Talk:Scott Peterson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] Requested move

A disambiguation page was created even though there are only two Scott Petersons and one is hugely more famous than the other. A link to the writer named Scott Peterson should go at the top of the murderer's article. I added this to the top of the talk page to make it more visible, so we can get a consensus. -- Kjkolb 05:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support -- Kjkolb 05:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support --Nanouk 15:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support IF it says 'Convicted of murder' and not 'murderer' -- A Voice of Sanity 16:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

Scott Peterson redirects here - should this page be moved back to that base, or are there other Scott Petersons who need to be organized via a disambiguation page? ESkog | Talk 19:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I would say this could be moved back to base. The only other Scott Peterson on the disambig page is a staff writer for the Christian Science Monitor who doesn't have a Wiki page. No disrespect, but I think it's fair to say that roughly 0% of the people who look up Scott Peterson on Wiki wish to read about the journalist. I'd say this article has every reason to be moved. Objections? --Marco Passarani 21:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Since there's a link to the disambig page at the top of this article, I'd say go ahead and move it back to Scott Peterson. --Nanouk 11:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed from Scott Peterson (convicted murderer) to Scott Peterson as the result of a move request. Rd232 talk 16:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statement

This statement is incorrect: "The prescribed method of execution was lethal injection." California's death penalty allows the prisoner to choose between gas or lethal injection, and then gives lethal injection if the prisoner refuses to choose. "Persons sentenced to death prior to or after the operative date of this subdivision shall have the opportunity to elect to have the punishment imposed by lethal gas or lethal injection....If a person under sentence of death does not choose either lethal gas or lethal injection within 10 days after the warden's service upon the inmate of an execution warrant issued following the operative date of this subdivision, the penalty of death shall be imposed by lethal injection." (Pen. Code section 3604 subd. b) Joe Casey.


Please change the title of this article to Scott Peterson (alleged murder). I am not sure how to change the title of a page.

You'll need to create an account and a "Move" option will be available.
Since he has now been convicted he's not alleged anymore so a title change would be inappropriate. Zerbey 23:41, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He is a convicted murderer. He is no longer an alleged murderer, the trial is over. Pitchka

Come on, what's next Scott Peterson (convicted murderer who might get off on appeal)?

This article might be one of the worst examples of writing on Wikipedia. I tried editing it and quickly gave up. It needs to be overhauled completely--any volunteers?


[edit] Appeals

If he does win an appeal the page will need to be changed back to alleged murder.

Deleted last paragraph: NONE of the 'circumstances' mentioned are grounds for an appeal in the state of California.


I suppose it does qualify as an 'external link', but come on... is this link really necessary or appropriate? -vinny

"Laci Peterson, who was seven months pregnant at the time..."

Is there a need for "at the time" when "was" already sums up the fact that it is something that happened before?

[edit] Household name

Did he really only become a household name after his arrest? Seems to me the story was very common long before then. --John 05:13, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I'm going to ask for cleanup on this page because there are not enough sources (there were none when I started) and a lot of claims here should be sourced. I'll probably do this myself if no one else does, but if you want to improve this page, find some more links. Thanks. EventHorizon 19:08, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Re: (cur) (last) 03:32, 22 Dec 2004 212.159.87.102 (Chronology)

Edited from seven month pregnant, to eight. Source courttv. Was not logged in at the time. Please see numerous references: http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/

[edit] user impersonation

"Scott Peterson" claims to be a Wikipedian. While I'm glad he can join the celebrity ranks of Wikipedian users, like Hilary Duff and Jerry Seinfeld, I'm a little supicious of the claim. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Scott Peterson -- user:zanimum

He also has/had an account on MySpace.com - yeah, right. --A Voice of Sanity 18:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Media Circus

This article should really talk about the media circus that emerged from this story. There are deeper issues then some guy that killed his wife in California people. There was like 24 hour coverage on this crap along with other superficial "trials" like the oh so important Jackson trial and who can forget Martha!-Y2A

