Books on this case.

[cookiewench]

And you mean kind of like that Scott Is Guilty private message board where only SIG's are allowed to be members and participate?


That board was originally set up by people who had all been banned from the SII board for politely and reasonably stating the facts there.

Where is your comparison to getting "karma points" for digging up dirt on a victim's family in a crude attempt to help a murderer?

[cookiewench]

I see from some quoted posts that there is some doubt that Marlene did what I said she did. So I have a proposal - a little poker game. There are posters here that I believe are buddies with Marlene and belong to the now-secret board (well, not totally secret, but no Gs allowed) (http://preventwrongfulconvictions.org/v-web/bulletin/bb/index.php). Ask her if she ever did so, and post her response. Then I'll show what I have. Everyone can then judge accordingly.

I'll tip my hand a little bit - she actually used the word "kharma" instead of the proper spelling "karma".

Her actions were - and continue to be - below contempt IMHO (http://preventwrongfulconvictions.org/v-web/bulletin/bb/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=100).


I do remember when she announced that she was closing the board and that it would be no more - and too bad to those who had recently sent a donation to keep it going.

That was a lie, and that should make everyone doubt the credibility of everything she says.

[Wearing A Halo]

The "karma points" for digging up "dirt" on Laci's family members is a little hard for me to believe. Would you mind elaborating a little bit?

And you mean kind of like that Scott Is Guilty private message board where only SIG's are allowed to be members and participate?

There is an SIG private message board? Do you have a link?

[accordn2me]

I can't imagine kowtowing to Marlene for anything - even banana flavored Twinkies, brought back after 70 years! The funniest thing she did was the Kermit experiment and somehow expected people to believe it was good for something. Amazing.

Personally, I don't know why the Gs have so much contempt for the Kermit experiment. I think it's brilliant! It's Marlene's conclusion that's so lame-brained. What the experiment showed was.........Kermit (representing Conner) landed practically on top of where Conner's body was recovered! What kind of [kharma] is that! It's perfect.....for the guilties! The very fact that Marlene ever published that little fact finding episode is just incredulous.....as well as laughable....because it proves the very opposite of her conclusion! I'll be shakin' my head over that one for a long, long time to come! :lol:

[thinkaboutit]

I see from some quoted posts that there is some doubt that Marlene did what I said she did. So I have a proposal - a little poker game. There are posters here that I believe are buddies with Marlene and belong to the now-secret board (well, not totally secret, but no Gs allowed) (http://preventwrongfulconvictions.org/v-web/bulletin/bb/index.php). Ask her if she ever did so, and post her response. Then I'll show what I have. Everyone can then judge accordingly.

I'll tip my hand a little bit - she actually used the word "kharma" instead of the proper spelling "karma".

Her actions were - and continue to be - below contempt IMHO (http://preventwrongfulconvictions.org/v-web/bulletin/bb/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=100).

Of course you won't see this - since you have me on ignore - unless someone feels the need to quote this so you will......but just wondering what the links you provided prove?. I'd love to know why you felt the need to point everyone to the profile of the poster known as IMHO on Marlene's board - - who - by the way was and always will be an SIG - and was also an admin there.

Adnoid - why don't you ask Marlene herself. She's not hard to find - never has been. Maybe if you didn't have me on ignore - I'd consider contacting her - and playing your little game - but no thanks.

Like Miss Bootsie said - on the Scott Is Guilty board - there were two sections. One for NG's (where the G's were also allowed) and one for the G's - where no one but the G's were allowed. I have no problem with it - however for some reason the G's feel it's okay for an SIG only board to exist - but not okay for an SII only board to exist. That seems like a double standard to me.

That was the only point I was trying to make - but for some reason - that fired everyone up and led to a bunch of Marlene bashing....which - by the way - just a little reminder - is against the rules.

[Wearing A Halo]

Of course you won't see this - since you have me on ignore - unless someone feels the need to quote this so you will......but just wondering what the links you provided prove?. I'd love to know why you felt the need to point everyone to the profile of the poster known as IMHO on Marlene's board - - who - by the way was and always will be an SIG - and was also an admin there.

Adnoid - why don't you ask Marlene herself. She's not hard to find - never has been. Maybe if you didn't have me on ignore - I'd consider contacting her - and playing your little game - but no thanks.

Like Miss Bootsie said - on the Scott Is Guilty board - there were two sections. One for NG's (where the G's were also allowed) and one for the G's - where no one but the G's were allowed. I have no problem with it - however for some reason the G's feel it's okay for an SIG only board to exist - but not okay for an SII only board to exist. That seems like a double standard to me.

That was the only point I was trying to make - but for some reason - that fired everyone up and led to a bunch of Marlene bashing....which - by the way - just a little reminder - is against the rules.

What is the link to this so-called SIG only board?

[Wearing A Halo]

I provided a link to the SII-only board, after all.

Is Marlene a member here? As a person that attached herself to the case by her own actions, I would conclude that we can discuss her, her actions, and our thoughts and feelings about her and them. Unless, of course, she is a member here in which case she would be protected by the TOS's provisions about interaction with other posters. So if she is a member here, she should let us know and we should post appropriately.

ITA. I would also think that her sidekick El Greco might be around this board as well.

[thinkaboutit]

What is the link to this so-called SIG only board?

I wouldn't have it - since I'm not an SIG - but I've seen links to it in the past. Maybe Cookiewench, TopGunner or Miss Bootsie can help you with a link - since they are aware of this board.

[thinkaboutit]

I had another thought on that subject.

She did just that - said to the members "Send us money so we can keep the Board open and you can keep posting." People - including some G posters - sent in money. Within a week IIRC she shut all Gs out. Lack of honesty on what would be done with the money she collected, right?

She also solicits money to "help Scott" and "help the Petersons". Imagine how that is handled. We don't know, but since she has stated she is under no obligation to provide an accounting to anyone, we can guess.

IIRC, any money solicited by Marlene to "help Scott" or "help the Petersons" went directly to the Petersons.

[thinkaboutit]

I provided a link to the SII-only board, after all.

Is Marlene a member here? As a person that attached herself to the case by her own actions, I would conclude that we can discuss her, her actions, and our thoughts and feelings about her and them. Unless, of course, she is a member here in which case she would be protected by the TOS's provisions about interaction with other posters. So if she is a member here, she should let us know and we should post appropriately.

I guess you're right - she's made public statements about this case - so it makes her open for criticism......but statements like this are a bit extreme - don't you think?

Every word Marlene says is a lie, including "and" and "the".

I doubt any of the NGs will take my challenge, but I had fun posting it. Imagine having to kowtow to Marlene to keep you private board rights.


And since you believe there are posters here that are members of Marlene's board - the kowtow remark may be a little offensive to those people - did you consider that when you posted it?

[cookiewench]

Personally, I don't know why the Gs have so much contempt for the Kermit experiment. I think it's brilliant! It's Marlene's conclusion that's so lame-brained. What the experiment showed was.........Kermit (representing Conner) landed practically on top of where Conner's body was recovered! What kind of [kharma] is that! It's perfect.....for the guilties! The very fact that Marlene ever published that little fact finding episode is just incredulous.....as well as laughable....because it proves the very opposite of her conclusion! I'll be shakin' my head over that one for a long, long time to come! :lol:

What was laughable (to me) was someone thinking that they had to do an experiment to show that objects can and do float through the rocks to the debris line.

Duh.

I only watched one small part of one of the videos, but it was enough: it was of one of the toys (I think Kermit) being gently nudged through by the softy lapping waves.

No "smashing", no "slamming", etc.

Voila!

[Miss Bootsie]

I had another thought on that subject.

She did just that - said to the members "Send us money so we can keep the Board open and you can keep posting." People - including some G posters - sent in money. Within a week IIRC she shut all Gs out. Lack of honesty on what would be done with the money she collected, right?

She also solicits money to "help Scott" and "help the Petersons". Imagine how that is handled. We don't know, but since she has stated she is under no obligation to provide an accounting to anyone, we can guess.

Yep, I was one of the G's that donated to keep the board open.
Not only did I donate for myself, I donated for a couple of the G's that were unable to donate.

When the announcement was posted that the board was closing, I did not ask for a full refund. I asked for a partial refund and my request was refused.

[accordn2me]

Yep, I was one of the G's that donated to keep the board open.
Not only did I donate for myself, I donated for a couple of the G's that were unable to donate.

When the announcement was posted that the board was closing, I did not ask for a full refund. I asked for a partial refund and my request was refused.Does it cost money to keep these boards open? :shrug:

[thinkaboutit]

Does it cost money to keep these boards open? :shrug:

It costs money to keep an advertisement-free board open - which is what Marlene's board was - yes.

Contributions were voluntary - not required.

It was admirable of Miss Bootsie to contribute - I think it's probably safe to say that (and I'm guessing) not many G's did.

Many of us were quite surprised and disappointed when the decision was made to shut the board down.

I contributed money also - but I really doubt she made money on the contributions - I'm quite confident that she put out more than she had coming in. I'm guessing that if it was such a profitable venture - as some have suggested - she wouldn't have shut it down.

[cookiewench]

It costs money to keep an advertisement-free board open - which is what Marlene's board was - yes.

Contributions were voluntary - not required.

It was admirable of Miss Bootsie to contribute - I think it's probably safe to say that (and I'm guessing) not many G's did.

Many of us were quite surprised and disappointed when the decision was made to shut the board down.

I contributed money also - but I really doubt she made money on the contributions - I'm quite confident that she put out more than she had coming in. I'm guessing that if it was such a profitable venture - as some have suggested - she wouldn't have shut it down.

Were you one of the ones who was permitted to stay after the bogus shut-down of the board?

There is something I've always wondered about: the board owner and one of her friends solicited for, and received, donations for them to take a trip to a Wrongful Convictions forum in Canada.

I've always wondered of what use a Wrongful Convictions seminar could be to a layman. I remember that when she came back, she said that she had asked one of the leaders what a person should do if they are wrongfully arrested - and the answer was "Get an attorney".

Why would a person have to drive to Canada to get such widely-known information? What could they do with it? How could PWC go through transcripts to look for errors, when they are not legally trained to know what is a viable error and what is not?

I read some of the work done on the testimony of a wife-murderer there (not Peterson), and all of the refutations of the testimony were extremely, extremely weak.

