CA - District Attorney to retry Scott Peterson's Penalty Phase in Laci Peterson case, 2021-2022

Niner

Long time Websleuther
Joined
Aug 18, 2003
Messages
68,026
Reaction score
209,459
Is that his sister in the 2nd row on the right in green? right on the aisle,.

I don't see Laci's mom...
 
  • Like
Reactions: BUF

Kapua

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2014
Messages
4,629
Reaction score
32,420
Calif. home formerly owned by murderer Scott Peterson sells

May 2, 2022

A California home once owned by convicted murderer Scott Peterson and his late wife Laci sold for $50,000 over asking, the Sacramento Bee reported.

The three-bedroom, two-bathroom house at 523 Covena Ave. in Modesto was listed for $459,888 on March 31 and sold for $510,000 on April 21, Zillow said.
[.....]
Laci and Scott bought the 1949 bungalow with 1,700 square feet for $177,000 in 2000. There have been several owners since then, including real estate agent Gerry Roberts, who bought the house in 2005 for $390,000, the Bee reported. The home sold again in 2007 for $280,000 and in 2013 for $180,000, records posted on Zillow show.

Modesto is one of the many places in California where home prices are rising. The average home value in the Central Valley city was $442,285 in March 2022 and has gone up 22% over the past year, Zillow said.

With a vast front lawn and tall shade trees, the home is located in Modesto's La Loma neighborhood was advertised on Zillow as "move-in ready" with a swimming pool and hot tub, a freshly painted interior and a remodeled kitchen featuring stone countertops, a six-burner gas stove and a built-in wine rack.
It is a lovely home. I and some friends placed flowers on its front lawn in remembrance of Laci and Conner, may they rest in eternal love and peace.
 

Kapua

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2014
Messages
4,629
Reaction score
32,420
I don't think there is any chance that he is innocent. NONE of his actions that day make any sense, if he was an innocent man.

His wife was 8 1/2 months pregnant---it was Christmas Eve, he had the day off work, and so did she. And so he goes by himself, in December, in a tiny beat up boat, into the dangerous SF Bay, to allegedly fish---even though no one else in his life even knew he had the secret boat. Or that he even fished. And his story about what kind of bait and what he was trying to catch were totally BS.

And he originally told his wife and family that he was going to go play golf-alone-apparently.

Do I believe, that if his wife was alive and well, that she would have just waved 'bye Hun' to her husband, on Christmas Eve, while she was preparing food and gifts for a big family dinner that night? No way, it would not have happened that way. She would have obviously expected it to be a family day for them---not him going on some ridiculous pretend fishing trip in the dangerous bay waters in December.

I grew up in the Bay Area. And we did a lot of boating. No one would go out alone in the winter in that tiny boat unless they had a desperate mission. At least no one saw him because NOBODY else would have been out in those waters at that time.

That fishing trip story was a load of baloney. But one part of it was TRUE---he was out there in a boat---right where his wife and child's body washed ashore.

Why was he seen by detectives, driving around by that same shore, and sitting and watching detectives searching that area? WHY would he even think those bodies would have been found there if it was some other random killer?
I also grew up in the Bay Area, and I know that there are other places to go fishing that are much closer to Modesto (San Luis Reservoir, for one.) Not to mention, his fishing pole was at his in-law's place, IIRC. Nobody knew that he had a boat, and then there were those circles indicating that he had made concrete "anchors" in buckets. How about the trailing dogs that indicated the direction Laci's body went that morning? They did not indicate that she walked her dog in the park as Scott told detectives. I followed this case VERY closely and I could go on and on. Kudos to Sharon Rocha for her dedication to justice. I also credit Amber Frey for stepping up in spite of all the hate directed at her. She did the right things and was publicly dragged through the mud.

Scott Peterson, IMHO, is a cold-blooded, heartless killer and deserves to spend the rest of his miserable life behind bars.


