Смотреть онлайн документальный фильм What Are They Hiding? The 12 Damning Pieces of Evidence Against Scott Peterson | True Crime в хорошем качестве HD бесплатно
Смотреть онлайн документальный фильм What Are They Hiding? The 12 Damning Pieces of Evidence Against Scott Peterson | True Crime в хорошем качестве HD бесплатно
When I first watched the documentaries claiming Scott Peterson was innocent, I honestly started questioning the case myself. But once I went through the actual court transcripts and evidence logs, the story looked very different. Some details rarely get discussed in mainstream coverage, especially the timeline contradictions and the forensic evidence found on the boat.
So I’m curious about your perspective after watching this breakdown. Do you think the evidence still leaves room for doubt, or do these details change how you see the case?
When it happened I was married and was busy raising ten children. I thought 🤔 he killed his wife. I am more convinced of his quilt.
The hair found in the boat really shocked me. I had heard people say there was zero forensic evidence, but that detail completely changes the narrative.
The part about the witnesses describing black pants when she was found wearing beige pants really shows how unreliable memory can be.
What stood out to me most was him asking about cadaver dogs so early. That seems like a huge red flag.
Her name was Laci (Lay-ci) NOT Law-ci! Tell your Ai to smarten up and get it right.
The state was unable to provide ANY evidence of guilt. They did an excellent job of proving his innocence.
Where is the "mountain of evidence?" Why could no one find any of it?
They had circumstantial evidence? What sort of circumstantial evidence could they have had, should they have had against Scott Peterson?
A videotape would be great. But we don't have that.
An eyewitness would be great. But we don't have that.
A confession would be great. But we don't have that.
A weapon would be great. But we don't have that.
Time of death would be great. But we don't have that.
Place of death would be great. But we don't have that.
Cause of death would be great. But we don't have that.
A crime scene would be great. But we don't have that.
Forensic evidence would be great. But we don't have that.
Nothing on Scott, no injuries.
Nothing in the house, no sign of body fluids or clean up.
Nothing in the truck, even a short trip would have left DNA.
Nothing in the warehouse, no DNA indicating how the transfer (the very difficult transfer) was made.
And finally, nothing in the boat. The boat is impossible. You can't bounce a dead body in the bottom of a boat for 90 minutes at highway speed without coating the bottom of the boat with DNA. A real mountain of it. But there was NONE.
Also, no signs of any sort of clean up anywhere and no trace of searches online for cleanup information.
Finally, no purchases whatsoever of cleaning materials or the like.
There are claims about weights, 4 or 5 weights, 8lb each.
A correct calculation (Lori A. Leonard) says you would need 400lb for Laci who was 153lb. Who can establish that this much weight would be able to go over the side of the tiny boat? Experiments with much lower weight failed every time.
So, all we have is motive.
The prosecutor said in his closing to the jury that Frey was not a motive, in fact, as he admitted, they had no motive.
On December 14, 2004, a juror, Greg Beratlis, took part in Larry King's TV show on CNN. During the show, Larry King asked Greg Beratlis the following question.
"KING: And what do you think his motive was?"
"BERATLIS: You know, Larry, I think if we all knew the motive, if there was this one thing that stuck out, we'd probably have the answer to the whole thing."
So the jury had no motive. NONE. So where is the evidence? ALL of the evidence, ALL of it, goes to his innocence. None goes to guilt. Some 'mountain'.