[Anne2719]

Hahaha Sun! Adnoid was banned because he hit a nerve, period. We've all known that this board is CONTROLLED tightly and unfairly by ONE particular NG here. And yes, the name MARLENE and her unethical (probably illegal) involvement/voice throughout all this is, for sure, behind the banning. I believe Marlene is here on this board, certainly her BIGGEST voice is. We've known that all along. I think I'll go join Adnoid. No sense posting here, when the truth is not allowed. Snoops - you're the best, the rest have no business moderating here. But I said that along time ago.

To you foolish NG's - God bless you and the legacy you're leaving behind. Defending a cold blooded murderer. Go you!

:patriot:
I'm confused, since I've never been aware of Marlene's presence here. I haven't posted much lately but I have been reading, aside from my trip out of town last week.

I'm sorry you think you must leave -- from my perspective, this has been a much more balanced board than others I've seen (and chosen not to participate in). I'm still neutral, though leaning toward G, and I think the NGs have a tough position here since they are way outnumbered. Most members do their best to avoid sarcasm and nastiness and I really appreciate that.

[cookiewench]

I'm confused, since I've never been aware of Marlene's presence here. I haven't posted much lately but I have been reading, aside from my trip out of town last week.

I'm sorry you think you must leave -- from my perspective, this has been a much more balanced board than others I've seen (and chosen not to participate in). I'm still neutral, though leaning toward G, and I think the NGs have a tough position here since they are way outnumbered. Most members do their best to avoid sarcasm and nastiness and I really appreciate that.


How can there be the least bit of "balance" when one person is banned - not even for putting someone on "ignore" - but because the other person SAID, "you probably have me on ignore."?

As for being in a tough position because one side is outnumbered - that should have nothing to do with anything. Of course they are outnumbered: the main was fairly arrested, fairly tried, and justifiably found guilty.

99.9% of the entire world knows that he's guilty. How could the NG's be outnumbered on any board - except for the old SII board, where they found bogus exuses for banning every G?

[cookiewench]

What I want to know Sun is why is this Marlene such a sore subject and why is anyone defending her? Everyone knows she just invovled herself uninvited into the trial. She decided on NG so puts up a whole website to back up her opinion. It's not impartial or accurate. Everything on it has a twist to favor her personal opinion. She is no different than you or me. A normal lay person with an opinion, but because she has nothing else to do but design a whole website on her opinion and then ask for money that she doesn't return when cutting off what that money was even intended for is terrible. Defending her, let alone banning someone who doesn't respect her is the same as defending a man who premeditated the murder of his wife and little baby. He ended their whole lives and their whole families lives, but they defend him because why? Because they know he's a murderer but pride won't let them back out now that's why Sun.

Hi, Lavindar. The woman in question set herself up as an authority on Laci's murder even before the trial began. He made her own conclusion, and then, working backwards, tried to fit the evidence that was presented into her own scenario. If it couldn't be spun to fit, she'd bash it and accuse the witness of lying.

I think there's a lot of resentment against her because she touted her board as being for both Gs and NGs alike, but if a G started to make too many points, they'd end up banned - no matter how polite or mild in their presentation they tried to be.

The biggie, though, is that she allowed a lot of bashing of the victim's family and wild accusations being made about both them and LE.

Someone on that site wrote a long (and wrong) refutation of Ablow's book, claiming that he could know nothing, as he'd never interviewed Scott - and yet, Marlene decided on her own when Sharon's book came out, that she was going by "false memory"!

There's more - much more, but I think you already know that...

[cookiewench]

FW: Could you tell me why I received an infraction notice for this post, citing "lack of civility"? No matter how many times I reread it, I can't see anything more uncivil in it than in the average post here:

"I know what they said and you know what they said........and we both know that none of them mentioned anything about the stability of that boat."


What's up with that?

[Otter]

FW: Could you tell me why I received an infraction notice for this post, citing "lack of civility"? No matter how many times I reread it, I can't see anything more uncivil in it than in the average post here:

"I know what they said and you know what they said........and we both know that none of them mentioned anything about the stability of that boat."


What's up with that?


I got one too. The one time I made a rude post, it was deserved, but I've never seen you say anything that be construed that way. Not once Cooks.

Guess they don't want us to come around here no more. :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7gWzWqJu1k

[frydaddy]

FL at CL cannot ban anyone nor can they delete posts. Bans come directly from me and me alone. This is made clear in our House Rules.


CL is a civil place for discussion and when a member wants to cross that line then I will send them on a vacation - basically give them some time to cool down and decide whether CL community is th right place for them. It is not the right place to be for some. We demand civility, common respect, and adherence to the rules that have been developed by the community at large.

The Peterson forum has 6 moderators who have taken various positions. Each forum leader was selected by me to manage this forum. If you do not like my selection of FLs you need to take that up with me.

This isn't about who thinks who killed Laci .... this is about the content of our communications with one another. To take the bickering into the community will not be tolerated.

In addition, I recommend that many of you read the rules you agreed to when joining our community. It seems many of you have not for if you rhad you would know that posting a Rep, PM or posts from other forums is a No No and can result in an immediate ban.


Let those actually interested in an intellectual and dynamic discussion move one.

Freshwater

She's fresh (she's so fresh)...la la la la la la ooh ooh, she's fresh! Sorry...every once in a while I break out into song. Hope you like Kool and the Gang!

I have a suggestion...can you have your forum leaders on any topic collaborate with each other if there's an issue of abuse, where you have a leader from both sides of a debate to determine the level of abuse and perhaps have the leader from a certain group inform the offender from their own group to cool it? For me, if I am out of line, I'd feel better hearing it from someone I know is ONLY ensuring the integrity of the debate.

It seems that the same admonishment has been given to a few SIGs, so either that's a standard message sent by all leaders, or someone is sending the same message with regularity to the "opposition". It's human nature for the leader to hold an opponent to a higher standard and for the offender to question the intent of the leader (retribution). Plus, it's been pointed out to me that leaders can send admonishments as leaders, but respond to offenses in kind as posters. To me, this creates a conflict of interest.

Also, do PM's work if someone is on ignore? If a leader is on ignore and PM's work, why not send someone a PM, rather than pointing out with some degree of sarcasm that "such and such has me on ignore"? I guess my point is, if leaders have a degree more power than the average poster, should they not be held to a bit higher standard than us? To participate in any negativity as a poster makes the private admonishments as leaders somewhat hollow. I know this is done on a volunteer basis and I respect the efforts they all provide. I'm just saying, one can't participate in it and then pretend the integrity of the debate is their A priority.

Lastly, a shout out to Adnoid...fight the power bro! No disrespect intended to you or any of the leaders...just me keeping it real with one in the SIG posse!

[accordn2me]

FL at CL cannot ban anyone nor can they delete posts. Bans come directly from me and me alone. This is made clear in our House Rules.


CL is a civil place for discussion and when a member wants to cross that line then I will send them on a vacation - basically give them some time to cool down and decide whether CL community is th right place for them. It is not the right place to be for some. We demand civility, common respect, and adherence to the rules that have been developed by the community at large.

The Peterson forum has 6 moderators who have taken various positions. Each forum leader was selected by me to manage this forum. If you do not like my selection of FLs you need to take that up with me.

This isn't about who thinks who killed Laci .... this is about the content of our communications with one another. To take the bickering into the community will not be tolerated.

In addition, I recommend that many of you read the rules you agreed to when joining our community. It seems many of you have not for if you rhad you would know that posting a Rep, PM or posts from other forums is a No No and can result in an immediate ban.


Let those actually interested in an intellectual and dynamic discussion move one.

FreshwaterGreetings

What is the policy on the ignore feature?

[accordn2me]

Of course you won't see this - since you have me on ignore - unless someone feels the need to quote this so you will......<snip>.(my bold)

How can you see who has whom on ignore? I'd love to see this list. Are only forum leaders privy to it?

[cookiewench]

Of course you won't see this - since you have me on ignore - unless someone feels the need to quote this so you will......but just wondering what the links you provided prove?. I'd love to know why you felt the need to point everyone to the profile of the poster known as IMHO on Marlene's board - - who - by the way was and always will be an SIG - and was also an admin there.

Adnoid - why don't you ask Marlene herself. She's not hard to find - never has been. Maybe if you didn't have me on ignore - I'd consider contacting her - and playing your little game - but no thanks.

Like Miss Bootsie said - on the Scott Is Guilty board - there were two sections. One for NG's (where the G's were also allowed) and one for the G's - where no one but the G's were allowed. I have no problem with it - however for some reason the G's feel it's okay for an SIG only board to exist - but not okay for an SII only board to exist. That seems like a double standard to me.

That was the only point I was trying to make - but for some reason - that fired everyone up and led to a bunch of Marlene bashing....which - by the way - just a little reminder - is against the rules.

Why would he need to ask her about something that he saw with his own eyes? I saw it, too. Several people saved it as a screen shot, so I saw it in several different places.

And I already addressed your other issue: the SIG board was put together by people who had been unfairly banned from the SII board, simply for stating some facts.

I know that - I saw that - and it happened to me, too. And I was never rude or nasty.

It was actually okay on that board to accuse Ron Grantski, Brent Rocha and Amber Frey of murder - but it was NOT okay to say that Scott was a murderer.

It was not okay to even point out facts. I got a warning (and eventual banning) simply for pointing out that a "fact" that M was posting was refuted by the transcripts that were posted on HER OWN site.

[Miss Bootsie]

Like Miss Bootsie said - on the Scott Is Guilty board - there were two sections. One for NG's (where the G's were also allowed) and one for the G's - where no one but the G's were allowed. I have no problem with it - however for some reason the G's feel it's okay for an SIG only board to exist - but not okay for an SII only board to exist. That seems like a double standard to me.



I would like to clarify for you exactly what Miss Bootsie posted about the SIG board.

I believe you are misinformed.

The SIG message board was set up with a discussion forum for G's and Ng's.

Miss Bootsie didn't say what you posted.

It's no big deal, but please, in the future, don't post that I said something, I didn't say. Thank-you.

FYI, yes, there was indeed a private forum on the SIG board at one time. I don't quite understand how you can state as a fact, that ng's were not allowed there.

[thinkaboutit]

I would like to clarify for you exactly what Miss Bootsie posted about the SIG board.



Miss Bootsie didn't say what you posted.

It's no big deal, but please, in the future, don't post that I said something, I didn't say. Thank-you.

FYI, yes, there was indeed a private forum on the SIG board at one time. I don't quite understand how you can state as a fact, that ng's were not allowed there.

My apologies - you're right you did not say that.

I just know.....why is it such a big secret?

[Miss Bootsie]

My apologies - you're right you did not say that.

I just know.....why is it such a big secret?

lol, Well, Why not fill me in on how you "just know", or is that a big secret??

