Compare the Scott Peterson Peacock docuseries to Netflix’s Laci Peterson One

In 2004, twelve jurors – supported by a horde of bloodthirsty Americans who had watched the case day and night on television – found Scott Peterson guilty of the murder of his wife Laci and their unborn son Connor. Twenty years later, the convicted murderer is back in the court of public opinion with two new docuseries, with starkly opposing viewpoints, aimed at re-arguing the case and influencing streaming audiences. But the projects have also come as new efforts are underway to undo one of the most scrutinized beliefs of the century.

On August 14, Netflix released “American Murder: Laci Peterson,” which reveals the true crime story that roiled the nation in its early years when an eight-month pregnant Laci went missing on Christmas Eve 2002. Americans debated whether her husband, Scott, had anything to do with her disappearance, until the bodies of Laci and her baby (born after her death) washed up in the lake where Scott had gone boating the day she disappeared . He was subsequently tried and convicted for the murders in 2004. In its title alone, the series shows where the emphasis is placed, making no attempt to express its support for the convictions and sympathy for Laci and Connor, to whom the series is dedicated ordered to hide. last frame.

Less than a week later, on August 20, Peacock debuted “Face to Face With Scott Peterson,” a three-episode series that was touted as the first prison interview with Scott, who is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole (he had previously been sentenced to death before it was destroyed). It’s been 21 years since Scott infamously spoke to the press in an attempt to defend himself against mounting accusations, a media blitz so disastrous that it only deepened suspicions against him. Scott’s presence in Peacock’s series is at once robust and inconsequential, with investigative journalist and director Shareen Anderson conducting numerous interviews with him, 15 minutes at a time, via video call. He talks about Laci’s disappearance, the trial and his internalized fear regarding what he calls overlooked evidence. But his sudden willingness to be so talkative has its own motive. The Los Angeles Innocence Project, which seeks to exonerate wrongfully convicted individuals, made a surprise announcement earlier this year that it would assist Scott Peterson in efforts to advocate for the testing of DNA evidence that they believe will exonerate him. In other words, he will benefit from any new light shed on the matter.

Watching the two documentaries back to back, it’s hard not to feel like we’re in a time warp as we watch this case being retried with a defense, a prosecution, and a Greek chorus of talking heads. The Netflix documentary features Laci’s mother, Sharon Rocha, and several of her friends as key witnesses for the defense. It also features Amber Frey, the woman Scott was having an affair with at the time of Laci’s death. Frey, who seems to live a relatively quiet life these days, became a tabloid sensation during the trial, as the public tried to understand whether she was a knowing mistress or an innocent victim of Scott’s deception. Ultimately, she was the witness who led the jury to convict, as the jurors admit in both documents.

The Peacock series features Scott’s sister-in-law Janey Peterson, who became a lawyer after his conviction and has since worked hard to clear his name. She appears in both documentaries, but is positioned centrally by Peacock to speak in his defense. That series also features other legal experts and researchers like Mike Gudgell, who question his conviction largely based on circumstantial evidence. As legal analyst Chris Pixley summarizes their case: “There’s so much reasonable doubt that we’re still talking about it today.” But most importantly, Scott, who says he regrets not testifying in 2004, though the series notes that his legal team viewed him as a liability after what appears to be an ill-fated mock trial conducted behind closed doors. Now he says, “I have an opportunity to show people what the truth is and if they accept it, it will be the greatest thing I can accomplish right now.”

If you’re looking for a full retelling of the case, Netflix’s documentary is much more comprehensive in its approach. It charts Laci and Scott’s early lives, the couple’s relationship, Scott’s early first impressions of her family members, the disagreement over having children, and the case as it unfolded. With access to Laci’s family, there are home videos of her, and an important overview from her friends about the now infamous photo of a pregnant Laci flashing her thousand-watt smile at a Christmas party days before her death. Modesto Detectives Al Brocchini and Jon Buehler also talk about their investigation, specifically how they worked with Amber to record phone conversations in which Scott continued to lie about his marriage even after Laci went missing. One of the phone calls in the series is one in which he faked a trip to Paris for New Year’s Eve 2003 while looking for Laci.

Netflix and director Skye Borgman deliver a documentary that strengthens the convicted case built against Scott twenty years ago, while giving Laci a voice. But it can do all that without the burden of hiding its empathy and support for her family. Since Scott was convicted, the company doesn’t have to preface its position with “allegedly.”

Conversely, Peacock’s documentary is seemingly sponsored by the words ‘possibly’, ‘could’ and ‘might have’. Anderson previously worked on 2017’s “The Murder of Laci Peterson” for A&E, but here she shifts her focus from the past to the present. Throughout the first two episodes, the series moves through the case, constantly nurturing the seed of doubt placed at the beginning of it that Scott is innocent. That’s what makes the Peacock series so blunt in favor of Scott’s innocence — even as the trailer bafflingly suggests that “you decide.” When you actually watch the series, it’s clear that it has no intention of hiding the fact that it operates from a place of skepticism. Open and direct about her bias, Anderson says she started investigating the case believing Scott was guilty and now she’s not so sure. She also literally rides along with Janey as she continues her crusade to save Scott. While familiar faces populate Anderson’s vision, people like Brocchini and Buehler are not here to talk about their research, but to defend it. If anyone is on trial on “Face to Face With Scott Peterson,” it’s the detectives, the media and the general public for believing he did it.

In fact, the entire third episode is devoted to poking holes in the prosecution’s case and the conviction, going point by point through a list of potentially underexplored leads, such as the burglary across the street from the Petersons, the van with a blood-stained mattress, the pawned watch and the multiple witnesses who said they saw a living Laci walking their dog after Scott left on his boat trip. Anderson stands with Laney in her home as she lays out the evidence she hopes will make it into the hands of detectives or the court in time.

But once again the burden rests on Anderson’s shoulders, because Scott’s legal team, led at the time by Mark Geragos, had the opportunity to use all the points the documentary makes in their defense, and they didn’t. Anderson and her subjects lay the blame for this on the police, who discredited witnesses and failed to follow up on leads, which the detectives vehemently deny.

But Scott’s interviews, while interesting, beg the question: Did he spend twenty years training himself to be better in front of a camera than he was in 2003? At the time, he gave interviews to people like Diane Sawyer, among others, that made him look cold, calculated and disconnected from reality. These days, Scott comes across as a little more charming, providing a glimpse of the man who initially defended Laci’s family to the world when she first disappeared. But does it matter? The possible evidence is all he has left, and the LA Innocence Project lost its May 2024 attempt to get court-ordered DNA testing on 17 exhibits, including the blood from the alleged burglary van. We are waiting for a new ruling from the judge.

Is one more deceptive than the other, as docuseries say? Is it better to remind people why a jury found him guilty than to show them all the reasons why some people think he is innocent? Neither gives the full picture, and neither can they in three episodes. Netflix delves deeper into Laci’s legacy and Scott’s affair with Amber Frey, but spends less time on the alternative theories. Those theories form the backbone of Peacock’s efforts, but they are surprisingly thin on the mountain of circumstantial evidence that made him a target from day one. Notably, it spends very little time in the Amber Frey of it all.

Two documentaries on the same subject released within days of each other is not unheard of in today’s streaming wars. But these two couldn’t have felt more like remnants of the divided national mood of 2004, when America was arguing over whether or not Scott Peterson did it. Netflix validates those who still condemn Scott without question to this day. Peacock hopes time has created cracks in that single-minded thinking. Unfortunately, in defending an American villain’s second chance, the latter’s motive will always be the tougher sell.