It's not surprising that trials of celebrities attract attention. But Scott Peterson wasn't famous - or was he? The article doesn't explain why the media (and I guess the public) became interested in the case. I would like to know. Mirror Vax 11:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I'm British and I know you know non-Americans read wikipedia. The rest of the world, unless there is a good reason which is explained, will not understand why this case generated so much hype. Yes there is the abortion issue. But the level of hype suggests a celebrity case. But the guy is a fertilizer salesman?! Sorry, I don't get it. The article should address this.
I'm going to do you one further and state the fact that Scott Peterson, Lacy Peterson, the trial, and all related wikipedia subjects are only worthy of note as a direct result of the media circus surrounding the murder -- and that therefore the objective way to handle the subject as it might appear in an encyclopedia, with a fact-based description, is for all these articles to be consolidated and redirected to an article titled, for example, "The Murder of Lacy Peterson" (demonstrates that the article is not relegated to the trial, the murderer, the personal lives of those involved, or even the media coverage -- the title is simply what happened and encompasses everything thereafter). The new article however, should clearly set the tone and open with the media circus. It's not a matter of opinion that many murders occur in the United States and may not make even the local news. The coverage of this murder is the only reason anyone reading Wikipedia knows it happened, and the article should reflect that. I may try to do the work myself, but I'm about 2 weeks and a few minor edits into my membership here, and aside from that I did my best to avoid the Tabloid-worthy news coverage of this topic so I would be restricted to simply (well, not for me) writing the opening and moving the related topics there. --Knuckle Bean 19:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you. As in so many of these cases which are selected for exploitation by the media, this was yet another example of 'White Women In Peril'. And, as has happened in so many of these cases before, justice went out the window when the media fury came in. Almost no one in the media made any sort of good faith effort to analyse the facts and draw conclusions from them. A surprising number of examples can be found where the media themselves damaged the prosecution's case with their own reporting but remained oblivious to what they had done and continued to support the myth of Peterson's guilt. Such a belief requires a wilful blindness which is almost awe inspiring but few, except for a very few bloggers, have chosen to be even mildly suspicious of the verdict. --A Voice of Sanity 16:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "fertilizer salesman"

media reports frequently give Scott the title of "fertilizer salesman". Is this a valid description of his job? Does he actually sell fertilizer, and not lawn chemicals, or crop pestcides? Does he do any actual selling? "Fertilizer Salesman" seems to be a euphemism for "BS talker". (I know this term is not in the article, but I bet it is somewhere in the history) 66.173.192.96 19:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

found a more accurate description of his job -

Not only does Peterson have to try to outperform the competition each day, dealers say,he must do it with more expensive products. He markets premium fertilizers and minerals,including acids, iron, boron and other materials that are applied periodically to protect the valley's crops and help generate plentiful harvests. Peterson's job is to spreadTradecorp's name through the ag community and get its products into the hands of farmers.

http://www.findlaci2003.us/scott-tradecorp.html

so I changed the first paragraph 66.173.192.96 19:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] circumstantial

The article uses the word "circumstantial" as though it has a negative connotation. Many cases are based solely on circumstantial evidence & this does not in itself render the jury's verdict less valid. Which would most people believe more readily ? A) you wake up in the morning and you see the ground, trees, etc. wet & assume it must have rained overnight or B) you hear someone say they thought they saw it rain?

Actually, answer (B) would constitute HEARSAY evidence, and therefore not be admissable in court, so you have presented only one viable option.
Circumstantial evidence *does* carry much less weight with jurors, judges, and attorneys than direct evidence. It is possible to twist and turn almost any set of circumstances to cast an unfavorable light upon the accused.
I think the point he was making with B was that the person making the claim they saw it rain was on the witness stand. keith 11:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