[accordn2me]

lol, Well, Why not fill me in on how you "just know", or is that a big secret??
The ignore feature policy....and how you tell who has you on their list...must be a secret too. :shrug:

I really don't like secrets. I think they are bad..:no: ..but I had to PM you anyway....

[One2Snoop]

The ignore feature policy....and how you tell who has you on their list...must be a secret too. :shrug:

I really don't like secrets. I think they are bad..:no: ..but I had to PM you anyway....

LOL ~ There is no secret list that I'm aware of. You have your own list of people on ignore and it shows up in your user control panel under Misc- Buddy/Ignore list and like anything else you can't see another persons control panel and whether or not they have you on ignore unless they tell you.

[Miss Bootsie]

The ignore feature policy....and how you tell who has you on their list...must be a secret too. :shrug:

I really don't like secrets. I think they are bad..:no: ..but I had to PM you anyway....

You really can't tell Acc.

I don't know how many times I have been informed on message boards, if for some reason you don't care to read or reply to a members posts, to either utilize the ignore feature, or skip over the post.

People don't respond to posts for different reasons.
They may have simply overlooked my posts or they refrain from reply to avoid a possible confrontation.
I think the latter is very wise. Don't you?

With this in mind, I would never assume someone has me on ignore.

I have never utilized the ignore feature because on most message boards, one has the option to just skip over a post if they don't wish to read it, or if they don't wish to reply.

[ekg]

You really can't tell Acc.

I don't know how many times I have been informed on message boards, if for some reason you don't care to read or reply to a members posts, to either utilize the ignore feature, or skip over the post.

People don't respond to posts for different reasons.
They may have simply overlooked my posts or they refrain from reply to avoid a possible confrontation.
I think the latter is very wise. Don't you?

With this in mind, I would never assume someone has me on ignore.

I have never utilized the ignore feature because on most message boards, one has the option to just skip over a post if they don't wish to read it, or if they don't wish to reply.

I think this

Originally Posted by adnoid
I see from some quoted posts that there is some doubt that Marlene did what I said she did.

is why TAI figured she was on adnoid's ignore list.... he didn't say from her posts.. he said from quoted posts.. and then went on to talk about her posts...

why would adnoid have to read them thru someone else quoting them if he didn't have TAI on ignore?

[cookiewench]

I think this



is why TAI figured she was on adnoid's ignore list.... he didn't say from her posts.. he said from quoted posts.. and then went on to talk about her posts...

why would adnoid have to read them thru someone else quoting them if he didn't have TAI on ignore?

And why would it matter? The ignore button is there for everyone to use, and someone else (not adnoid) decided that he had used it on her - so HE gets banned for it.

That makes no sense.

[Miss Bootsie]

I think this



is why TAI figured she was on adnoid's ignore list.... he didn't say from her posts.. he said from quoted posts.. and then went on to talk about her posts...

why would adnoid have to read them thru someone else quoting them if he didn't have TAI on ignore?

Right at this moment, I have no doubt, the latter is very wise.

Originally Posted by Miss Bootsie:

People don't respond to posts for different reasons.
They may have simply overlooked my posts or they refrain from reply to avoid a possible confrontation.
I think the latter is very wise. Don't you?

[accordn2me]

can we get back on topic?:confused:Read any books on the case lately?

[accordn2me]

You really can't tell Acc.

I don't know how many times I have been informed on message boards, if for some reason you don't care to read or reply to a members posts, to either utilize the ignore feature, or skip over the post.

People don't respond to posts for different reasons.
They may have simply overlooked my posts or they refrain from reply to avoid a possible confrontation.
I think the latter is very wise. Don't you?

With this in mind, I would never assume someone has me on ignore.

I have never utilized the ignore feature because on most message boards, one has the option to just skip over a post if they don't wish to read it, or if they don't wish to reply.Aloha, Miss Bootsie....and everyone! Happy Father's Day, late....to all fathers. :rose:

FW explained that 2me that we all may exercise our option to use the ignore feature. However, if we put a FL on ignore and the FL issues us warnings that we don't see because they are on ignore, we may get banned for ignoring the warning. Hopefully, after she investigates by reviewing all the relevant posts and carefully weighing both sides (as opposed to simply taking someone's word).

In adnoid's case, I don't remember seeing any warnings to him. :shrug:

And since I've never used ignore....I'm sure that's not why I missed it.

[Miss Bootsie]

Aloha, Miss Bootsie....and everyone! Happy Father's Day, late....to all fathers. :rose:

FW explained that 2me that we all may exercise our option to use the ignore feature. However, if we put a FL on ignore and the FL issues us warnings that we don't see because they are on ignore, we may get banned for ignoring the warning. Hopefully, after she investigates by reviewing all the relevant posts and carefully weighing both sides (as opposed to simply taking someone's word).

In adnoid's case, I don't remember seeing any warnings to him. :shrug:

And since I've never used ignore....I'm sure that's not why I missed it.

Originally posted on the starting over thread:

1. Admonishments

Initially it was discussed among the forum leaders and agreed that admonishments would be done publicly on the board. We now realize that this was a bad, bad idea. In the future (starting right now) – all admonishments will be handled via PM only

[cookiewench]

Originally posted on the starting over thread:

1. Admonishments

Initially it was discussed among the forum leaders and agreed that admonishments would be done publicly on the board. We now realize that this was a bad, bad idea. In the future (starting right now) – all admonishments will be handled via PM only

Exactly.

And the poster didn't even have the FW on ignore - she just decided that he did.

[accordn2me]

Originally posted on the starting over thread:

1. Admonishments

Initially it was discussed among the forum leaders and agreed that admonishments would be done publicly on the board. We now realize that this was a bad, bad idea. In the future (starting right now) – all admonishments will be handled via PM onlyMy question about that....like "can you still get PM if the person is on ignore" wasn't answered, iirc......

However, adnoid says he never received a warning or anything. So...... :shrug:

[One2Snoop]

My question about that....like "can you still get PM if the person is on ignore" wasn't answered, iirc......

However, adnoid says he never received a warning or anything. So...... :shrug:

:seeya: No you can't recieve pm's if you have that person on ignore.

[accordn2me]

:seeya: No you can't recieve pm's if you have that person on ignore.:cuss: ..........

[bratnga]

I read them all - and yes - that was one good thing about Crier's book - the index in the back.

Hi I am Brat and I am new to your boards so I hope I am doing this correctly.
Concerning the books about Laci and Scott Prtersen and Conner..........
I read Anne Byrd's book and found it very interesting..........seems the dysfunction in that family was many generations back. But still nothing that would give Scott the idea he could murder and get away with it.

I have not read Catherine Crier's books, but want to, I like her very much and am sure she shed a different light on the tragedy

I am now reading Sharon Rocha's book about Laci and I know it is going to be very emotional. I am not too far into it but I can see it's going to be a book I will enjoy reading, enjoy getting to know more about Laci and her growing up years.

I would just like to read something that could help me make sense of the murder....why, why why??? I have so many questions as I am sure that some of you do also
Why did he kill her and Conner
Was it rage
was it something he had thought about for a while
was it because she was having the baby and he didn't want it?
was it because of Amber Frye?
was there anything in his background that would have made him think he could get away with killing his wife and baby?
I would like to understand him
The other thing is he showed absolutely no emotion, not while they were looking for her, not when they found her and not during the trial...........
comments please
Brat:flamemad:

[JustMyOpinion]

Hi I am Brat and I am new to your boards so I hope I am doing this correctly.
Concerning the books about Laci and Scott Prtersen and Conner..........
I read Anne Byrd's book and found it very interesting..........seems the dysfunction in that family was many generations back. But still nothing that would give Scott the idea he could murder and get away with it.

I have not read Catherine Crier's books, but want to, I like her very much and am sure she shed a different light on the tragedy

I am now reading Sharon Rocha's book about Laci and I know it is going to be very emotional. I am not too far into it but I can see it's going to be a book I will enjoy reading, enjoy getting to know more about Laci and her growing up years.

I would just like to read something that could help me make sense of the murder....why, why why??? I have so many questions as I am sure that some of you do also
Why did he kill her and Conner
Was it rage
was it something he had thought about for a while
was it because she was having the baby and he didn't want it?
was it because of Amber Frye?
was there anything in his background that would have made him think he could get away with killing his wife and baby?
I would like to understand him
The other thing is he showed absolutely no emotion, not while they were looking for her, not when they found her and not during the trial...........
comments please
Brat:flamemad:

Hello, bratnga
Welcome to the board. As you read books, look at the evidence, perhaps you'll come up with your own opinion in response to the questions you posed.
If you read "Inside the Mind of Scott Peterson" by Keth Ablow, M.D. ..it contains some information that pertains to the questions you asked. Ablow interviewed people who knew Scott, including members of his family. He has some interesting theories about "why"...IMO.

[deputydi]

<snip>I would just like to read something that could help me make sense of the murder....why, why why??? I have so many questions as I am sure that some of you do also
Why did he kill her and Conner
Was it rage
was it something he had thought about for a while
was it because she was having the baby and he didn't want it?
was it because of Amber Frye?
was there anything in his background that would have made him think he could get away with killing his wife and baby?
I would like to understand him
The other thing is he showed absolutely no emotion, not while they were looking for her, not when they found her and not during the trial...........
comments please
Brat:flamemad:
Welcome, Brat.

No one can completely get into Scott's head and determine with 100% certainty why he murdered Laci and Conner. Ablow's book gives some real insight into why Scott might have thought this was his only way out, but he doesn't know either. His is just an educated opinion. Anne Bird's book gave some interesting insight into the family dynamics and explained (to me anyway) why Scott grew up with a sense of entitlement. I highly recommend both of them.

[frydaddy]

Hi I am Brat and I am new to your boards so I hope I am doing this correctly.
Concerning the books about Laci and Scott Prtersen and Conner..........
I read Anne Byrd's book and found it very interesting..........seems the dysfunction in that family was many generations back. But still nothing that would give Scott the idea he could murder and get away with it.

I have not read Catherine Crier's books, but want to, I like her very much and am sure she shed a different light on the tragedy

I am now reading Sharon Rocha's book about Laci and I know it is going to be very emotional. I am not too far into it but I can see it's going to be a book I will enjoy reading, enjoy getting to know more about Laci and her growing up years.

