It's Game Over for Scott Peterson - American Crime Journal

The Scott Peterson documentaries and subsequent appeals epitomize everything problematic within the true crime industry today

Today, the true crime landscape has evolved into a booming industry where virtually anyone with a microphone and keyboard can offer their opinions on cases. However, a significant issue arises when the majority of these commentators are white women from affluent backgrounds, often branding their podcasts with titles like “Wine, Dine, and Crime.” Despite their lack of expertise, they proceed to dissect cases through a narrow and often skewed worldview.

Their understanding of crime typically stems from what they’ve seen in Lifetime Movies, resulting in a shallow analysis characterized by sensationalism and controversy. In this space, there’s a lucrative market for contrarian viewpoints. However, the contributions of these individuals often offer little beyond a privileged perspective and a superficial understanding of crime, resembling the plot of a typical Lifetime Movie.

Netflix’s docuseries Making a Murderer has already damaged the reputation of once highly respected post-conviction attorney Kathleen Zellner, who seemingly embraced the series and bought it hook, line and sinker. Much of the series distorted the truth and misrepresented the facts. Now, Steven Avery’s attorney is all bluster, and professionals and her colleagues no longer take her seriously. “Of course we left out evidence,” filmmaker Laura Ricciardi once said in defense of Making a Murderer, a docuseries she made over a ten year period with Moira Demos.

In 2017, The Murder of Laci Peterson docuseries was released, the Scott Peterson equivalent of Making a Murderer.

Sadly, there was a time when documentaries adhered to journalistic principles, but today they have devolved into mere sales pitches, hyperbole, ad hoc attacks, and far-fetched theories that trivialize real evidence. This trend dilutes testimony, evidence, and facts while muddying the waters—or as Donald Trump’s former Chief-of-Staff Steve Bannon put it, “flooding the zone with sh*t.” Possibility now replaces “reasonable doubt.” This strategy has seemingly become the norm in every high-profile case over the last thirty years. It’s not about justice; it’s about controversy.

The realm of true crime frequently attracts individuals, particularly women, seeking to unravel mysteries, often swayed by charismatic figures. We’ve witnessed this unsettling phenomenon in cases like Ted Bundy’s, the Menendez brothers’, and, notably, Scott Peterson’s. Some women become enamored and even infatuated with reputed murderers and serial killers, as if all common sense eludes them.

What’s most disconcerting is the prevalence of convictions marred by glaring irregularities. From instances of detectives with a history of planting evidence in other cases to crucial alibi witnesses being sidelined, the flaws in the criminal justice system are evident. Moreover, there exists a plethora of evidence awaiting DNA testing—items directly linked to crimes and pivotal for achieving resolution. However, it’s cases like Peterson’s that command disproportionate attention, which is absolutely disgusting.

In these instances, it becomes apparent that certain individuals aren’t driven by a pursuit of justice but rather by an infatuation with specific individuals. Their fixation centers not on the quest for truth and righteousness but solely on the individual at the heart of the controversy. This skewed focus undermines the fundamental principles of justice and equity, perpetuating a cycle where sensationalism eclipses genuine efforts to rectify systemic injustices.

In Peterson’s case, the Los Angeles Innocence Project’s approach appeared haphazard, as they attempted to include random items for testing, striving to present them as evidence. The judge rightfully dismissed these extraneous items, recognizing them as nothing more than a distraction—a smokescreen obscuring the true essence of the case. Despite the flurry of speculation and fervent advocacy surrounding Peterson’s innocence, the critical examination of all evidence, rather than selective scrutiny, remains imperative for unraveling the truth. The absence of DNA on a piece of duct tape does not equate to innocence, nor does the presence of another person’s DNA on the same tape imply their guilt.

Scott Peterson’s sister, Janey Peterson, is either deliberately lying or in complete denial—perhaps a bit of both. Along with the now-deceased “trial spectator” Marlene Newell, she formed a website, www.scottisinnocent.com, and a Facebook group called Scott Peterson Appeal (SPA). Then in 2017, The Murder of Laci Peterson propaganda piece was released. For over two decades now, Janey Peterson, Marlene Newell and Scott Peterson supporters have muddied the waters by peddling false narratives and long-debunked theories as facts, such as Laci Peterson was the victim of some ring of killers abducting and killing pregnant women.