There's circumstantial and circumstantial. If the defendant is seen traveling to Point X with the victim and then seen traveling away from Point X without the victim, that's circumstantial evidence against him (if I understand the jargon correctly). The evidence mentioned here, though, is Scott's behavior consistent with murder but also consistent with lesser character flaws, such as adultery, not to mention a normal desire for privacy. This weak logical connection is what's connoted, I think, when "circumstantial" is used pejoratively. (I wonder how many innocent people have been convicted because they did something furtive out of a fear of appearing guilty. Fear rarely makes us wiser.) —Tamfang 23:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Circumstantial evidence is great evidence. If the MPD had found a large bloodstain in the bed, in the boat, in the truck or in the warehouse that would be great evidence. If they had found her body in his locked warehouse that also would be substantive. What the prosecution had in this case was not circumstantial evidence nor direct evidence. What they had was happenstance and gossip. What they used was sympathy for the victims and alleged bad character and, as in the case of Douglas S. Mouser, and they also used confusion and a ridiculously long trial to befuddle the jury and get a conviction. Too many people fail to realize what circumstantial evidence is and what it is not. Washing your dirty car is not circumstantial evidence. Power washing the interior or removing and burning the car seats is. It is something which is incapable of innocent explanation. Not telling your relatives you bought a boat is not circumstantial evidence. Telling every policeman about it is evidence of innocence.--A Voice of Sanity 02:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV?

So throughout this article it states that most of the evidence was circumstantial, that Scott was victimized and questioned the validity of charging a man for killing a fetus. I've read that Peterson is a wikipedian himself, did he edit this friggin page?

The Peterson page was NPOV. It no longer is. It has been completely biased towards the guilty POV. He has been convicted. He is still not a murderer. Considering the abysmal record of US juries and the fact that even the judge recognized how fraught with appeals the case is, it is reckless to assume his conviction will stand.

Where exactly was Laci killed? What proof is offered?

When exactly was Laci killed? What proof is offered?

Why exactly was Laci killed? What proof is offered?

What exactly was the way that Laci was killed (Murder? Neglect?)? What proof is offered?

Without answers to these very basic questions, how can any conviction stand? And how can all of the declarative statements on that page be supported? --A Voice of Sanity 02:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

While I was surprised at the guilty verdict, in light of the requirement of no reasonable doubt, and the presence of circumstantial evidence only, the fact is that, in order for the conviction to stand, the answers to the questions you offer do not have to be supplied. Under U.S. Law, only matters of law are appealable. Only if the appelate court finds that a violation or error of law occurred during the trial that may impact the final verdict, can the ruling be reversed or remanded. So--the likelihood that Peterson will have the verdict reversed is small. In any case, the answers to your questions are moot. No one has to answer those questions any longer; the jury has already done so. 66.108.4.183 07:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC) Nash's Companion
It is perfectly reasonable to question this verdict given that no one can say where Laci was killed, when she was killed, why she was killed or what was the cause of death. Even murder was implied - it could not be proven. Further, all of the evidence against Peterson was capable of being interpreted quite reasonably in his favor. Given that, and the jury's own statements both after the trial and in their 'book', it is clear that the conviction was only obtained through the very worst sort of prejudicial attack on the defendant. As for "... the jury has already done so," this could only apply if no conviction in the US had ever been overturned by extra legal means - such as the confession of the actual killer or research by journalism or law students to quote examples. You might wish to contemplate the case of Jeffrey Scott Hornoff if you believe that to be true. A Voice of Sanity 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third and fourth images.

I have to remove the third and fourth images temporarily from the article. The reason is that I wish to upload the new version of these images, so as to avoid them conflict if not removed. If done, I will put them back on the same article where they were. Thank you, Adnghiem501 22:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Laci Peterson

On the Laci Peterson article, I have suggested merging the investigation and trial sections into this article, since they really deal with Scott Peterson and the general standard in crime journalism is to cover cases with reference to the defendant, not the victim. --Tysto 17:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't believe in merging the two articles (Scott Peterson and Laci Peterson), but I do believe there should be a third article about the trial, what came before it, and what came after it. On the other hand, we could just keep the trial and everything else right here in Scott Peterson's article. Whatever the outcome, there's no reason for Laci Peterson's article to contain as much as it does on the trial. Stiles 01:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Many, speculated, may have, theories

Moved this sentence from the article to Talk:

Many involved in the case speculated that Peterson may have planned to flee to Mexico, or Peterson, who knew he was being followed by police and had in fact confronted them earlier that day, was on his way to murder Amber Frey; with Peterson arrested these theories were never proved.

