Comparing the Scott Peterson Peacock Docuseries to Netflix’s Laci Peterson One

In 2004, 12 jurors — backed by a horde of blood-thirsty Americans, who had followed the case on television day and night — found Scott Peterson guilty of the murders of his wife, Laci, and their unborn son, Connor. Twenty years later, the convicted murderer is back before the court of public opinion with two new docuseries, with starkly opposing points of view, aimed at relitigating the case and swaying streaming audiences. But the projects have also arrived as new efforts are being made to overturn one of the most scrutinized convictions of the century.

On Aug. 14, Netflix dropped “American Murder: Laci Peterson,” which unpacks the true-crime story that electrified the nation in the early aughts when an eight-months-pregnant Laci went missing on Christmas Eve 2002. Over the next five months, Americans debated whether her husband, Scott, had anything to do with her disappearance, until the bodies of Laci and her baby (who had been born subsequent to her death) washed up in the lake where Scott had gone boating on the day she vanished. He was subsequently tried and convicted of the murders in 2004. Just in its title, the series shows where it places its emphasis, making no attempt to conceal its support of the convictions and sympathy for Laci and Connor, for whom it is dedicated in its final frame.

Less than a week later, on Aug. 20, Peacock debuted “Face to Face With Scott Peterson,” a three-episode series touted as the first prison interview with Scott, who is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole (he was previously sentenced to death before it was overturned). It has been 21 years since Scott infamously spoke to the press in an attempt to defend himself against mounting allegations, a media blitz so disastrous that it only fortified the suspicions of him. Scott’s presence in Peacock’s series is simultaneously robust and inconsequential, with investigative journalist and director Shareen Anderson conducting numerous interviews with him 15 minutes at a time over video call. He recounts Laci’s disappearance, the trial and his internalized anguish in regard to what he calls overlooked evidence. But his sudden willingness to be so chatty comes with its own motive. The Los Angeles Innocence Project, which works to exonerate wrongfully convicted individuals, surprisingly announced earlier this year it was assisting Scott Peterson in the efforts to advocate for DNA evidence testing they believe will exonerate him. In other words, he stands to benefit from any new light shed on the case.

Viewing the two documentaries one after the other, it’s hard not to feel like we’re stuck in a time warp, watching this case be tried once again with a defense, a prosecution and a Greek chorus of talking heads. The Netflix documentary has its key witnesses for the defense in Laci’s mother, Sharon Rocha, and several of her friends. It also has Amber Frey, the woman with whom Scott was having an affair at the time of Laci’s death. Frey, who seems to live a relatively quiet life today, 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 that swayed the jury to conviction, as members of the jury concede in both docs.

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

If you are looking for a complete retelling of the case, Netflix’s documentary is far more comprehensive in its approach. It charts Laci and Scott’s early lives, the couple’s relationship, the initial first impressions of Scott from her family members, the difference of opinion in having children and the case as it unfolded. With access to Laci’s family, there are home movies of her, and a key breakdown from her friends of the now-infamous photo of a pregnant Laci flashing her thousand-watt smile at a Christmas party days before her death. It also has Modesto detectives Al Brocchini and Jon Buehler, talking about their investigation, particularly how they worked with Amber to record phone calls where Scott continued to lie about being married even after Laci went missing. Among the calls featured in the series is one where he faked a trip to Paris for New Years Eve 2003, all while searching for Laci.

Netflix and director Skye Borgman deliver a documentary that reinforces the convicted case built against Scott 20 years ago, while giving Laci a voice at the center of it. But it can do all of that without the burden of hiding its empathy and support for her family. Since Scott’s been convicted, it 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. Across the first two episodes, the series walks through the case, while constantly nurturing the seed of doubt it places at the beginning that Scott is innocent. That is what makes the Peacock series feel so blunt in its favor of Scott’s innocence –– even if the trailer bafflingly suggests it will let “you decide.” Actually watching the series, it’s clear it has no plans to hide that it operates from a place of skepticism. Anderson is open and direct about her bias, saying she started researching the case convinced Scott was guilty and now isn’t so sure. She also quite literally rides shotgun with Janey as she continues her crusade to save Scott. While familiar faces populate Anderson’s take, people like Brocchini and Buehler, aren’t here to recount their investigation, but rather defend it. If anyone is on trial in “Face to Face With Scott Peterson,” it is the detectives, the media and the public at large 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 possibly under-investigated leads like 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 an alive-and-well 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 find its way into the hands of detectives or the courts in time.

Again though, 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 his defense, and they didn’t. Anderson and her subjects lay the blame for that at the feet of the police for discrediting witnesses and failing to follow up on leads, which the detectives wholeheartedly deny.

But Scott’s interviews, while interesting, raise the question: Has he spent 20 years training himself to be better in front of a camera than he was in 2003? Back then, he gave the likes of Diane Sawyer, among others, an interview that made him look cold, calculated and divorced from reality. Today, Scott comes off as slightly more charming, giving glimpses of the man that Laci’s family initially defended to the world when she first disappeared. But does it matter? The possible evidence is all he has left, and the L.A. Innocence Project lost its May 2024 attempt to get court-mandated DNA testing on 17 pieces, including the blood from the supposed burglary van. It is awaiting another ruling from the judge.

As docuseries go, is one more deceptive than the other? Is reminding people why a jury found him guilty better than showing them all the reasons why some people believe he is innocent? Neither gives the full picture, nor can they in three episodes. Netflix homes in on Laci’s legacy and Scott’s affair with Amber Frey, but devotes less time to the alternate theories. Those theories are the backbone of Peacock’s effort, but it is startlingly slim on the mountain of circumstantial evidence that made him the target from day one. Notably, it spends very little time in the Amber Frey of it all.

Two documentaries on the same subject coming out within days of each other is not unheard of in the current streaming wars. But these two could not feel more like vestiges of the divided national mood in 2004, when America argued over whether Scott Peterson did or didn’t do it. Netflix validates those who still to this day condemn Scott without a shred of doubt. Peacock hopes time has driven cracks in that resolute kind of thinking. Unfortunately, the latter’s motive in championing an American-made villain’s second chance will always be the tougher sell.