All MOO.
 

legalmomma

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2014
Messages
758
Reaction score
6,916
the hearing is still showing on Law & Crime but probably won't be for long since its "live" and cant be replayed once they shut it down. Watching now {edited to add they are on lunchbreak until 4:30 pm ET so the hearing will continue. I am just watching the earlier part}
 
Last edited:

Weki

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2019
Messages
1,160
Reaction score
8,707
As much as I hate to say it and to state the obvious (that's why we're having this hearing) I feel like Nice's failure to disclose the DV issue (whether it was intentional or not) is an issue. The rest of what defense is putting up is just useless filler ("little man", "We need to get him" etc). The prosecutor is straining hard to make the failure to disclose the DV issue a non-factor. I think it's also likely that Nice didn't disclose that info on purpose. She wanted on this jury. Based on her behavior during the trial and after, she seems to crave attention. It's not a stretch to assume that she consicously or subconsciously omitted the DV issue. It makes me mad that this silly juror is causing this trial to be dredged up. Ugh!
 

LinasK

Verified insider- Mark Dribin case
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
25,740
Reaction score
15,291
As much as I hate to say it and to state the obvious (that's why we're having this hearing) I feel like Nice's failure to disclose the DV issue (whether it was intentional or not) is an issue. The rest of what defense is putting up is just useless filler ("little man", "We need to get him" etc). The prosecutor is straining hard to make the failure to disclose the DV issue a non-factor. I think it's also likely that Nice didn't disclose that info on purpose. She wanted on this jury. Based on her behavior during the trial and after, she seems to crave attention. It's not a stretch to assume that she consicously or subconsciously omitted the DV issue. It makes me mad that this silly juror is causing this trial to be dredged up. Ugh!
Why didn't Geragos strike her from the jury back then?
 

Weki

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2019
Messages
1,160
Reaction score
8,707
Why didn't Geragos strike her from the jury back then?
I believe he would have if she had disclosed the DV issue. I'm not a lawyer but a female juror who filed a DV complaint would be (and should be) automatically striken from a trial like this.

Edited to add: I also think the fact that she admitted she was the aggressor in the DV complaint she filed alleging abuse shows she's a dishonest and hostile person. Now the prosecutor is saying she INADVERTENTLY (she's bad at filling out forms! Huh? Judge just called him out on that.) didn't disclose the DV complaint and it just doesn't wash IMO. She may also have hostility towards men, again more bias.
 
Last edited:

ilovewings

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
6,251
Reaction score
46,901
As much as I hate to say it and to state the obvious (that's why we're having this hearing) I feel like Nice's failure to disclose the DV issue (whether it was intentional or not) is an issue. The rest of what defense is putting up is just useless filler ("little man", "We need to get him" etc). The prosecutor is straining hard to make the failure to disclose the DV issue a non-factor. I think it's also likely that Nice didn't disclose that info on purpose. She wanted on this jury. Based on her behavior during the trial and after, she seems to crave attention. It's not a stretch to assume that she consicously or subconsciously omitted the DV issue. It makes me mad that this silly juror is causing this trial to be dredged up. Ugh!
If he gets another trial (God forbid) do you think they will let him plea or will they retry the case?
 

legalmomma

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2014
Messages
758
Reaction score
6,916
Before the break the Judge brought up a specific part of the juror questionnaire - where they were asked if they could just rely on trial evidence and not any prior trial publicity, and she wrote "NO" and was not struck
 

Weki

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2019
Messages
1,160
Reaction score
8,707
Prosecutor is really reaaaaaaaching!! He's arguing semantics as to why she didn't answer other forms/questions honestly/correctly!

@ilovewings To answer your question - I think they have to retry this case if it comes to that! I hope it doesn't but...I guess it also depends on what Laci's family wants. They may not want to go through the ordeal of a trial and opt for a plea deal I suppose.
 

LinasK

Verified insider- Mark Dribin case
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
25,740
Reaction score
15,291
Before the break the Judge brought up a specific part of the juror questionnaire - where they were asked if they could just rely on trial evidence and not any prior trial publicity, and she wrote "NO" and was not struck
So the real fault is that Geragos didn't do his job. Why not file for Incompetence of Counsel instead???
 

Wishbone

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,531
Reaction score
7,461
I believe he would have if she had disclosed the DV issue. I'm not a lawyer but a female juror who filed a DV complaint would be (and should be) automatically striken from a trial like this.

Edited to add: I also think the fact that she admitted she was the aggressor in the DV complaint she filed alleging abuse shows she's a dishonest and hostile person. Now the prosecutor is saying she INADVERTENTLY (she's bad at filling out forms! Huh? Judge just called him out on that.) didn't disclose the DV complaint and it just doesn't wash IMO. She may also have hostility towards men, again more bias.