I would just like to read something that could help me make sense of the murder....why, why why??? I have so many questions as I am sure that some of you do also
Why did he kill her and Conner
Was it rage
was it something he had thought about for a while
was it because she was having the baby and he didn't want it?
was it because of Amber Frye?
was there anything in his background that would have made him think he could get away with killing his wife and baby?
I would like to understand him
The other thing is he showed absolutely no emotion, not while they were looking for her, not when they found her and not during the trial...........
comments please
Brat:flamemad:

Crier's book was fantastic as far as case information and organization. There were minor mistakes in it, likely from the rush to get it to press, but nothing major. Another judge who felt SP was guilty...go figure!

[adnoid]

...Does anyone know what ever happend to Dalton after his embarassing media tour to promote his "trash" book?

I believe the sewage worker's union voted him out in an effort to improve their image, so I have no idea where he is. Wherever it is, I'd like to avoid it.

[TopGunner]

Note to self: Don't eat while reading your posts. :lol:

Thanks Adnoid.

Correction: Note to self w/bc to TG.

ROFLMAO:D

[Mysteri]

Last night I read Anne Bird's book Blood Brotherand her one on one and first-hand experiences with her brother Scott give a lot of background as to his way of dealing with people. I think it shows more than any other book what Scott is really like and it's frightening to think he was on the loose in the world for as long as he was. He had no qualms whatsoever about doing anything that popped into his head. He was wholly oblivious of ALL that didn't pertain to his comfort and entertainment.

imo

[accordn2me]

Last night I read Anne Bird's book Blood Brotherand her one on one and first-hand experiences with her brother Scott give a lot of background as to his way of dealing with people. I think it shows more than any other book what Scott is really like and it's frightening to think he was on the loose in the world for as long as he was. He had no qualms whatsoever about doing anything that popped into his head. He was wholly oblivious of ALL that didn't pertain to his comfort and entertainment.

imo
I haven't read, nor do I have access to the book. Can you elaborate on what you are talking about?

[Hey Paula]

Last night I read Anne Bird's book Blood Brotherand her one on one and first-hand experiences with her brother Scott give a lot of background as to his way of dealing with people. I think it shows more than any other book what Scott is really like and it's frightening to think he was on the loose in the world for as long as he was. He had no qualms whatsoever about doing anything that popped into his head. He was wholly oblivious of ALL that didn't pertain to his comfort and entertainment.

imo

I agree with you, and one such incident was when they all went to Disney World and AB's son couldn't be found. As everyone was in a panicked state, milling about the room, Scott was oblivious as he talked, and kept talking, on his cell phone. Later, it was learned it was Amber he was speaking to.

IMO

[TopGunner]

I haven't read, nor do I have access to the book. Can you elaborate on what you are talking about?


Hiya A2M!:seeya:

You should try and get your hands on Birds book. It was truly an up close and personal look at ISP during the search for Laci. Bird came out of the gate just like Sharon, convinced ISP was innocent and very defensive about him. As time went on (he lived with her off and on during this time), she started noticing more and more things about him, his behavior, lack of behavior and emotions, etc. Her husband in the meantime KNEW ISP did it, so there was discord there as well. Anyhow, she totally struggled with it, but in the end, she knew the truth. It's a great read.

I will add what I've said several times now. Bird, Frey's, Rocha's, and Criers books all add up - they do not contradict each other AT ALL, which I found credible in and of itself. None of the four - at the time of writing/publishing, knew each other.

[accordn2me]

Hiya A2M!:seeya:

You should try and get your hands on Birds book. It was truly an up close and personal look at ISP during the search for Laci. Bird came out of the gate just like Sharon, convinced ISP was innocent and very defensive about him. As time went on (he lived with her off and on during this time), she started noticing more and more things about him, his behavior, lack of behavior and emotions, etc. Her husband in the meantime KNEW ISP did it, so there was discord there as well. Anyhow, she totally struggled with it, but in the end, she knew the truth. It's a great read.

I will add what I've said several times now. Bird, Frey's, Rocha's, and Criers books all add up - they do not contradict each other AT ALL, which I found credible in and of itself. None of the four - at the time of writing/publishing, knew each other.Well thank you, sistah...for the synopsis....

Once I get settled back in at my home on the mainland....get my "emotional support/assist animal" settled, and fixate on my routine at work....Brian and Momo should be arriving....coinsiding with the holidays...lucky me...and I'll have to do it all over again...but....should I happen to be blessed with a couple of minutes of spare time between here and there.....I seriously doubt I'll venture into any of this.....As we ALL KNOW.....SLP sits on DR in San Quentin awaiting his execution........apparently there are those that believe he will get a second trial....:eek: :eek: :eek: however in short of that unlikely event.....i should remain a spectator on the sidelines for the most part....

but it has been fun! :blowkiss:

[Lavindar]

Well thank you, sistah...for the synopsis....

Once I get settled back in at my home on the mainland....get my "emotional support/assist animal" settled, and fixate on my routine at work....Brian and Momo should be arriving....coinsiding with the holidays...lucky me...and I'll have to do it all over again...but....should I happen to be blessed with a couple of minutes of spare time between here and there.....I seriously doubt I'll venture into any of this.....As we ALL KNOW.....SLP sits on DR in San Quentin awaiting his execution........apparently there are those that believe he will get a second trial....:eek: :eek: :eek: however in short of that unlikely event.....i should remain a spectator on the sidelines for the most part....

but it has been fun! :blowkiss:
Hurry back - you WILL be missed.

[Mysteri]

I haven't read, nor do I have access to the book. Can you elaborate on what you are talking about?

He spent weeks at her house in Berkeley after the murder and flirted with her babysitter, made passes at other girls, ALL while Laci was supposedly just 'missing.' From his room in her house he could see the Berekley area of the Bay where he dumped Laci and Child. Her husband saw right through him and didn't want him around their children but she defended Scott until she finally saw the light with her own eyes !!!

Ann is his half-sister and is the only one in his family to tell what he's like on a regular basis.

Her book is great !

Blood Brother - 33 Reasons My Brother Scott Peterson Is Guilty

http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Brother-Reasons-Peterson-Guilty/dp/0060838574

http://www.findlaci2003.us/ann-bird-book-editiorial.html

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9780060850333&z=y

imo

[Mysteri]

I agree with you, and one such incident was when they all went to Disney World and AB's son couldn't be found. As everyone was in a panicked state, milling about the room, Scott was oblivious as he talked, and kept talking, on his cell phone. Later, it was learned it was Amber he was speaking to.

IMO

That was chilling. His indifference to children was soo apparent all along.
And him pretending to 'love' Aiyana ! Quite an actor !

The bit that made the hair on the back of my neck stand up was when he was at Ann's baby's christening. The priest was on to him!

imo

[Mysteri]

Hiya A2M!:seeya:

You should try and get your hands on Birds book. It was truly an up close and personal look at ISP during the search for Laci. Bird came out of the gate just like Sharon, convinced ISP was innocent and very defensive about him. As time went on (he lived with her off and on during this time), she started noticing more and more things about him, his behavior, lack of behavior and emotions, etc. Her husband in the meantime KNEW ISP did it, so there was discord there as well. Anyhow, she totally struggled with it, but in the end, she knew the truth. It's a great read.

I will add what I've said several times now. Bird, Frey's, Rocha's, and Criers books all add up - they do not contradict each other AT ALL, which I found credible in and of itself. None of the four - at the time of writing/publishing, knew each other.


Whoah ! Now THAT is remarkable !

Thanks for the concise review !!

:read:

imo

[Lavindar]

Whoah ! Now THAT is remarkable !

Thanks for the concise review !!

:read:

imo I enjoyed her book the most. I think because she is an intelligent woman who was raised by a loving family and wanted to believe her brith family was good. Painfully, she discovered many not-so-nice things about them. She doesn't say them in a mean, vindictive way either - just matter of fact.

[One2Snoop]

Thanks TG and Lavindar for your thoughts on this book. Its been on my list of things to read for awhile, now all I have to do is find the time to read it. :read:

[TopGunner]

Thanks TG and Lavindar for your thoughts on this book. Its been on my list of things to read for awhile, now all I have to do is find the time to read it. :read:

You're welcome Snoops - and I promise you two things:

1. You won't put it down.

2. You'll believe every word.

[Buckethead]

You're welcome Snoops - and I promise you two things:

1. You won't put it down.

2. You'll believe every word.


If I might add,

3. You will read it more than once. :seeya:

[Mysteri]

I enjoyed her book the most. I think because she is an intelligent woman who was raised by a loving family and wanted to believe her brith family was good. Painfully, she discovered many not-so-nice things about them. She doesn't say them in a mean, vindictive way either - just matter of fact.

How very true. It was terribly painful for her but she kept her dignity.

I think her list is an amzing eye-opener.

She is a talented writer as well.

imo

[TopGunner]

If I might add,

3. You will read it more than once. :seeya:


Hi Buckethead, good to see you post. And yes, she'll read it more than once. I read it 6 or more times. Finally put it up in the attic for a rest. :D

[adnoid]

I...when they all went to Disney World and AB's son couldn't be found. As everyone was in a panicked state, milling about the room, Scott was oblivious as he talked, and kept talking, on his cell phone. Later, it was learned it was Amber he was speaking to...

Just sickening. I'd love to see his supporters justify this. Actually, I really would rather not.

[Buckethead]

Hi Buckethead, good to see you post. And yes, she'll read it more than once. I read it 6 or more times. Finally put it up in the attic for a rest. :D

Hiya TG! I've read my copy of Anne's book so many times, it looks like YOUR copy of CC's book - the pages are falling out. ;)

You feel her pain as she discovers who/what her biological family are. That she related SO closely to Scott, made the discovery all the more painful for her, IMO.

[USAHICK]

The Peterson's disowned the child that told the truth, and supports the one who lies, cheats, steals, and murders. That sums it up right there.

[Maybaby59]

I have a copy of Sharon Rocha's book, For Laci. If anyone is interested in having it, please PM me with info. :)
Trish

[margaritaville]

I am just wondering what you all think of the new book that is coming out..

Do any of you believe he truly confessed to her??

http://www.amazon.com/Sorry-Lied-Confession-Scott-Peterson/dp/0978572882/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-3768210-7649756?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193164364&sr=1-1

On January 10, 2007, Donna Thomas, a legal researcher and legal advocate, appeared on CourtTV radio Sirus network, with host Vinnie Politan. The program included several jury members, Amber Frey and Gloria Allred. On the program, Thomas stated, "I truly believed Scott was innocent, I was doing everything within my power to prove that. I spent thousands of hours on research on the evidence. However during one of my visits with Scott at San Quentin, he slipped. At that point I knew he was guilty. I didn't know what he did exactly. On another visit with him at San Quentin he made a full confession." Thomas alluded to the fact that there is a book in the works regarding his slip and confession.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Peterson

[deputydi]

I am just wondering what you all think of the new book that is coming out..

