In the wake of Serial and Making a Murderer, cable and broadcast networks are scrambling to revisit some of recent history’s most heinous crimes. Since they’ve covered pretty much every angle of the murder of JonBenét Ramsey and a TV movie taking another look at the 1989 murder of Jose and Kitty Menendez by their sons Lyle and Erik is on the way (after an ABC News documentary on the case), Oxygen is now turning its attention to the case of Scott Peterson. Peterson was convicted of killing his wife Laci and unborn son Connor after their disappearance on Christmas Eve of 2002.
The cable network’s long-running series, Snapped, is kicking off its 20th (!) season with a two-part special on the murder and subsequent trial, Snapped: Notorious Scott Peterson. The network promises the show will “analyze critical evidence” that “was never presented to the jury” and “bring forth a different perspective that could lead to a new trial and review Peterson’s twisted web of lies which led to the ultimate demise of his family.” People posted the trailer on Wednesday.
The Snapped premiere includes interviews with a former police detective, two jurors from the trial and Scott’s ex-girlfriend Amber Frey. The relationship between Amber and Scott was instrumental in swaying the jury in the case to find Scott guilty of murder in 2004. Laci’s family did not participate in the episodes, but Laci’s mother, Sharon Rocha, told the Modesto Bee earlier this month that “There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that justice was served. Scott Peterson is guilty.”
This isn’t the first time this case has been retold for a television audience; it got the Lifetime Movie treatment in 2004’s The Perfect Husband, starring Dean Cain as Scott. Last month, an unfinished documentary, called Trial by Fury: The People v. Scott Peterson, debuted at the American Documentary Film Festival in Palm Springs. Attorney Mark Geragos, who defended Scott during the trial, participated in a Q&A session after the screening, where he told the audience that “There wasn’t any evidence in this case,” and felt that the trial was a “complete media lynching.” Geragos went on to add,
This was far and away (my) worst defeat. Scott is clearly not just not guilty. … Scott is innocent. I will believe that till the day I die. What happened in this case was one of the worst abominations of the criminal justice system I ever experienced.
After his 2004 murder conviction, Scott, now 44, was sentenced to die but remains on death row in California. He appealed his case in 2012, still claiming his innocence. His defense team claimed that the evidence in the case “was anything but overwhelming” and charged that the judge who presided over the case, the late Judge Alfred Delucci, made a number of errors when hearing the case, which they felt warranted a new trial.
Prosecutors insist that the right man is behind bars, calling Scott “truly among the worst of the worst.” In their formal reply to the appeal in 2015, they asserted that “(Peterson) did not care one whit for the wife who vowed to love him for a lifetime or his child waiting to be born.”
Whether the information Snapped uncovered is enough to get Scott a new trial is yet to be seen, but I do agree with prosecutors who feel that Scott is guilty of this unforgivable crime. Snapped: Notorious Scott Peterson debuts on Oxygen at 6 p.m. ET on Oxygen. Will you tune in, or are you suffering from true crime overload? I’m not going to lie, I watched an ABC documentary about Charles Manson last night and I can’t pass up a good true crime story, so I’ll be watching.
Photos: Getty Images
This is not the traditional path to a new trial. If the evidence is so overwhelming, according to his defense attorney, have they filed a motion for relief regarding the excluded evidence? If so, and if it was denied, then no, it’s not overwhelming.
I also think he did it
His defense team claimed the evidence against him was ANYTHING BUT overwhelming. Read the article.
I hope legal experts who are also CB posters will give their opinions. I am just a devotee of true crime. In these spousal murder cases or what some experts call “family annihilation,” defense attorneys almost always talk about how the character of the accused is not evidence. However, as shown in this case, it indicates motive and sways juries. Legal experts, when people say there is “only circumstantial evidence”, isn’t it true that many people are convicted based on such evidence?
Sometimes circumstancial evidence can be stronger than physical evidence, and in this case it was super strong. His bad attitude was only the tip of the iceberg, the one that public saw, but it wasn’t the reason why he was arrested and convicted. I don’t think anyone who actually reads the court transcripts could have any doubts about his guilt.
It’s telling that a) no move for a new trial is being made through normal procedures b) no input or support from any advocacy groups, such as, say, The Innocence Project. But, whatever.
KA-CHING
Guilty as sin, that one.
I watch a lot of true crime & I remember keeping up with this case as it happened. If I remember correctly, Scott “went fishing” on the same lake they found Lacey’s body in, correct? If he’s not guilty then he must be the most unlucky person ever.
I also recall that he was supposedly fishing at the same lake too.
Or if someone else killed her then they knew just where to place her body. Not enough evidence to convict from what I have read.
He first said he’d gone golfing but since he was seen at the lake where the bodies were later found, he had to change his story and say he went fishing, even though police found his fishing gear unused (some still in its packages) and he was unable to even say what he was fishing for.
I love how his defense team writes off the fact that Scott taking his boat all the way to the bay area where she was found and all the tools/items he bought and brought with him was “circumstantial”. This is why “circumstantial evidence” is presented to a jury of our peers and they get to decide. I also understand that it is only professional that Geragos upholds a public belief in the innocence of his client due to his job as his defense attorney, and it would damage his reputation to say anything otherwise about Scott. What attorney would come out and say, “Yeah, in hindsight I think he totally did it…” or even a hint that his opinion on the case isn’t relevant? He’d never get a big case in this country again; that’s career suicide.
