August 18, 2024

American Murder: Laci Peterson and what makes a true-crime case indelible

the true crime that's worth your time

The crime
On or around December 24, 2002, Laci Peterson – eight months pregnant with her and her husband Scott's first child, a son they'd already named Conner – vanished in Modesto, CA. Laci and Conner's bodies were discovered, a mile apart, in April of 2003, at which time the suspicions that had swirled with increasing intensity around Scott reached terminal velocity.

[read the rest here, or get a paid subscription to see all content in your inbox in its entirety!]

Scott Peterson was convicted of the murders of his wife and son in 2004. Various post-conviction relief efforts remain in progress. Scott has never wavered in his claims of complete innocence.

The story
American Murder: Laci Peterson, a three-part Skye Borgman joint that hit Netflix a few days ago, is classic Borgman, what I called "pretty typical Borgman content" in a review of Girl in the Picture from 2022: "a wild and nauseatingly scuzzy story, professionally built to keep drawing the viewer forward before they think to Google the case."

It's unlikely anyone needs to Google this case, of course, but for viewers who don't know or remember the particulars well, AM:LP is also typical Borgman content in that it's an expertly assembled and paced overview. Usually, though, Borgman is taking the audience through a lesser-known case; the murder of Laci and Conner is probably in the top ten most searched true-crime stories of all time. I did find myself wondering what attracted her to a story this high-profile.

But that's not a huge mystery (it's her job, that's what the money is for, etc.), so from there, I started wondering how she'd tackle other major-case stories – specifically, ones the Peterson case overlaps with, each in a different key aspect that has contributed to its becoming a cultural preoccupation. Going in chronological order:

The Lizzie Borden case // Aside from, well, being murders, the two cases have almost nothing in common – not means, not time period, not trial outcome – but what they do share is a "Schrodinger's prime suspect" quality. In other words, in both instances, it can't be the accused, but it also can't not be the accused at the same time. In both instances, you have squishy timelines, circumstantial evidence that doesn't fit anywhere, inappropriate affect that isn't probative…and a lack of any other credible suspects. 

Various redditors, not to mention Scott Peterson's family, would disagree with that last assertion, and they could be correct; in both cases, the alternate theories sound outlandish, but not that much more outlandish than the majority view of what happened.

The Jeffrey MacDonald case // This one overlaps a little further; both feature pregnant victims, and defendants who may have felt deep and disordered ambivalence about the kids/dog/picket-fence roads they'd started down. (Not to mention in-laws who resolutely tried to keep believing them despite "off-label" manifestations of grief.) Jeffrey MacDonald is hardly the only other cheaty major-case narcissist who made up a bullshitty story he couldn't keep straight, then took it on TV thinking he could control the narrative, and bet way wrong. 

But when it comes to a murder case going supernova in the culture, never underestimate the power of a blandly handsome dickhead who's apparently oblivious to how he's perceived. It's not against the law to be an asshole, but if you are an asshole and you go to trial for something that is against the law, never underestimate the ability of a jury to thread that needle, and not in your favor.

The JonBenét Ramsey case // Both stories involve children, and happened at Christmastime. They don't share much else, but John Douglas and others have noted that that's part of why the media seized on each tragedy – there's not a whole lot else to report at that time of year, and the holiday force-multiplies the poignancy. I found it striking that a profiler interviewed in AM:LP said Scott Peterson "seemed to sincerely believe" that Laci's friends and family would "lose interest" in her disappearance after a few weeks; I'd never heard it put quite that way before, and it goes some distance toward explaining his choices in the aftermath.

But to think that and to believe that disappearing her during the most family- and community-oriented time of the year would just…blow over by, like, MLK Day?

None of these overlaps suggests per se that Borgman should tackle these cases, or other cases like them – I'm just wool-gathering about what makes a given crime story endure when another might not, and about the overlap between those qualities and the qualities of a Borgman project.

And none of that really tells you whether you should bother with American Murder: Laci Peterson, either, so I'll do that now – if you've followed the case closely, it's superfluous, but if you need to catch up before the Peacock series this week, it's Borgman's usual solidly diverting output.