The notion that pregnant women in Northern California were vanishing at an alarming rate, much like other debunked myths such as satanic panic, human trafficking kidnappings, and stranger danger, has long been discredited as baseless sensationalism. This narrative, like many others, serves only to distract and sensationalize rather than uncover the truth.

Another misleading claim is that the reputable Innocence Project is representing Scott Peterson. This narrative is completely false, as I detailed in a previous article. The actual Innocence Project had to clarify publicly that they are not representing Scott Peterson. Instead, an entirely unrelated organization, the Los Angeles Innocence Project, is the one involved in this case.

Scott Peterson’s Appeal

Key to the Los Angeles Innocence Project’s efforts to free convicted killer Scott Peterson is retesting evidence from a stolen van that was set on fire on Dec. 25, 2002, in Modesto, a day after a burglary near the Petersons’ residence. Inside the van was a mattress with what one investigator said appeared to be bloodstains. Despite the fact that the stolen van issue was put to rest years ago, that hasn’t stopped Peterson supporters from misrepresenting the stolen van. Simply put, a burglary occurred near the Peterson residence and a van was torched the day after. The mattress has already been tested. There was no trace of blood.

The Innocence Project alleges that it has evidence from the owner of the van — which was found a mile from the Petersons’ home — showing it did not have a mattress inside before it was stolen. The only issue for Peterson is, the van is irrelevant. There is not one shred of evidence that links the burglaries and stolen van with the disappearance with Laci Peterson. It also doesn’t raise reasonable doubt, simply because the jury had to weigh the totality of the evidence, not a single piece. Simply put, the Peterson team wants to raise reasonable doubt just because another crime occurred in the area. That’s not how things work. Virtually every murder in the United States occurs in the vicinity of another crime.

The Case Against Peterson

It's Game Over for Scott Peterson - American Crime Journal | (2)

Nearly two decades ago, the serene streets of Redwood City, California, were rocked by the shocking disappearance of Laci Peterson, a vibrant 27-year-old woman who was eight months pregnant with her first child, a son named Conner. Laci seemingly had it all – a loving husband, Scott Peterson, a stable job, and the joyous anticipation of impending motherhood. However, beneath the surface of this idyllic façade lay a web of deceit and betrayal.

Scott Peterson, once perceived as a devoted husband, harbored secrets that would ultimately unravel in the wake of Laci’s disappearance. Behind closed doors, Peterson was leading a double life, engaging in extramarital affairs with multiple women throughout his five-year marriage to Laci. Far from eager to embrace fatherhood, Peterson confided to relatives that he harbored hopes of infertility, expressing a profound reluctance towards impending fatherhood.

Compounding the strain on the Petersons’ seemingly picture-perfect life was a mounting financial crisis. Peterson’s business ventures were floundering, and he found himself drowning in debt, with two-thirds of his paycheck siphoned away to repay loans and manage a staggering $20,000 in credit card debt. The pressure was mounting, and the cracks in the Petersons’ marriage were beginning to show.

On the fateful morning of December 24, 2002, as the rest of the world prepared to celebrate Christmas, Scott Peterson set into motion a chain of events that would culminate in tragedy. Claiming to have left Laci at home, eight-and-a-half months pregnant, engrossed in preparations for the festive season, Peterson embarked on what he portrayed as an impromptu fishing trip to Berkeley Marina, some 90 miles away from their Modesto residence.

However, what Peterson portrayed as a spontaneous excursion belied a calculated plan that had been meticulously crafted in the weeks leading up to Laci’s disappearance. Far from being an avid angler, Peterson had not held a valid fishing license since 1994. Yet, in the days preceding his purported fishing trip, Peterson feverishly researched fishing boats, supplies, and tidal currents around the Bay Area. On December 9, 2002, just days before Laci vanished, Peterson made a cash purchase of a small fishing boat, setting the stage for the tragedy that would soon unfold.

The circ*mstantial evidence against Peterson continued to mount in the ensuing days. Despite initially fabricating a narrative of leaving home at 9:30 am on Christmas Eve, cell phone records placed him in the vicinity of his residence at 10:08 am, a mere ten minutes before a neighbor discovered Laci’s dog wandering the streets. Peterson’s erratic behavior and inconsistent accounts further fueled suspicion, as did the discovery of incriminating evidence, including his blood on the door of his truck and traces of blood on the couple’s bedspread.