This tells the reader nothing, except the uncited possible fact that he "had in fact confronted them earlier". -213.219.160.64 12:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added several cite needed tags throughout, and am moving this uncited speculation from Motive:

It is believed that this stemmed from comments made jokingly by fellow golf buddies and that Scott's insecurity lead to him committing the murder. Alternatively, some have claimed Peterson murdered Laci out of a desire to return to the "bachelor" lifestyle, where he would be free from the obligations of his impending family life; however, it was pointed out that Amber Frey herself had a child. It is not clear if any motive for the crime was presented to the jury as such.

The paragraph begins stating the affair as motive was not presented to the jury, but that the prosecutor claimed the affair indicated bad character, but then the above weasel colony pops up, obscuring who if anyone said what. To me it seems dubious that the court case discussed these claims, but if it did, please reinsert with citations. -213.219.160.64 13:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean Up the article

This article if full of requests for citations and to me it seems to make the article seem more biased that it actually may be. Would anyone be willing to find citations for some of the statements made in the article. --SleepyDan 15:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

SleepyDan, I kindly ask that you sign your comments. I believe that most people here on Wikipedia have nothing to do other than create silly categories, and add little or really no changes to an article. It bothers me a lot, but I still continue to add as much as I can to an article. I could only hope that others would have the same mindset, or leave Wikipedia altogether, because they are hardly useful. I'll try my best to get to Scott Peterson's article, and hopefully others will join. Stiles 18:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about not signing the comment. I do plan to help clean up this article when I can. Its just that I have been seeing alot of articles like this with no citations for anything and it is starting to get on my nerves. --SleepyDan 15:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I did some cleanup

I just did a big edit of this article, to make it read a bit more encyclopedic. I changed the order of some text as well, to make it make more sense. Anything that still reads "citation needed" is because I truly could NOT find information to support it on the Web. I'm reluctant to just delete those statements, since I'm still pretty new to this. LBoogey 02:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)LBoogey

what / where is the murder weapon? where did the murder occur? what time did the murder take place? was there any physical evidence?

[edit] Unconfirmed rumor

This may be nothing. The citation leads to National Enquirer, reknown for trash. Just the same, if it turns out to be anything, we have tracked it. -- meatclerk 07:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

On September 21, 2006, fellow inmates savagely beat Peterson in an apparent murder attempt. [1]

There's no evidence this did happen and no reason it would have. Considering some of those incarcerated there, such as Richard Ramirez and Charles Ng, Peterson would be very low on any revenge scale. A Voice of Sanity 05:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Early Life

The last three sentances in the Early Life section doesn't make any sense. Scott's middle name has always been Lee. He also has not had any other children then the one that Laci was pregnant with. I am going to delete all three sentances untill there is vailidity to them.ShadowWriter 04:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scottisinnocent.com???

Okay, someone explain to me how anything that is sourced from a site called "www.scottisinnocent.com" can in anyway be considered a credible and NPOV source???

My pleasure. That site contains the full trial record, the record of all pretrial motions, the record of the appeals and counter filings, all the available photographs, and a great deal of research and analysis carried out after the trial. Much of the testimony which was not well challenged during the trial has been subjected to rigorous analysis there and much has been shown to be flawed in the extreme. If one linked to a site called dynamitegoesboom.com which contained extensive research on explosives would you reject it because it isn't neutral in its conclusion that yes, it does? A Voice of Sanity 00:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Checking check.SPLPDR

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/c/o/Talk%7EScott_Peterson_c365.html"