it would be found and Scott would be blamed... they instead got a boat and weighed her down so well that it took four months and a large storm to bring her up. They accomplished this task without being seen, while the area was full of searchers looking for Laci because the medical examiner stated that her body had been in the ocean for that amount of time. This is all quite the massive undertaking and risk for getting rid of a body of someone you have zero connection to and could literally dump anywhere else.

As for why Scott admitted he was at the marina... he had no choice. Scott had his phone with him and he had to purchase a boat ramp ticket, which proves where he was that day. What was he supposed to do? If he lied about where he was that would be a much bigger risk because police would have investigated it and proved he was lying. He couldn't have just said he was golfing, with no proof that he was at the golf course all day. Scott thought he weighed her down so well that she would never surface and if she didn't, he wouldn't have been associated to the remote location Laci was found.

It’s a documentary. They can say whatever they want. Connor was inside Laci’s body for almost the entire time they were in the water, he was less decomposed than she was.

Most of this “sightings” were before 10:00 when Scott and Laci were (according to him) still at home. The kthrr two are way later and the dog had already been found out on the street . They did not see Laci. There was another pregnant woman walking a golden retriever that day , and sometimes people want to be helpful or insert themselves in a case but none of their accounts are credible. They “spotted” her in different colored pants than she was found in as well ( the color stated on the missing posters) There is a reason the defence didn’t call them to testify .

No "experienced" boatman would stand up like that in a small craft in a Bay. The judge made 90% of his decisions in the defense's favor, which he should because a man's life is at stake, but he would not allow a joke of a video like that. The prosecution offered to work with the defense to do a joint recreation, the judge was fine with that, but the defense declined (likely they knew the test would show Scott could have easily pushed Laci overboard). This is just one of the many things that the Peterson's lie to Scott's supporters about...
The Petersons are the ones you should direct your ire towards.

Although that theory may sound definite to you in writing, there is one major hole in this argument. The official dump site was revealed by reporters PRIOR to the body being discovered. That means any person who was watching the news would know where they could place the body to throw police off the scent. That is what never managed to be argued during the trial which I dont understand why but it is a very real and plausible counter assertion

Why do you think its dumb? I think its possible since the alibi location (dump site) was reported by news outlets BEFORE the body was discovered, meaning that anyone who saw the news could have disposed the body there after the report was made to make Peterson look more guilty. Also why would Scott use the place he supposedly killed his wife as an Alibi? Almost any other guilty individual would have gave a different time and place, it doesn’t make any sense to incriminate oneself like that

I realize this is a two year-old comment but I was just going to chime in that when I went to law school from 2001 to 2004, the same example was used to explain circumstantial evidence so I think it’s a common trope in the legal realm.

Then read the trial transcripts. You’ll come to the conclusion that he is guilty. It’s not just how often they spoke, but the things he said - “I lost my wife”, I’ll be free after Xmas etc. even if you totally forget the affair there’s still no reasonable doubt .

Yes, and the Innocence Project stated that they have nothing to do with Scott Peterson. Instead, they pointed to the wholly independent LA Innocence Project who were newly founded on August 19, 2022 (which just happens to be right when Scott first became eligible for this kind of representation). They are working closely with Janey Peterson on this and have no work history for anyone to base an opinion of them on.

The police didn’t destroy evidence. All of the evidence was collected, they did a full, thorough investigation of the burglary and it was all presented in trial by multiple police officers. Mark Geragos had access to all of the police reports included in that investigation and could not find a way to prove the burglary was related at all. They didn’t call a single witness that could support the theory about the burglars. And the two men who did the burglary took lie detector tests and passed. They were also able to accurately describe the media van that was parked down the street in the very early morning of the 26th, supporting the story that the burglary took place in the very early morning hours between the 25th and 26th.

Besides that, you’re misusing Occam’s razor to try to prove a point. Occam’s razor actually disproves your point.