That’s the first thing I thought when I read Geragos’ statement. He’s never going to admit that he lost one because someone was just guilty as heck and convicted. I was living in northern California at the time of this case, and it was wrenching. She was killed two days before Christmas. I remember how the news cycle just blew up when joggers found her remains on the beach a few months later. He almost got away with it. Just take a look at the evidence, such as his computer researches of local bodies of water, newfound interest in fishing and a strand of her hair in pliers in his boat. And of course, his shady behavior with his girlfriend Amber Frey; she thought he was single, and as early as December 9th (Laci was still alive), he told her that he was a widower who would be spending his first Christmas alone. Now what are the chances she would just happen to disappear three weeks later?? It is a horrible crime, and I just wish that they would not do another documentary on this one, as I believe Peterson craves the fame and attention.
I too love a true crime story but this one just guts me. I was pregnant with my first son when Lacy was heartlessly murdered by her husband and honestly, it’s still too fresh in my mind.
I was exactly the same amount of pregnant as Lacy and I also had a son. I remember how horrified I was at the news of their disappearance. I still think of her and Conor. My own son is 14 and the apple of my eye. Scott Peterson is an awful, awful man.
Mark Geragos looked like a fool defending Scott Peterson back then, and he sounds like a fool now.
Sometimes the job of the defense team can be nothing more than making sure their client gets a fair trial, because some clients are GUILTY. Geragos needs to shut it. He’s making good lawyers look bad.
He did not look like a fool at all. He did his job and the evidence against Peterson is lacking. Jury should not have convicted him.
i think more of these shows are going to say they’re revealing evidence which may grant a new trial since that’s exactly what happened for Brendan Dassey in Making a Murderer. The fact that the system was so corrupt in that particular case means networks can use the same language to lure people in to watch, even if the substance is lacking. Peterson’s case was covered by the national media—had there been some gross abuse of process such as with Dassey, it would’ve been caught long ago.
I’ll be watching because I’m dying to see what ridiculous way they try to spin this. He was so obviously guilty that it was almost hilarious, even though it wasn’t. This case really got to me and I still think about her mother Sharon and what that poor woman suffered.
Exactly. If I watch it will be with intention of mentally shredding whatever nonsense they’re presenting as “new evidence.” Guilty, guilty, guilty.
I want to say thank you to celebitchy for these kind of stories. I’ve been coming to this site almost every day since 2010 for my daily dose of gossip but stories like this and other political stuff helps me a lot too. I’m not very political. I’m not even American but I appreciate these stuff a lot.
When you guys covered JonBenet Ramsey, it opened my eyes truly. I never heard of the case before I read it here. What I’m really saying if you look past this word salad is Thank You for these true crime stories… I somehow find myself enjoying them more than actual gossip
I have mixed feelings about these documentary . In the Steven Avery case I think it was important . There was some serious issues with his case that needed to be looked at and at the very least he should get a new trial . In the Peterson case, there is no question in my mind that he did it and all this rehashing is painful for Lacy’s family.
Disagree about Steve Avery, I think he is exactly where he should be. I was incredibly angry after I watched that documentary and then found out how much had been left out leaving viewers to be manipulated by the views of the documentary makers. It will be interesting to see how this Peterson documentary is handled and I hope it is done fairly, not like the Avery one.
Peterson, too is guilty as sin.
I’m still on the fence about Avery but Dassey was the bigger story in terms of gross abuse of justice in Making a Murderer.
Omg Connor would be around 14 now. Thats so crazy to imagine.
@ GENE123- that makes me cry, 14 yo! Sooo sad. I remember Susan, Laci’s mom, vigorously defending Scott when the body was found. God, what a nightmare. I live an hour away fro San Francisco, so this case hit too close to home. Nope. Can’t watch/won’t watch.
ETA: Laci’s mom, SHARON, sorry.
Okay: 1) Peterson is guilty. Like someone else said at least the Avery case there was something to work with and the fact a second questionable person, Dassey, was involved. 2) This case/murderer has been reexamined I don’t know how many times via Discovery ID, Dateline, Reelz, and many other crime channels. There never seems to be any new information.
But I am a true crime junkie so most likely I will end up watching it. :-/
I never knew how to feel about that case, I mean Awful YES for her for her family for the kid, But About Scott, unlike other of these wife’ killers ( you know the types, the stories, too many to recount, But they either confess, cover their tracks poorly, commit suicide etc ) this one is still claiming his innocence, was this all purely circumstantial and because he was a POS? I remember vaguely following this case but truly being turned off by that aspect of it like, Yes he is scum but my trust in authorities is at a smooth 0% now, then was a 20%, so is this a Bozo being railroaded or is this a cold hearted murderer? I don’t have any answers, I just know these types of cases bring out the mob of Tut tutting and blind rage more than others (See: the utter disgust for Casey Anthony, just Rage and basically all of us trying to one up each other in calling her scum)
I’ll watch it. I’m not a true crime junkie in that I’m very selective about which stories I will watch but I’ll watch this one. I remember when it was taking place.
I’ve really enjoyed -so to speak- The Killing Fields t.v. series. It just wrapped season 2.
“Killing Fields is a true-crime thriller that follows a team of homicide detectives as they open an 18-year-old cold case that occurred in one of America’s notorious body-dumping grounds, the Louisiana swamplands.” – Discovery channel
They cover other cold cases as well.
Do you remember the movie Bernie starring Black Jack and Shirley MacLaine ? That’s a good true-crime movie. I read not long ago that the real killer was recently released from prison but he’s about 150 years old.
I do remember this case and I think there was a lot of evidence that all pointed to Scott. He was such a smarmy jerk. RIP Lacey and Conor.
Yes, smarmy. He reminds me very much of Ben Affleck. They have the same smarmy grin.
Why is this case in Snapped? Scott Peterson didn’t snap. He planned his wife’s murder for weeks.
I missed it 🙁