Do any of you believe he truly confessed to her??
I don't. :no:

[Lavindar]

I don't. :no:


Me either

[TopGunner]

I am just wondering what you all think of the new book that is coming out..

Do any of you believe he truly confessed to her??

http://www.amazon.com/Sorry-Lied-Confession-Scott-Peterson/dp/0978572882/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-3768210-7649756?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193164364&sr=1-1

On January 10, 2007, Donna Thomas, a legal researcher and legal advocate, appeared on CourtTV radio Sirus network, with host Vinnie Politan. The program included several jury members, Amber Frey and Gloria Allred. On the program, Thomas stated, "I truly believed Scott was innocent, I was doing everything within my power to prove that. I spent thousands of hours on research on the evidence. However during one of my visits with Scott at San Quentin, he slipped. At that point I knew he was guilty. I didn't know what he did exactly. On another visit with him at San Quentin he made a full confession." Thomas alluded to the fact that there is a book in the works regarding his slip and confession.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Peterson

Personally, I believe there is some sort of *relationship* here. Or maybe I should say I find it next to impossible to believe that someone would just randomly decide to write an entire book about someone they never met. However, it sounds like "my word against his" which lacks enough credibility to publish a book, IMO. And why now, so many years after the fact? It certainly makes me question the motive.

Lastly, ISP "confessing" is old news. When he said "you guessed at everything Amber", that IMO was a confession. Even without that, the whole world minus 4 people know he's guilty, so again, so what?

I won't buy it, but I hope someone here reads it, I will be interested in their take on it.

[deputydi]

<snip>I won't buy it, but I hope someone here reads it, I will be interested in their take on it.

I suggest that NO ONE purchase the book. Go to your local library and read it if you're that curious. IMO it's a piece of opportunistic garbage.

[TopGunner]

I suggest that NO ONE purchase the book. Go to your local library and read it if you're that curious. IMO it's a piece of opportunistic garbage.

Morning DD! :patriot:

Is this a book that will be available in the library? I thought it was self published, via Amazon.com. Anyhoo, I'm sure some copies will be sold. I didn't think anyone would touch OJ's book, but they were flying off the shelves. It's called curiosity. Now, our challenge will be finding someone who will ADMIT they bought it, LOL.

[deputydi]

Morning DD! :patriot:

Is this a book that will be available in the library? I thought it was self published, via Amazon.com. Anyhoo, I'm sure some copies will be sold. I didn't think anyone would touch OJ's book, but they were flying off the shelves. It's called curiosity. Now, our challenge will be finding someone who will ADMIT they bought it, LOL.
I didn't know it was self published. Oh, well -- so much for boycotting the publisher. You're right. Some copies will be sold but no one will admit to having bought it. Amazing, isn't it? :shrug:

[Heyes]

Aww heck guys, I'll buy it! Ya know for the cause,
when it goes paperback,
and is on the table at Big Lots for $0.99.
I'll let ya know!
:hat:

[margaritaville]

http://ca.us.biz.yahoo.com/iw/071016/0316402.html

One question that Donna Thomas does not raise is the matter of Scott Peterson's innocence. Although in the beginning she believed Peterson was innocent, it is the brutal and graphic confession while visiting Scott in San Quentin that changed the course of her investigation, Donna's relationship with Peterson, and altered her emotional and spiritual essence forever. The passages detailing this aspect are brutally shocking and without remorse.

"'I'm Sorry I Lied to You,' the Confession of Scott Peterson" will take you to a literary dimension seldom experienced within the realm of modern reading. Donna Thomas' legal expertise and humanistic endeavors create an atmosphere of suspense unequaled in any previous writing on the subject. Her visits to San Quentin are accentuated with sights and sounds of a world seldom seen and contain some well-known death row inmates of equal or greater infamy. Inside this secret insight into the mind of a man still being talked about today, you will also find photographs never before published.

Ms. Thomas continues to work on cases of people wrongly accused all over the country, she maintains residences in several cities.



"'I'm Sorry I Lied to You,' the Confession of Scott Peterson":
Author: Donna Thomas
ISBN: 0-9785728-8-2 -- $27.00
Digi-Tall Media; P.O. Box 868024; Plano, TX 75086-8024
http://www.digi-tall-media.com - Fax: 866-223-7289

[Lavindar]

I did some checking on the internet, it's published by Digit-Tall Media out of Texas. It is NOT self published. I sent them a fax and they sent me a link to the author's website, www.yourrighttotruth.com looks pretty damning to me!

you can email the author any questions, I think it's very legitimate, there is even a sample of one of the chapters on the website and the entire forward
by Anthony Flores, and one of the letters SP sent the author, I believe it's true. JMO:

I find the author of the forward to be less than a legitimate source on this case. This is the failed window-washer/ now hairdresser ex-boy friend of Amber. He has NO connection to this case whatsoever. To my knowledge he never even met Scott.

[Wearing A Halo]

I did some checking on the internet, it's published by Digit-Tall Media out of Texas. It is NOT self published. I sent them a fax and they sent me a link to the author's website, www.yourrighttotruth.com looks pretty damning to me!

you can email the author any questions, I think it's very legitimate, there is even a sample of one of the chapters on the website and the entire forward
by Anthony Flores, and one of the letters SP sent the author, I believe it's true. JMO:

ROFLMAO

Thanks for the update P&J.

That AF is one sorry arse, "I felt so sad and badly for (DT)" upon DRISP's confession, but never mentions any compassion for Laci and Connor. How self-serving he is.

[TopGunner]

Well did you read the page, it clearly states why he was asked to write the forward, you have to read it to understand it. I don't think a publisher would go and publish a book without some kind of proof, there is a letter on that page, it says it's one of many, from SP to the author, obviously they know each other. I believe, also go on the last page she is a well known anti death penalty advocate that will be speaking at huge ralley in Sac. I believe it has to be true. Or a publisher wouldn't publish a book like this, and we all know he's guilty, I can't wait to read this book!


I beg to differ P&J, although I do agree wholeheartedly he's guilty, but after seeing what Rita Cosby pulled with her book on ANS, I don't believe publishers "shy away" from he said/she said stuff. And there's something about TEXAS that doesn't sit right w/me, but that's another show as Oprah would say.

I'm curious to hear people's opinions on this book, but I won't be reading it.

[TopGunner]

ROFLMAO

Thanks for the update P&J.

That AF is one sorry arse, "I felt so sad and badly for (DT)" upon DRISP's confession, but never mentions any compassion for Laci and Connor. How self-serving he is.

Hey WAH, this is what caught my attention:

>>> I, having had a history with Amber Frey, thought, well, since a lot of the case a-gainst him was based on what she said and those tapes, they really didn't have anything on the guy. So when I read that card, I thought maybe, just maybe the dude did-n't do it, but <<<

If he feels "those tapes" meant they really didn't have anything on the dude, then his agenda is more transparent than I thought.

His forward is pretty much "poor me", and "I'll get her", and oh, yeah, Donna's cool man.

Whatever......

:cool:

[Wearing A Halo]

Hey WAH, this is what caught my attention:

>>> I, having had a history with Amber Frey, thought, well, since a lot of the case a-gainst him was based on what she said and those tapes, they really didn't have anything on the guy. So when I read that card, I thought maybe, just maybe the dude did-n't do it, but <<<

If he feels "those tapes" meant they really didn't have anything on the dude, then his agenda is more transparent than I thought.

His forward is pretty much "poor me", and "I'll get her", and oh, yeah, Donna's cool man.

Whatever......

:cool:

That is exactly right on TG. The whole, "I don't have a daughter and my mom isn't a grandmother" is so immature. That dude needs to grow up some and take responsibility for any time, care and love he ever had for "his daughter" regardless that he isn't the biological father. The one person who lost a daughter and grandson is Sharon and he has no emotional connection with her.

[Lavindar]

ROFLMAO

Thanks for the update P&J.

That AF is one sorry arse, "I felt so sad and badly for (DT)" upon DRISP's confession, but never mentions any compassion for Laci and Connor. How self-serving he is.

Hey, he also claims to make $150,000 a year as a hairdresser in Fresno on his myspace page. He has no credibility imo. There's no evidence he EVER met Scott EVER. Amber did ask Scott if he wanted to me AF's mother tho. Never AF. HE's trying to make that $150,000 a year he claims to make I think.

This is a man who sues for $15,000 in child support when he paid little enough that his driver's license was revoked for non-payment. He's scum

[Lavindar]

I beg to differ P&J, although I do agree wholeheartedly he's guilty, but after seeing what Rita Cosby pulled with her book on ANS, I don't believe publishers "shy away" from he said/she said stuff. And there's something about TEXAS that doesn't sit right w/me, but that's another show as Oprah would say.

I'm curious to hear people's opinions on this book, but I won't be reading it.


Neither will I. He sounds functionally illiterate. No author of any repute would allow such bs in a forward. THat's my opinion.

[Wearing A Halo]

You guys are way too hyper critical, why all the bashing of Flores? He didn't do anything, what did he do? He was told that child was his when it wasn't is that ok in your world? I don' think it is. He says in the forward he never met Scott Peterson, did you not read that there? Why are you making him the villian? He didn't do anything wrong, and whoever mentioned a myspace and Fresno, read how he signed it, he said he had to move, he lives in Southern California now, so that myspace must be old, maybe he hasn't had time to update it. Do you bash every person that says anything? I don't see him as a villian, SP is the one that killed his wife, he's the villian no one else, and I don't see Amber Frey as an angel either, after all she was on Oprah promoting her book that she didn't write, 3 weeks after the verdict came down, which means she was dealing with publishers and dealing with a book while she was under a gag order. She profited off of Laci's death, she is no saint. How come she didn't know that Flores wasn't the father? By the time she testified against SP she already had another child with another man, let's be honest here, let's call a spade by a spade,she is no angle I never viewed her as one. IF you guys do, that's your perogative, she didn't do anything any other woman wouldn't have done. Except she made millions of dollars off of what she did. Even Sharon is very critical of Amber in her book. So let's be honest here. Flores didn't do a thing wrong! SP did, that's who your anger should be directed at.

You, P&J, just don't understand it, do you? AF is so detatched from reality. Not once anywhere in his forward does he ever mention Laci and Conner (go ahead and read it again). He is more grateful to DRISP for helping him with his healing than realizing that what DRISP did was murder his wife (Laci) and unborn son (Connor). AF woefully is making himself more important than he really is. The whole pretext of DT was AF's involvement with Amber and to disparage her.