First off, I am not a fan of Scott Peterson. However, after listening to the rehashing of arguments for a new trial for him, I must say I am disappointed . Every defendant deserves a fair trial. That this judge kept making excuse scenarios for the juror's lies was surprising to me. I've never seen a judge behave that way throughout an entire hearing. Makes me believe that the State just doesn't want a new trial even if the defendant didn't receive a fair trial originally. There is no doubt IMO that the juror flat out lied and all the judge's excuses for her didn't change my opinion. If he gets a new trial I will be very surprised at how badly I misread the judge.
 

LinasK

Verified insider- Mark Dribin case
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
25,740
Reaction score
15,291
It looks like Geragos wanted her on the jury:
The prosecutor also said that Geragos, Peterson’s original lead defense lawyer, actually pulled Nice back to the jury box after the judge had originally dismissed her, believing she wouldn’t be able to afford to miss work during the long trial.


“He wanted her there with her bright pink hair, who had a mother in methadone treatments and a brother in San Quentin for a drug conviction,” David Harris said. Is judge skeptical of Scott Peterson’s argument for a new trial?
Can't have it both ways!
 

Seeker2022

Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2022
Messages
59
Reaction score
55
It looks like Geragos wanted her on the jury:
The prosecutor also said that Geragos, Peterson’s original lead defense lawyer, actually pulled Nice back to the jury box after the judge had originally dismissed her, believing she wouldn’t be able to afford to miss work during the long trial.


“He wanted her there with her bright pink hair, who had a mother in methadone treatments and a brother in San Quentin for a drug conviction,” David Harris said. Is judge skeptical of Scott Peterson’s argument for a new trial?
Can't have it both ways!
Honestly most of the judges here are highly corrupt. They do not follow the Constitutional laws. And the DA has a serious reputation for justifying wrongdoings, and convicting innocents. It is like all us civilians are treated as horrible criminals. I do not know ONE person here who has not had a bad experience in court... Anyways, on national television, Scott was charged and convicted without any real hard evidence. It was that simple. They only truly proved he was a cheater. They did not show any evidence that he killed her period.
So many witnesses were not allowed at his trial. Witnesses who claimed to have seen Lacey walking her dog, like she always did, on a popular trail for walking and bicycling, through parks.. There were witnesses who seen a strange vehicle in the area. And no one gave any attention to the other pregnant woman missing around the same time... It still seems like a connection. But never investigated, or investigated properly should i say...
I drove by the Petersons house the day after John Walsh was there... There was a kid (about 17) playing basketball, as i passed slowly, he said to me, "He didn't do it" and he started crying... "he didn't kill her. he wouldn't do that." A 17 yr old boy cried for his neighbor!!! I did not respond, but damn, kid was hurting sincerely. He actually made me dig deeper... I read all the conversations on every media platform, and....
So many witnesses left out... The media is responsible for making him look all too guilty. The courts and newspaper did the same to George Souliotes, 56, innocent man convicted in 1997 for killing his tenant. (exonerated 16 yrs later) The newspaper actually reports on false findings, they did it to my family once....
This county is not going to tell you about all they kept out. You can find many things on the net. This county just loved the attention it was getting.... And still. FYI, a few people from the original trial are actually dead today.. Things that make me go mhmm.....
Janey, Scott's sister-in-law is the one who got this case where it is now. I think she is somehow associated with the Innocence Project.... i think she went through law school just to help Scott. And she's doing just that!
I feel extremely sorry for Lacey's Family. I cannot even imagine their pain, but i am sure it is overwhelming. I understand people want someone to be held responsible for their crimes... I just believe they should make sure it is the actual person who did the crime, and not someone they just want to blame. We have too many innocents in prison labeled with the crimes of someone else, and there isn't much help for them...
They did not prove Scott killed her. They had no REAL hardcore, without-a-doubt evidence. That's all i am saying.
 

