in

Here Are All The Facts You Probably Don’t Know About Laci Peterson’s Murder

California Department Of Corrections; Scott is pictured above in a mugshot

Throughout the entire trial, Scott did not appear to show any remorse or look like someone who had just lost his family. When he spoke, he appeared unconcerned. Certainly not upset or sad.

The prosecution suspected that Scott murdered Laci in cold blood so that he could get to her $250,000 life insurance policy.

The evidence that the police had was just one hair. It had been discovered in Scott’s pliers on his boat, and it was thought to be Laci’s hair.

The prosecution continued by saying that other evidence to suggest Scott was the one who did this was that he sold Laci’s Land Rover immediately after she disappeared.

Very strange for a husband to do that. He must not expect her to return. Scott also had wanted to sell the house he lived in with Laci.

Prosecutors went on to lay out that Scott apparently had mounting financial troubles. He had just started seeing Amber and wanted to live the single life. They thought this was enough motive for him to murder his wife.

Jurors later found Scott guilty in the murder of both Laci and Conner. Judge Alfred A. Delucchi, the judge on the case, said that the murder of Laci was just “cruel, uncaring, heartless, and callous.”

Members who sat on the jury during Scott’s trial later revealed to the media that although there wasn’t a concrete stack of evidence, the “hundreds of small ‘puzzle pieces’ of circumstantial evidence that were revealed during the trial, from the location of Laci’s body to the myriad lies her husband told after her disappearance” were enough to help them decide he was guilty of her murder and that of Conner’s as well.

Scott was sentenced to death, but last year, a court ordered that Scott should have a new trial for sentencing after it was determined that the original trial judge “made a series of clear and significant errors in jury selection that, under the long-standing United States Supreme Court precedent, undermined Peterson’s right to an impartial jury at the penalty phase.”

5 of 6