Scott Peterson is Innocent

Or not.  Does this really matter to anyone outside of Scott and Laci’s family?  If so, why?  How are you affected by the events in Modesto and Redwood City  (and the bay)?

I understand why that kook who drowned her kids was newsworthy in a heartwrenching OMFG kind of way.  (And yes, I know there is a fundamentalist subtext going on.) Same with the guy who drove over his kid in the leaf pile.  “Daddy I can’t breathe” still makes me tear up if I allow myself to think about it too much.  Why is the Peterson case as compelling, or more compelling?

Somebody ‘splain it to me.

4 thoughts on “Scott Peterson is Innocent

  1. Because we are facinated that a white, good-looking couple that appeared to be living the American Dream could fall so far into the abyss of selfishness, infidelity, and finally, murder. Our facination/fear is that if it could happen to them, it could happen to us.
    OTOH, if they were a black or Hispanic couple, the story wouldn’t have gone beyond the local news.
    Blame the media–but who feeds the media? We do.
    (After reading of it in the intial stages, I refused to follow this story until now–at it’s end hopefully. Luridness and the horror of a pregnant woman murdered on Christmas Eve just doesn’t do it for me.)
    Sorry for the tone of this comment; it reflects my disgust with the whole media circus and those of us that perpetuate it.

  2. I sometimes deal with stories like this in an indirect, after the fact sort of way. I’m not insensitive to the horror, but I have some familiarity with bastard hubby kills wife and kids. It’s just tragic and evil/reckless, not sexy. (I of course mean “sexy” in a newsworthy sort of way). It’s not a headscratcher like Andrea Yates. I totally understand the “Our fascination/fear is that if it could happen to them, it could happen to us” argument with the pile of leaves dad.
    On the other side, I know a guy who was accused of a similar act involving his mother in law. I cannot conceive of anything except completer innocence in that case, so I sort of involuntarily detach myself from these things. I can see the potential for innocence where my coworkers cannot. (One secretary had a husband murdered, so she’s all rah rah about the guilty verdict).
    I don’t know. I guess we get the twisted media we deserve.

  3. Because of the excessive media, I know some vague facts about the case. I was mildly interested when jurors were tossed off the jury. But I hate to admit it, the only reason I was even mildly interested is because of Scott’s looks. It’s like what Cyn said: We are all amazed that someone so handsome and “all-american” can end up as a murderer, of his own pregnant wife at that. No history of battery, no sordid tales of economic ruin… why did he do it? My view of criminals, white or black, hispanic, etc., usually includes a criminal history and a general disheveled-ness. These are people who are one big pile of mess. Scott Peterson doesn’t seem like he had any of that usual mess. I’m fascinated. I really want to know what happened, and not just “he was having an affair.” It’s too simple of an explanation. What makes the mess in his head any different from mine? How will we know if our daughters are marrying psychotics if those nice people couldn’t tell about Scott? It’s terrifying.

  4. What is scary for me is figuring out what choice and choices ultimately turn Barbie & Ken into Scott and Laci. Or Charlie and Sharon. Or, more on point, Scott and Yamila. Nobody starts out as a murderer. (Well, maybe Charlie had a destiny.) People change, and people make choices which lead to change they didn’t anticipate. Some people apparently have latent defects, and I don’t know if they are prewired or just appear. I don’t think you can live life worrying about the latent stuff. Maybe people could tell that Scott was a selfish prick, but how could anyone extrapolate from that that he would be so selfish that he would choose murder over a messy divorce, child support, alimony lawyer bills?

Leave a Reply