[TopGunner]

There is an email address there for the author, why don't you ask her what you want to, I emailed her, I haven't back from her, but if you have these naggaing questions shoot her an email. JMO

I have no questions, nagging or otherwise. The book lacks credibiltiy, it reeks of an agenda unrelated to the murder of Laci and Conner Peterson. You sound like their up and coming PR person. This probably isn't the place to practice.

:patriot:

[Lili007]

I've read Anne Bird's book, COURTESY OF A VERY KIND AND GENEROUS POSTER who called herself Celebration. It was very revealing and more telling than the other books I've read. I think it came from the heart of someone who was only just discovering her brother, and all the more honest for that. Whatever rosy expectations she might have had were blown away before they even blossomed, IMO. And all the better for her, and her own family. IMO.

The book I read was sent to me by a poster whose generosity to a stranger from across the world is something I will never forget. This is what our civilised and caring world is made of. I think we should cherish and cultivate that spirit.

This post is in acknowledgement and gratitude to a gracious lady, a generous soul and a fine poster. I will never forget her, and will always remember her kindness.

Cheers and all the best.

JMO

[TopGunner]

How immature of you! Not everyone in the world is going to agree with you.
That's life! I suppose because you don't agree, you're someone from the Peterson camp. Flores was told that child was his, and it wasn't, no one that I'm aware of would like that. I'm sure you wouldn't either!, He didn't do anything wrong. He was a victim too, there are a lot of victims from this case, certainly Sharon and her family, but there are others too. SP had friends, that stood by him and he was guilty,so they were also victimized. SP's family has been dogged, but listen, they didn't tell or ask SP to kill Laci, so they are victims too. There are no winners here, it's very very sad all the way around. Everyone has a right to their opinnion, accusing someone of being someone they are not is extremely childish. I hope you don't conduct your everyday afffairs like that!



LOL, AF and his personal issues have nothing to do with the guilt of ISP, and if you feel there's a connection, more power to you. :beer:

[margaritaville]

How immature of you! Not everyone in the world is going to agree with you.
That's life! I suppose because you don't agree, you're someone from the Peterson camp. Flores was told that child was his, and it wasn't, no one that I'm aware of would like that. I'm sure you wouldn't either!, He didn't do anything wrong. He was a victim too, there are a lot of victims from this case, certainly Sharon and her family, but there are others too. SP had friends, that stood by him and he was guilty,so they were also victimized. SP's family has been dogged, but listen, they didn't tell or ask SP to kill Laci, so they are victims too. There are no winners here, it's very very sad all the way around. Everyone has a right to their opinnion, accusing someone of being someone they are not is extremely childish. I hope you don't conduct your everyday afffairs like that!


LOL
Scott Peterson had friends that stood by him so they were victimized?

Please just for the sake of argument...

Name 5 of these so called "friends"...please...

Because looking at the people who testified, ummm I never heard of one good "friend" of Scotts...

So please enlighten me with your knowledge...

TIA


BTW: Pascal and Francesco don't count....

[Rachel Cory]

This is all besides the point, he had friends, he had the Reeds,the couple that had a son name Conner,
friends?

[TopGunner]

This is all besides the point, he had friends, he had the Reeds,the couple that had a son name Conner, Sharon talks about them in her book, he had the friend that testifed during the penalty phase that he had known since high school, his 2 parents (friends parents) also testifed. He had a Cal Poly Professor he was close to, he had friends. so what? That isn't the point. You were bashing Flores, he didn't do anything wrong. What did he do that was wrong? Someone said he wasn't paying enough child support so his license was taken away and he's scum, well the child wasn't even his, what does that make Amber? Do you think that his parents didn't love that little girl? You don't see them as victims of Amber's lies? I do. Everything is not just one sided in life. Scott killed Laci, yes, he's a monster, does that automatically make everyone else an angel or a monster? Amber is not an angel, she in my opinion is discpicable, she was on Greta just the other day, talking about nothing, if she just wants a normal life, why is she on TV talking about nothing, she testifed she got her BMW her new home, her new business, finally got someone to marry her because she had a little money, now she should just be quiet and go away, I"m sick of seeing her ugly face. Flores did nothing wrong, now this is old and tired. Peace.

What a PEACE & JOY - ful post! You might wanna change your nic. You also might want to ask Freshwater to start a AF thread about how victimized he was so anyone who CARES can go there. You're getting more and more transparent, careful.....

:no:

[Lavindar]

You guys are way too hyper critical, why all the bashing of Flores? He didn't do anything, what did he do? He was told that child was his when it wasn't is that ok in your world? I don' think it is. He says in the forward he never met Scott Peterson, did you not read that there? Why are you making him the villian? He didn't do anything wrong, and whoever mentioned a myspace and Fresno, read how he signed it, he said he had to move, he lives in Southern California now, so that myspace must be old, maybe he hasn't had time to update it. Do you bash every person that says anything? I don't see him as a villian, SP is the one that killed his wife, he's the villian no one else, and I don't see Amber Frey as an angel either, after all she was on Oprah promoting her book that she didn't write, 3 weeks after the verdict came down, which means she was dealing with publishers and dealing with a book while she was under a gag order. She profited off of Laci's death, she is no saint. How come she didn't know that Flores wasn't the father? By the time she testified against SP she already had another child with another man, let's be honest here, let's call a spade by a spade,she is no angle I never viewed her as one. IF you guys do, that's your perogative, she didn't do anything any other woman wouldn't have done. Except she made millions of dollars off of what she did. Even Sharon is very critical of Amber in her book. So let's be honest here. Flores didn't do a thing wrong! SP did, that's who your anger should be directed at.

Link to the "millions of dollars" that Amber made, please.

I abhor stupidity and Flores is stupid imo.

[Lavindar]

This is all besides the point, he had friends, he had the Reeds,the couple that had a son name Conner, Sharon talks about them in her book, he had the friend that testifed during the penalty phase that he had known since high school, his 2 parents (friends parents) also testifed. He had a Cal Poly Professor he was close to, he had friends. so what? That isn't the point. You were bashing Flores, he didn't do anything wrong. What did he do that was wrong? Someone said he wasn't paying enough child support so his license was taken away and he's scum, well the child wasn't even his, what does that make Amber? Do you think that his parents didn't love that little girl? You don't see them as victims of Amber's lies? I do. Everything is not just one sided in life. Scott killed Laci, yes, he's a monster, does that automatically make everyone else an angel or a monster? Amber is not an angel, she in my opinion is discpicable, she was on Greta just the other day, talking about nothing, if she just wants a normal life, why is she on TV talking about nothing, she testifed she got her BMW her new home, her new business, finally got someone to marry her because she had a little money, now she should just be quiet and go away, I"m sick of seeing her ugly face. Flores did nothing wrong, now this is old and tired. Peace.


Where were Scott's CURRENT friends who testified for him. The Reeds were probably closer to Laci since it was the pregnancies of Laci and Kristin that drew them together in the first place. NOT ONE PERSON WHO CURRENTLY KNEW SCOTT testified to his character. All the others were people who "knew him when." Reed thought he was guilty, Brian Argain thought he was guilty. Why could Geragos not find anyone who knew Scott NOT THROUGH LACI? Where were all hsi supporters in the courtroom? Laci's friends were there. Where were SCOTT's FRIENDS??? BTW, his family doesn't count.

[Lavindar]

Aww heck guys, I'll buy it! Ya know for the cause,
when it goes paperback,
and is on the table at Big Lots for $0.99.
I'll let ya know!
:hat:

Bet it never makes paperback - just like Dalton's book died a quick death and never made it to paperback.

[TopGunner]

Where were Scott's CURRENT friends who testified for him. The Reeds were probably closer to Laci since it was the pregnancies of Laci and Kristin that drew them together in the first place. NOT ONE PERSON WHO CURRENTLY KNEW SCOTT testified to his character. All the others were people who "knew him when." Reed thought he was guilty, Brian Argain thought he was guilty. Why could Geragos not find anyone who knew Scott NOT THROUGH LACI? Where were all hsi supporters in the courtroom? Laci's friends were there. Where were SCOTT's FRIENDS??? BTW, his family doesn't count.

Especially since anyone who didn't testify for Scott was disowned by the P's, LOL!!!!

[Lavindar]

Scott's mother seemed to think he should drive 700 miles to check it out, Scott laughed when he heard her voice message making this suggestion, according to transcript/audio of wiretapped conversation in evidence at trial. How does it indicate the seriousness of MPD's investigation into the tip that they didn't ask Scott to come in and view the tapes, IYO?


IIRC the woman in the tape came forward. Why would MPD ask Scott to come in and view a tape that WASN'T Laci? Common sense.

[Lavindar]

I suggest that NO ONE purchase the book. Go to your local library and read it if you're that curious. IMO it's a piece of opportunistic garbage.

I just read part of the forward online by Flores and it's ME ME ME, all about ME. It was disgusting.

I still wonder how Donna Thomas has the same premise in her book that Kathrynne Belmont had. Scott was innocent and confessed to her, also.
Also, I know for a fact that you can't just walk in and talk to a prisoner. The PRISONER has to put you on his visiting list. He has to put your name, address, phone number, birthdate and Driver's Licence number. How would Scitt have this information from someone he neer met?


I think this is another fraud on the public. Just like Matt Dalton's book was fiction, this one is also. I see no merit in her book at all.

[Lavindar]

Well obviously then he met her, duh! There is a letter on there, from SP to her, did you see that? There is a visitor's pass there, did you see that?
It also says that there are incriminating lettters that snotty sent after he confessed! Did you google the other case she is working on? You should, she seems legit to me! One more thing the book is on the cover of the Globe this week, and inside, legal experts are saying that snotty boys goose is now cooked for good, I've also seen a bunch of lies on other sites where it says this book was self published, it's not, it's published in a tradional fashion it says that on the site. As far as Flores who should it be about, YOU?
someone named Tina Gill has either a blog or a website, she sometimes usues the name girlwithoutfear she and someone named Sarah claim they wrote the other book. How was Matt Dalton's book fiction? He was a lawyer working on the case, he simply wrote his opinions, that isn't fiction. Fiction is Santa Claus not someone's opinion. One more thing, if everything is a lie, how come the snotty doesn't say a word? Where are his parents? I find it very odd that they have nothing to say. That speaks volums to me...JMO


Isn't fiction something that isn't fact? That's Dalton's book.

You have obviously NOT Read Dalton's book. None of it is his opinion - he states it all as fact. Fact that Alameda is next to Berkeley - it is not. Fact that the Church of Satan started in Berkeley - it did not. Fact that there are Satanic cults in Modesto. None have ever been found.