LinasK

Verified insider- Mark Dribin case
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
25,740
Reaction score
15,291
No
Honestly most of the judges here are highly corrupt. They do not follow the Constitutional laws. And the DA has a serious reputation for justifying wrongdoings, and convicting innocents. It is like all us civilians are treated as horrible criminals. I do not know ONE person here who has not had a bad experience in court... Anyways, on national television, Scott was charged and convicted without any real hard evidence. It was that simple. They only truly proved he was a cheater. They did not show any evidence that he killed her period.
So many witnesses were not allowed at his trial. Witnesses who claimed to have seen Lacey walking her dog, like she always did, on a popular trail for walking and bicycling, through parks.. There were witnesses who seen a strange vehicle in the area. And no one gave any attention to the other pregnant woman missing around the same time... It still seems like a connection. But never investigated, or investigated properly should i say...
I drove by the Petersons house the day after John Walsh was there... There was a kid (about 17) playing basketball, as i passed slowly, he said to me, "He didn't do it" and he started crying... "he didn't kill her. he wouldn't do that." A 17 yr old boy cried for his neighbor!!! I did not respond, but damn, kid was hurting sincerely. He actually made me dig deeper... I read all the conversations on every media platform, and....
So many witnesses left out... The media is responsible for making him look all too guilty. The courts and newspaper did the same to George Souliotes, 56, innocent man convicted in 1997 for killing his tenant. (exonerated 16 yrs later) The newspaper actually reports on false findings, they did it to my family once....
This county is not going to tell you about all they kept out. You can find many things on the net. This county just loved the attention it was getting.... And still. FYI, a few people from the original trial are actually dead today.. Things that make me go mhmm.....
Janey, Scott's sister-in-law is the one who got this case where it is now. I think she is somehow associated with the Innocence Project.... i think she went through law school just to help Scott. And she's doing just that!
I feel extremely sorry for Lacey's Family. I cannot even imagine their pain, but i am sure it is overwhelming. I understand people want someone to be held responsible for their crimes... I just believe they should make sure it is the actual person who did the crime, and not someone they just want to blame. We have too many innocents in prison labeled with the crimes of someone else, and there isn't much help for them...
They did not prove Scott killed her. They had no REAL hardcore, without-a-doubt evidence. That's all i am saying.
No, the media didn't convict Scott, and the reports of Laci were false sightings. I also live in the Bay Area. There was so MUCH evidence.
 
Last edited:

ilovewings

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
6,251
Reaction score
46,901
Honestly most of the judges here are highly corrupt. They do not follow the Constitutional laws. And the DA has a serious reputation for justifying wrongdoings, and convicting innocents. It is like all us civilians are treated as horrible criminals. I do not know ONE person here who has not had a bad experience in court... Anyways, on national television, Scott was charged and convicted without any real hard evidence. It was that simple. They only truly proved he was a cheater. They did not show any evidence that he killed her period.
So many witnesses were not allowed at his trial. Witnesses who claimed to have seen Lacey walking her dog, like she always did, on a popular trail for walking and bicycling, through parks.. There were witnesses who seen a strange vehicle in the area. And no one gave any attention to the other pregnant woman missing around the same time... It still seems like a connection. But never investigated, or investigated properly should i say...
I drove by the Petersons house the day after John Walsh was there... There was a kid (about 17) playing basketball, as i passed slowly, he said to me, "He didn't do it" and he started crying... "he didn't kill her. he wouldn't do that." A 17 yr old boy cried for his neighbor!!! I did not respond, but damn, kid was hurting sincerely. He actually made me dig deeper... I read all the conversations on every media platform, and....
So many witnesses left out... The media is responsible for making him look all too guilty. The courts and newspaper did the same to George Souliotes, 56, innocent man convicted in 1997 for killing his tenant. (exonerated 16 yrs later) The newspaper actually reports on false findings, they did it to my family once....
This county is not going to tell you about all they kept out. You can find many things on the net. This county just loved the attention it was getting.... And still. FYI, a few people from the original trial are actually dead today.. Things that make me go mhmm.....
Janey, Scott's sister-in-law is the one who got this case where it is now. I think she is somehow associated with the Innocence Project.... i think she went through law school just to help Scott. And she's doing just that!
I feel extremely sorry for Lacey's Family. I cannot even imagine their pain, but i am sure it is overwhelming. I understand people want someone to be held responsible for their crimes... I just believe they should make sure it is the actual person who did the crime, and not someone they just want to blame. We have too many innocents in prison labeled with the crimes of someone else, and there isn't much help for them...
They did not prove Scott killed her. They had no REAL hardcore, without-a-doubt evidence. That's all i am saying.
Why didnt the defense call those witnesses that could allegedly
helped his case?????
 
Top