Occam’s razor is that the simplest answer is usually the correct one. In this case you have two possible answers:

1. Mackenzie the dog is found outside around 10:17am. Somehow he got out with a leash on for reasons unexplained. The Medina’s (house owners of the house burglarized) left their home at 10:32am. Lacy having just done chores that weren’t necessary, leaves on a walk wearing the white blouse and black pants. She has been having dizzy spells and a hard time physically with her pregnancy—all documented by her doctors, nurses, yoga instructor, family, and friends. She hadn’t exercised in weeks, but decided to today despite apparently having chores and multiple baking projects to also complete.

She walks in a direction she never walks, she’s gone for anywhere from 30 minutes-90 minutes depending on which “eye witnesses” you decide to cherry pick to fit the story. She gets home around 11:30. She leaves Mackenzie on the leash. She changes pants, removes her shirt, but then spots a burglary happening across the street (even though her curtains are closed). She crosses the street, shirtless, shoeless, without even her dog to protect her. She confronts these burglars herself. She’s kidnapped. All of this happens in broad daylight, no one sees or hears a thing.

She is kept… somewhere(?) for days. These burglars are suddenly kidnappers and murderers. Police release Scott’s alibi as the Berkeley marina. They do not release Brooks Island specifically. The burglars manage to get their hands on a boat, get to the Berkeley marina, and by pure luck dump her body in the exact area Scott had been fishing by Brooks Island.The next day they turn themselves in for the burglary. Scott happens to be putting on a performance of a lifetime in the role of “guiltiest husband in a murder case ever”, which works out perfectly for these mastermind criminals. Oh, and the meth addiction? Ignore that, it just makes them smarter.

OR

1. Scott had access, time, and cover to kill her while she was getting dressed for bed the 23rd, or while she was getting dressed for the day the 24th. He backed his truck up to the gate where it would be difficult for anyone to see what he was doing, wrapped her in a tarp, laid her beneath several patio umbrellas also wrapped in tarps. Backed his truck into his warehouse bay doors, transferred her directly to the boat, closed his garage. In the privacy of his warehouse, with her in the boat he attached the anchors to her limbs and neck. Put the boat cover over the boat to conceal her during travel. At the Berkeley marina, he removed the boat cover, but kept it in the boat keeping her body concealed. He drove around until he found a place with the least amount of chance of someone witnessing him. Pushed her over the side. Returned home. Showtime.

Idk. Occam’s razor = simplest answer. Is the simplest answer the story that involves a thousand mental gymnastics that ignores evidence, misrepresents evidence, or straight up makes evidence up? Or is it the guy who had means, motive, and opportunity whose actions line up almost perfectly with ALL of the evidence?

Yeah, I wish I had never watched the new documentary. It was trying to mess with my head and make me feel as if I have been completely wrong in my gut instincts. I mean, obviously I know we’re never gonna know exactly all the evidence because we weren’t there, but there’s just nothing about him. That makes me believe he’s innocent. And even with the weird science conflicts about Connor and how old he was at his time of passing, I just can’t feel that anything about Scott is a man who is grieving his wife. He literally packed up the nursery and acted as if they were never coming home pretty early on. It just seems wrong to me. And they made it seem like the fact that the innocence project was taken on this case meant that he really was innocent because they would not take out a case unless they believed it.

That “experienced boatman” experiment was totally flawed. That was a demonstration conducted by the defense team. The judge told them that he would allow them to introduce a test in trial if they did the test using Scott Peterson’s actual boat, and was conducted in the presence of the prosecution. The defense team denied that opportunity.

There is plenty of proof he did it. The timeline itself is proof he did it. His strange “alibi” is proof he did it. His strange behavior in the hours, days, weeks, and months after her disappearance is proof he did it. His changing stories is proof he did it. The lack of any other suspect is proof he did it. There is absolutely zero evidence that corroborates his story that, when he left on Christmas Eve morning, she was perfectly safe at home.

I’ve read that entire damn trial, if you have any doubts ask away and I will most likely be able to answer the question with direct testimony taken from the trial transcripts.

Umm his post-deed blonde tips hair-do