Dalton lied when he said that Martha Aguilar had the same doctor as Laci. Martha Aguilar was old enough to be Laci's mother. The only doctor Laci was seeing was her OB/Gyn. Martha was past child-bearing years.

Dalton was only on this case until August of 2003, He contributed nothing to the case but making a fool of himself. He claimed that there was no money for him to stay in a motel so he had to sleep in the office that Geragos had rented. They couldn't afford copy equipment either. That's odd, because they came up with money for him to stay in hotel/motel in the Bay Area (which is more expensive). Ditto's (a copy place) was across the street from the rented office where Dalton "lived." Funny that he doesn't mention the strong smell of marijuana constantly emanating from that office, isn't it? HE also doesn't mention that towel that he had across the door sill to keep that smoke inside.

Dalton is no longer practicing criminal law. Maybe his lying is why. He claims that he quit; Geragos claimed he was fired. All I know is that he bragged in his book how he would be hired by a prominent LA firm WHEN he brought Peterson in as a client. I believe that's unethical. Yet he goes on and on about how their conference room was nicer than the one at Geragos and Geragos.

He's scum, imo.

[Wearing A Halo]

I don't know Matt Dalton, so I'm not going to call him names such as "scum", it must be nice to feel that you have that kind of power to do that! I don't agree with what he wrote, but you can't control what others think or write, it's part of the 1st amendment. You didn't address the fact that Snotty wrote the author a letter and it's on the website so he knows her obviously, and there is a visitor's pass there too, the 2 of the obviously know each other, and the book is on the cover of the Globe right now. This author is going on a national book took, she does legal work, google her other client, the 2 names together like I did, Timothy Boham and Donna Thomas, I don't buy that she sat around and wrote a book about a person she doesn't know. Way too far fetched, It seems like YOU know her and have an ax to grind do you?

That Globe article is laugh out loud funny. DT is so far off from "TvLand reality" when she compares DRISP with Richie Cunningham! What a slap in the face to Ron Howard's character. DRISP is so much closer to Eddie Haskell. The Globe article is no more than what has already been said here by P&J. DRISP never sat down with DT and said he had something to get off his chest and had to tell someone. DT keeps repeating that DRISP slipped up. That is not a confession, instead, it is wishful thinking to sell her book.

[Lavindar]

I don't know Matt Dalton, so I'm not going to call him names such as "scum", it must be nice to feel that you have that kind of power to do that! I don't agree with what he wrote, but you can't control what others think or write, it's part of the 1st amendment. You didn't address the fact that Snotty wrote the author a letter and it's on the website so he knows her obviously, and there is a visitor's pass there too, the 2 of the obviously know each other, and the book is on the cover of the Globe right now. This author is going on a national book took, she does legal work, google her other client, the 2 names together like I did, Timothy Boham and Donna Thomas, I don't buy that she sat around and wrote a book about a person she doesn't know. Way too far fetched, It seems like YOU know her and have an ax to grind do you?


I just find it highly questionable when Kathrynne Belmont came out saying she was going to write a book on Scott's innocence, then claimed he confessed to her and she was going to write a book that he was guilty. Her book goes poof and Donna Thomas appears with the same premise. Also, I clicked on Belmont's blog and it came up Donna Thomas one time. No one has seen this person and the name is very common and she has written no books that I can find anywhere.

I saw the letter on her site. It was not large enough to see the writing. Has anyone actually analyzed it and said it was Scott's handwriting? I'm sure you could pick up a visitors pass from the trash can outside the prison with no problem if visitors are allowed to leave with them. MOre likely they have to be turned in when the visitor is leaving so that all of them are accounted for

[I'mSun]

I just find it highly questionable when Kathrynne Belmont came out saying she was going to write a book on Scott's innocence, then claimed he confessed to her and she was going to write a book that he was guilty. Her book goes poof and Donna Thomas appears with the same premise. Also, I clicked on Belmont's blog and it came up Donna Thomas one time. No one has seen this person and the name is very common and she has written no books that I can find anywhere.

I saw the letter on her site. It was not large enough to see the writing. Has anyone actually analyzed it and said it was Scott's handwriting? I'm sure you could pick up a visitors pass from the trash can outside the prison with no problem if visitors are allowed to leave with them. More likely they have to be turned in when the visitor is leaving so that all of them are accounted forYep, any dumpster diver could get a used pass at the end of the day.

What I found interesting is "Donna Thomas" claims there are 40 women on DR at SQ. This is not true, as SQ is male only. This is from her book and posted on her site.

[TopGunner]

It says in the notes there, that visitor's pass is one of several, it says the letter is one of several it also says SP sent incriminating letters after he confessed. This person does not seem like a flake to me. Who is Belmont? I never even heard of her. Did she do interviews, was the book published? I don't think it was. It could have been anyone. YOu can't just say stuff without proving it. It looks like his writing, I saw his writing in PEOPLE mag.
It looks like his writing you don't think the publisher checked out her story?
Come on, they don't want to get sued, she must have proof. Another book with another name that was never published has nothing to do with anything, and everyone was saying that person didn't know SP, it says in the notes there she contacted Sharon's lawyer, and the police, there has to be records of all of that, I can't imagine a publisher allowing an author to write a book like this without checking into things to make sure it's all true, jmo

Hey P&J, I've been checking around about this Digit-Tall Media publishing company. Can't find a blessed thing on them. Can you provide a link for this publisher, showing their history, all the other books they've published, etc.? Then we can move onto the credibility of the author and her *story*.

[Wearing A Halo]

...Snipped...You think he's innocent? Go to a doctor, I don't know what else to tell you but writing things about things you have no way of know is totally foolish on your part.

P&J, it is you who is the fool when you ask, "you think he's innocent?" Have you not seen my avatar and read my sig. It is you, P&J, who must go to an eye doctor since you can't see my avatar. So much for you, P&J, for not knowing what you write about even when it is right in front of you. Now, go take a good look at my avatar, then read my sig and ask yourself the question you asked, "you think he's innocent?"

[I'mSun]

The 40 women are not at San Quentin, but they are at a nearby prison, can't remmeber the name now, but I will look it up, if you go on the ccadp and you go to CA there is a woman on there she isn't at San Quentin but she is on death row in CA, women are not housed at San Quentin, but there are women on death row in CA, I don't know the exact number. As far as CCADP - I wouldn't want to go anywhere near that place. If you hang out there, I'm sure you understand why.

[Otter]

Calm down P&J!

Really, this book if its made up, or there's a bit of truth or its gospel, what does it matter to you?

I looked at her site, thank you for the link. I looked at "The Globe", who knew Charles and Camilla were divorcing? :rolleyes:

It makes no difference to me whether this book is self-published or not -- Digit-all (or whatever) seems to be a publisher of text books. Hey, Harry Potter books were from such a publisher. And there's nothing wrong with self-published books.

You're so passionate about this, why?

Oh, piece of advice, the ccadp pretty much brings snickers. Not a great source, IMOO. :)

BTW, the 800 mile walk against the DP -- 10 people here, 20 people there. Her site shows her as a keynote speaker in Sacramento, the site doesn't mention her. Odd, again, IMO.

[I'mSun]

Ok I just went back and looked on her site, it says there that until 1933 women and men were at San Quentin, and then in 1933 the women on death row at San Quentin were transferred to the nearby
Tehacapi Prison, and that's where the 40 death row woman are to this day!
So she didn't say anything that was incorrect, did anyone here bother to google her with Timothy Boham? Actually, it doesn't say that. This is what it says on her site:
However, San Quentin has the largest number of death row inmates in the United States. It has well over 700 men and more than 40 women. Within those numbers there are numerous other high-profile inmates, with a few of whom I had some interaction. So, what she says on her site is incorrect. Why would I even want to google Timothy Boham? I don't care about her fictional work, and I don't care who she hangs out with either. I am simply pointing out that her statement is incorrect.

[Otter]

Actually, it doesn't say that. This is what it says on her site:
So, what she says on her site is incorrect. Why would I even want to google Timothy Boham? I don't care about her fictional work, and I don't care who she hangs out with either. I am simply pointing out that her statement is incorrect.

Sun, you did much more research than I did. Let no one say that we don't know what we're talking about.

I have no idea who Donna Thomas is ... nor do I care. She found a hook to make a buck and that's it. No connection whatsoever.

Hey P&J -- how did Donna connect with him in the first place? Lol, misled folks against the DP? Lol again, a sociopath pursuing misfits?

Somehow I don't see Donna as the oracle you do. Enlighten me!

[Otter]

First of alll she mentions that women are no longer at San Quentin they are now at tehaccipi, the essence of what she wrote there is true, over 700 men and 40 women are on death row, and that is the truth and you are quibbling now bascially.

My point with Boham, in the gay community it's a huge case world-wide there are boards all over the net, and people are making comments from all over the world, and she happens to be his legal advocate.

What does a porn star have to do with DRISP? Maybe that was his goal from fertilizer salesman.


That is how she eats, that's her work, and people that don't know her are sitting around and saying that what she wrote isn't true, none of these people know her or Scott or anyone else connectecd to the case imo that's the wrong thing to do.

I don't want to think about what someone eats. Never in my life have I eaten my work. I will not judge if she is delusional or not, but I sure don't see his parents or anyone else supporting your opinion on this.

Did you quibble with Sharon's book too? I'm sure there are things left out on purpose or other things that were flat out false, I bet Amber's book had mistruths in it too, I don't reacall any of these people getting the kind of heat that this woman is getting, I do no think it's right,

Careful going here on Sharon. Do you have a murdered daughter? Offesensive alert, and report worthy.
if she got the truth out of him, god bless her!

How would you feel if you were a doctor, and people are going around the net saying you kill people, and that isn't the truth. Would anyone here like that? I would sue the hell out of someone if they did that to me, This is how this person earns a living,

Really? This makes no sense to me. So is DT a doctor? :confused: How DOES she make a living since you are so informed?

none of you weather it's true or not, the book isn't even out yet, so no one has read it, how can you make such statements about something you haven't even read?

Lol, my point exactly! Why are you so defensive? Donna? BTW "weather" is if its raining or sunny, "whether" is circumstances, devoid of what the weather is.

That's what I hate about the internet. People that are cowards and want to spread lies about someone can do it, with little repercussions. You people are so sure that she is lying, I bet not one of you has the nerve to email her directly with your claims of her lies, why?

Why would I email a total strager who knows less or as much of this tragedy than I do? Who is spreading lies? Maybe you should avoid the internet if it is so upsetting to you.

