Scott Peterson Claims New Evidence of Unborn Son Connor's 'Actual Time of Death' Will Prove He's Innocent — As Convicted Killer Doing All He Can to Taste Freedom Again
Scott Peterson is still trying to convince everyone he did not kill his wife.
May 1 2025, Published 2:45 p.m. ET
Scott Peterson is throwing everything on the wall to see what sticks as he's now claiming his unborn son didn't exactly die when prosecutors originally said he did.
The convicted killer's infamous case is back under the spotlight after the Los Angeles Innocence Project grabbed it, as the organization does not believe he killed his pregnant wife Laci back in 2002, RadarOnline.com can reveal.
Scott was convicted of his pregnant wife Laci's murder in 2004.
In a new petition filed, Scott once again declared his innocence and offered up many different reasons, including a new theory on the two victims' time of death.
According to the new evidence, fetal testing predicted the couple's unborn son Connor and Laci's deaths to have occurred between December 28, 2002 and January 5, 2003, which contradicts prosecutors' information which had their passings as December 24, 2002 – the same day she went missing.
Based on this theory, the nonprofit organization believes there is no way Scott could have killed his wife as he had already been pulled into the investigation by December 28.
Scott's team claims pregnant Laci and their unborn son Connor's time of death is different than originally noted.
TV personality and legal commentator Nancy Grace wasn't all about this new claim and went off on TMZ's 2 Angry Men podcast: "Laci’s doctor was wrong and they're right 20 years later? You tell that to a jury and see what happens."
She theorized: "He did dump the body on the 24th. He places himself at the location. It wasn’t until later that the search began and based on the major storm and the tides, that’s when the body washed up. It’s not really that hard."
Laci, just 27 years old at the time, was reported missing on Christmas Eve 2002. Nearly four months later, only her torso was found along the Point Isabel shoreline in the San Francisco Bay.
Laci was pregnant with the couple's son, Connor, when she was murdered.
A day earlier, the body of a male fetus was seen near the same spot – later confirmed to be her son, Conner.
Scott was arrested and charged with both murders days later. He was 30 years old. While he was sentenced to death in 2004, he was re-sentenced to life in prison without parole in 2021.
In the new petition, the now 52-year-old doubled-down on his innocence and cried: "I had absolutely nothing to do with the disappearance and deaths of my wife and son. I am not a violent person."
The convicted murderer and his legal team do offer up a bizarre theory, however, on who may have actually killed the expecting mother: they think she was murdered by two burglars – Steven Todd and Donald Pearce – after she witnessed their crime.
"There was a burglary across the street from our home. And I believe Laci went over there to see what was going on, and that’s when she was taken," Scott claimed during a recent video call from Mule Creek State Prison in Ione, California.
He continued: "Todd and Pearce, the two that we know burgled the house across the street, We don’t know who else was in that burglary. We know there were others."
Never Miss an
Daily updates from the heart of Hollywood, right to your inbox
By entering your email and clicking Sign Up, you’re agreeing to let us send you customized marketing messages about us and our advertising partners. You are also agreeing to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
In his fight for his release, Scott claims two burglars actually killed Laci.
"There was no desire to pursue the evidence that was in front of them. It was the evidence they just decided to ignore," he rambled.
Attorney Keith B. Johnson told RadarOnline.com the court "will need to hear more details about the burglary and provide a timeline of events, which could exclude Scott Peterson as the killer," but still believes they have a long way to go.
He added: "The court would have to find the newly discovered evidence is so strong that jurors should have been able to consider the evidence before rendering a verdict."