Peterson made an intriguing purchase just days before his wife’s disappearance, acquiring four counterfeit college diplomas totaling $267 from an online platform on December 16, 2002. When pressed about these framed counterfeits by lead investigator Craig Grogan, Peterson offered a curious explanation. He claimed they were not intended as part of a scheme to reinvent himself but rather as a playful jest from his wife. According to Peterson, Laci enjoyed teasing him about the extended duration it took him to complete his degree.

Detectives, however, found Peterson’s explanation dubious. The diplomas had been charged to his credit card and directly shipped to him, casting doubt on the narrative of them being mere gag gifts. This incongruity added another layer of complexity to the investigation, further fueling speculation about Peterson’s motives and actions leading up to his wife’s disappearance.

As the investigation unfolded, Peterson’s façade of innocence began to crumble, revealing a man consumed by deception and duplicity. His attempts to evade scrutiny, including repeated visits to the marina and a hasty attempt to flee to Mexico following the identification of Laci’s and Conner’s bodies, served only to reinforce suspicions of his guilt.

The subsequent trial captivated the nation, as prosecutors meticulously pieced together a damning case against Peterson. Emphasizing his motive to escape the shackles of marriage and impending fatherhood, prosecutors highlighted Peterson’s callous disregard for his wife’s well-being and the calculated nature of his actions in the days leading up to her disappearance.

Most damning of all, prosecutors presented evidence that Peterson misled Amber Frey about his marital status. Before Laci’s disappearance he had initially told Frey that he had “lost” his wife (meaning she had died) and claimed that it would be his first Christmas without her.

Despite Peterson’s steadfast protestations of innocence and the assertions of his defense team, who contended that the prosecution’s case relied heavily on circ*mstantial evidence, a San Mateo County jury delivered a swift verdict, finding Peterson guilty on two counts of first-degree murder.

During the trial, two jurors were dismissed by Judge Alfred Delucci under controversial circ*mstances. While the reasons were not publicly disclosed by the judge, legal experts speculated that one juror may have violated court orders by researching the case, while another was replaced after being seen conversing with Laci’s brother. These events added a layer of intrigue and speculation to an already sensational trial.

In 2005, Peterson was sentenced to death, a fate later commuted to life in prison. Now, nearly two decades later, the Los Angeles Innocence Project enters the fray, armed with “new evidence” that purportedly supports Peterson’s long-standing claims of innocence. As the case once again captures the public’s attention, questions linger about the true extent of Peterson’s culpability and the pursuit of justice for Laci and Conner Peterson, whose lives were tragically cut short amidst a tangled web of deceit and betrayal.

The Troubling Reality of True Crime Media

These true crime enthusiasts often market themselves as crusaders for justice, yet their primary focus tends to be on generating sensational content that attracts listeners and viewers. They prioritize dramatic twists and emotionally charged narratives over factual accuracy and nuanced analysis. This approach not only distorts public perception of the cases they cover but also undermines the serious work of those genuinely dedicated to criminal justice reform.

Moreover, the commercialization of true crime often results in the exploitation of real-life tragedies for entertainment. Victims and their families become secondary to the quest for higher ratings and more subscribers. The personal stories and suffering of those involved are reduced to mere plot points in a gripping tale designed to keep audiences hooked. This dehumanization is deeply troubling and raises ethical questions about the responsibilities of content creators in the true crime genre.

The Scott Peterson case is a prime example of how complex legal matters can be oversimplified and sensationalized. With new documentaries and appeals, there is a persistent attempt to reframe the narrative, often disregarding the substantial body of evidence that led to the original conviction. Instead, the focus shifts to creating a compelling story that challenges the established facts, appealing to an audience eager for controversy and suspense.

In doing so, these creators often ignore the broader implications of their work. By fostering doubt and promoting alternative theories without solid evidence, they contribute to a culture of skepticism that can undermine public trust in the justice system. While it is crucial to ensure that every conviction is fair and just, the method of sensational storytelling employed by many true crime content creators can do more harm than good.

True crime should be approached with a sense of responsibility and respect for those affected by the crimes being discussed. It demands a commitment to accuracy, a willingness to engage with the complexities of the legal system, and an understanding of the profound impact these crimes have on real people. Without these elements, the genre risks becoming nothing more than a platform for spreading misinformation and exploiting human suffering for profit.