Comparing Scott Peterson's Peacock documentary series with Netflix's Laci Peterson One

In 2004, 12 jurors — aided by a horde of bloodthirsty Americans who had been watching the case day and night on television — found Scott Peterson guilty of murdering his wife, Laci, and their unborn son, Connor. Twenty years later, the convicted killer is back in the court of public opinion with two new docuseries with polar opposite viewpoints designed to re-open the case and win over streaming audiences. But the projects also come at a time when new efforts are being made to overturn one of the most questioned convictions of the century.

On August 14, Netflix released American Murder: Laci Peterson, a true crime story that electrified the nation in the early 2000s when eight-months pregnant Laci vanished on Christmas Eve 2002. For 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 (born after her death) washed up in the lake where Scott had been boating the day she disappeared. He was tried and convicted of the murders in 2004. The series' title alone indicates where its focus lies, and makes no attempt to hide its support of the convictions and its sympathy for Laci and Connor, to whom it dedicates the final image.

Less than a week later, on Aug. 20, Peacock premiered “Face to Face With Scott Peterson,” a three-part 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 the verdict was overturned). It’s been 21 years since Scott spoke to the press to defend himself against the mounting allegations, a media campaign so devastating that it only increased suspicions against him. Scott’s presence in Peacock’s series is simultaneously powerful and inconsequential, as investigative journalist and director Shareen Anderson conducts numerous interviews with him, each lasting 15 minutes, via video call. He recounts Laci’s disappearance, the trial and his internalized anguish regarding what he describes as overlooked evidence. But his sudden willingness to be so talkative has its own reasons. The Los Angeles Innocence Project, which works to rehabilitate the wrongfully convicted, made a surprise announcement earlier this year that it is supporting Scott Peterson in his efforts to push for DNA evidence that it believes will exonerate him. In other words, he will benefit from any new light that is shed on the case.

Watching the two documentaries back to back is like being caught in a time loop, watching this case be retried, with a defense, a prosecution, and a Greek chorus of commentators. The defense's main witnesses in the Netflix documentary are Laci's mother, Sharon Rocha, and several of her friends. Also included is Amber Frey, the woman Scott was having an affair with at the time of Laci's death. Frey, who seems to lead 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 who moved the jury to convict, as jury members admit in both documentaries.

The Peacock series features Scott's sister-in-law Janey Peterson, who became a lawyer after his conviction and has worked tirelessly to clear his name ever since. She appears in both documentaries, but is put front and center in Peacock to speak in his defense. The series also features other legal experts and investigators, such as Mike Gudgell, who challenge his conviction largely on circumstantial evidence. Legal analyst Chris Pixley sums up their case: “There is so much reasonable doubt that we're still talking about it today.” But most importantly, it features Scott, who says he regrets not testifying in 2004, although the series mentions that his legal team considered him a risk behind closed doors after an apparently ill-fated mock trial. Now, he says, “I have a chance to show people the truth, and if they accept that, that 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 far more comprehensive in its approach, tracing Laci and Scott's early lives, the couple's relationship, her family members' first impressions of Scott, their disagreements about children, and how the case unfolded. With access to Laci's family, there are home videos of her and a key analysis by her friends of the now-infamous photo of pregnant Laci flashing her bright smile at a Christmas party just days before her death. Plus, Modesto detectives Al Brocchini and Jon Buehler talk about their investigation, particularly how they worked with Amber to record phone calls in which Scott continued to lie about his marriage even after Laci disappeared. Calls featured in the series include one in which he faked a trip to Paris for New Year's Eve 2003 while also searching for Laci.

Netflix and director Skye Borgman deliver a documentary that reinforces the charges brought against Scott 20 years ago while giving Laci a voice at the center. But the film can do all of this without having to hide its sympathy and support for her family. Because Scott was convicted, it doesn't need to preface its position with “allegedly.”

By contrast, Peacock's documentary seems to be carried by the words “maybe,” “could,” and “would have.” Anderson previously worked for A&E on 2017's “The Murder of Laci Peterson,” but here she shifts her focus from the past to the present. In the first two episodes, the series goes through the case, constantly feeding the doubt it sows at the beginning that Scott is innocent. That's what makes the Peacock series seem so outspoken in its advocacy of Scott's innocence — even if the trailer confusingly suggests it's “letting you decide.” When you actually watch the series, it's clear that it has no intention of hiding the fact that it's coming from a position of skepticism. Anderson is open and direct about her bias, saying she began researching the case convinced that Scott was guilty and is now not so sure. She also sits literally next to Janey as she continues her crusade to save Scott. While familiar faces populate Anderson's version, people like Brocchini and Buehler aren't here to recount their investigation, but to defend it. If anyone is on trial in “Face to Face With Scott Peterson,” it's the investigators, the media, and the general public for believing they're the perpetrator.

In fact, the entire third episode is devoted to unraveling inconsistencies in the charges and the verdict, going point by point through a list of possibly under-investigated leads, like the break-in across the street from the Petersons, the van with the blood-stained mattress, the pawned watch, and the numerous witnesses who said they saw a viable Laci walking her dog after Scott left for his boating trip. Anderson stands with Laney in her house as she presents the evidence she hopes will get into the hands of investigators or the court in time.

But here too, the burden is on Anderson's shoulders, because Scott's legal team, led at the time by Mark Geragos, had the opportunity to use all of the points raised in the documentary in his defense, and they did not do so. Anderson and her protagonists blame the police for discrediting witnesses and failing to follow up on leads, which investigators strongly deny.

But Scott's interviews, while interesting, raise the question: Has he spent 20 years training himself to be better on camera than he did in 2003? Back then, he gave an interview to the likes of Diane Sawyer and others that made him seem cold, calculating and out of touch with reality. Today, Scott seems a bit more charming, offering insight into the man Laci's family initially defended from the world when she first disappeared. But does it matter? The potential evidence is all it has left, and the LA Innocence Project lost its May 2024 attempt to obtain court-ordered DNA testing on 17 items, including the blood from the alleged burglary car. It awaits another decision from the judge.

Is one docuseries more misleading than the other? Is it better to remind people why a jury found him guilty than to show them all the reasons why some people think he's innocent? Neither series shows the full picture, and they can't in three episodes. Netflix focuses on Laci's legacy and Scott's affair with Amber Frey, but devotes less time to the alternative theories. Those theories form the backbone of Peacock's effort, but they are shockingly thin considering the mountain of circumstantial evidence that made him a target from day one. Notably, the series spends very little time on Amber Frey.

Having two documentaries on the same subject come out within days of each other is not uncommon in the current streaming war. But these two couldn't feel more like remnants of the divided national mood in 2004, when America argued over whether or not Scott Peterson did it. Netflix vindicates those who condemn Scott to this day without a shadow of a doubt. Peacock hopes that time has put cracks in that determined mindset. Unfortunately, the latter's motive of giving an American-made villain a second chance is going to be an increasingly difficult sell.