This is nuts!

Because you can easily be traced then if your making up lies and commiting libel she can sue you.

Oh for crying out loud. Get real! Cut the drama!

So instead the few supporters that SP has left are on boards like cowards looking to destroy someone else's reputation,

LOL! What do you care about his supporters, you refer to him as "Snotty"?
[B]I

I emailed her, and told her what boards people are dogging her on. I would hope that someone would do the same for me, I believe in paying it forward. I think I'm going to hold judgement until I read the book. Thank you!

Emailing yourself? I thought you, P&J, wrote this book!

I'm old. My eyes are old. I ask most reprectfully if you could make paragrphs; its just so hard to read.

I can edit though but I'm only adding returns and comments. :-)

And the comments are MOO!

[I'mSun]

First of alll she mentions that women are no longer at San Quentin they are now at tehaccipi,
Where does she say this? I already posted what it says on her site.

That is how she eats, that's her work, and people that don't know her are sitting around and saying that what she wrote isn't true, none of these people know her or Scott or anyone else connectecd to the case imo that's the wrong thing to do.
Oh. OK. I get it now. If we all KNEW her, then it would make what she wrote true. Silly me. I always thought what is fact, is fact. I didn't realize if you knew the person, then whatever they said was true, unconditionally. :rolleyes:

[Riviera]

Back on topic please -----> Books on this case

Thank you
Riviera

[Lavindar]

The 40 women are not at San Quentin, but they are at a nearby prison, can't remmeber the name now, but I will look it up, if you go on the ccadp and you go to CA there is a woman on there she isn't at San Quentin but she is on death row in CA, women are not housed at San Quentin, but there are women on death row in CA, I don't know the exact number.


Let me give you a hint. They are NOT nearby San Quentin and there have never been any women housed at San Quentin that I am aware of..
I stand corrected. There were women housed there until 1933. That's a long long time ago.

[Wearing A Halo]

First DT (author of a book on this case) writes Tehacapi, then P&J (who gets riled up) writes Tehaccipi. It is "factually" Tehachapi Prison in Kern County!

[I'mSun]

First DT (author of a book on this case) writes Tehacapi, then P&J (who gets riled up) writes Tehaccipi. It is "factually" Tehachapi Prison in Kern County!PIPLMAO!! cuz either way it is spelled, it is "factually" missing from DT's sample of the BOOK on her website.

(Book. Peterson. "factually" on topic.)

[cookiewench]

I just read it there.

"From 1852 until 1933, both women and men were housed at San Quentin. In 1933 the women inmates were transferred to Tehacapi Prison."


Page Two......"Inside News"

[I'mSun]

It is "factually" Tehachapi Prison in Kern County!This is getting to be really funny - no matter how it is spelled, it is known as Central California Women's Facility and the address is Chowchilla, CA. For you, WAH :beer:

[margaritaville]

Sun, you did much more research than I did. Let no one say that we don't know what we're talking about.

I have no idea who Donna Thomas is ... nor do I care. She found a hook to make a buck and that's it. No connection whatsoever.

Hey P&J -- how did Donna connect with him in the first place? Lol, misled folks against the DP? Lol again, a sociopath pursuing misfits?

Somehow I don't see Donna as the oracle you do. Enlighten me!


Well there is a conection between DRISP and the CCADP..
Remember the on-line thank you Scott published to his supporters?
It was posted on their website...


Condemned murderer Scott Peterson is thanking his supporters with an online message.

"For me, the amount of support we have received is just incredible,'' Peterson wrote from Death Row in San Quentin prison. "I am encouraged by, and enjoy hearing from people.''

Peterson's words were published by a Toronto-based Web site opposed to the death penalty. Its address is: www.ccadp.org/scottpeterson.htm.

The site promises: "Coming soon: family photos."

Peterson was convicted last year in Redwood City of killing his wife and unborn son in 2002.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/30/BABADIGEST4.DTL

[Wearing A Halo]

This is getting to be really funny - no matter how it is spelled, it is known as Central California Women's Facility and the address is Chowchilla, CA. For you, WAH :beer:

Hi Sun, you are so right on. Women on DR are housed (caged) within the SHU at CCWF at Chowchilla (Madera County), CA. So DT got it wrong on many levels and J&P just goes along with it. Go figure!:shrug:

[I'mSun]

Hi Sun, you are so right on. Women on DR are housed (caged) within the SHU at CCWF at Chowchilla (Madera County), CA. So DT got it wrong on many levels and J&P just goes along with it. Go figure!:shrug:LOL! Hard to figure that one. It sure doesn't make me want to run out and buy the book. You?

[Wearing A Halo]

LOL! Hard to figure that one. It sure doesn't make me want to run out and buy the book. You?

Nope! I won't buy this book. I will just read what is posted and go from there.

[cookiewench]

The author's statement is correct. She doesn't say where death row women in California are kept NOW, she says, "From 1852 until 1933, both women and men were housed at San Quentin. In 1933 the women inmates were transferred to Tehac(h)api Prison."

That is a fact.

[Lavindar]

The author's statement is correct. She doesn't say where death row women in California are kept NOW, she says, "From 1852 until 1933, both women and men were housed at San Quentin. In 1933 the women inmates were transferred to Tehac(h)api Prison."

That is a fact.
This is from her site: However, San Quentin has the largest number of death row inmates in the United States. It has well over 700 men and more than 40 women. Within those numbers there are numerous other high-profile inmates, with a few of whom I had some interaction

Odd that your quote is exactly what someone else posted on here, not what Donna Thomas has on her site (unless she has changed it since being informed of the truth.

Notice how Donna Thomas uses the present tense, not the past./

[Lavindar]

Here's the entire paragraph from her website:

On December 3, 1937, Robert Lee Cannon and Albert Kessel were the first men to be executed in the San Quentin gas chamber. The last person, as of this writing, to be executed there, was on January 17, 2006, Clarence Ray Allen. Scott told me he saw Allen shortly before he was executed. Very weak and very fragile, the condemned man was wheelchair bound and needed oxygen to breathe; he also had a multitude of health problems. At 76, Allen was the second oldest person to be executed in the United States.
I think if most people were asked to name the most well known inmate at San Quentin, they would more than likely say, Scott Peterson. However, San Quentin has the largest number of death row inmates in the United States. It has well over 700 men and more than 40 women. Within those numbersthere are numerous other high-profile inmates, with a few of whom I had some interaction. I will never forget those interactions; there are just some moments that a person never forgets.

Women death row prisoners are not at Tehachapi (which she mis-spells) Tehachapi is a male prison.

You would think a college graduate (one with a law degree) would know the difference between present and past tense.

[cookiewench]

This is from her site:

Odd that your quote is exactly what someone else posted on here, not what Donna Thomas has on her site (unless she has changed it since being informed of the truth.

Notice how Donna Thomas uses the present tense, not the past./


What are you talking about? I copied and pasted that sentence directly from the author's website.

What do you find to be odd?


I hadn't read what else the author had written about how many men & women are in San Quentin - I was simply copying what she (the author) has stated on her site about Tehachapi.

[Lavindar]

What are you talking about? I copied and pasted that sentence directly from the author's website.

What do you find to be odd?


I hadn't read what else the author had written about how many men & women are in San Quentin - I was simply copying what she (the author) has stated on her site about Tehachapi.

For one thing, she misspells Tehachapi. In the second place, Tehachapi is a men's prison. In the third place, that a college-educated woman doesn't know the difference between a present and past tense. I think she is playing fast and loose with the truth - do you think she could be Matt Dalton writing under a pseudonym?

[cookiewench]

For one thing, she misspells Tehachapi. In the second place, Tehachapi is a men's prison. In the third place, that a college-educated woman doesn't know the difference between a present and past tense. I think she is playing fast and loose with the truth - do you think she could be Matt Dalton writing under a pseudonym?

That is correct, but you were saying that I was quoting another poster and that my post wasn't from the author's website.

I wandered into this thread last night, clicked a link, and saw the quote there about Tehac(h)api.

Today I tried searching for info on just where the death row women are kept in California, but I could only find info on one - the one who's on the CCADP site. The info on the others is proving to be difficult to find on the web.

I guess that all of us can only have an opinion right now, because the book isn't out yet, so here's mine:

I don't think it's Matt Dalton. Dalton thinks the satanists did it and was angry at Geragos for getting rid of him, and he's made his puny profits and has moved on.

I don't think it's "Kathrynne Belmont" because that person couldn't even form a sentence and claimed that she'd had a sexual relationship with Scott since she was 19. She was just some cuckoo-bird.

I believe that Donna Thomas is a real person who works on death penalty cases. I believe she was in some kind of communication with him for a while. I believe that I'm curious about what form of "confession" he made to her.

One of the things that makes it sound credible (to me) is that she said that she passed on the confession to LE and the DA, but they weren't interested because they said the case is closed (too bad none of the NG's can get that point).

I think she probably hasn't met any death row women in California, but wanted to include some history of San Quentin in her book, so she copied some info from the web.

I think she made a very poor choice in getting in contact with Amber's old boyfriend, and in getting him to write a preface. Amber's character or past had nothing to do with the tapes she made which showed Scott's double life and lying ways - and his statement about having lost his wife was verified by Shawn. Anthony Flores has nothing to do with this case, and neither does his past relationship with Amber.

That's all I think right now.

[I'mSun]

For one thing, she misspells Tehachapi. In the second place, Tehachapi is a men's prison. In the third place, that a college-educated woman doesn't know the difference between a present and past tense. ITA, Lavindar. It's a good thing this book is fiction because here is another error: DT states 0ver 700 men on DR. The SQ website states there are 622. Here is the link for those who will request it: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Visitors/Facilities/SQ.html

Here is the link for CCWF - where they cage condemned female inmates
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Visitors/Facilities/CCWF.html

And here are the pictures for both sites: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/News/DeathRow/

[Lavindar]

ITA, Lavindar. It's a good thing this book is fiction because here is another error: DT states 0ver 700 men on DR. The SQ website states there are 622. Here is the link for those who will request it: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Visitors/Facilities/SQ.html

Here is the link for CCWF - where they cage condemned female inmates
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Visitors/Facilities/CCWF.html

And here are the pictures for both sites: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/News/DeathRow/

Good researching, Sun. 15 Condemned, Huh? That's less than half of
the 40 that Donna Thomas claims are there.

Let's see.....there are only 88% of the number of men she claims are on death row and 37.5% of the women she claims are on death row.

Does she even know WHICH of the 3 separate death rows that Scott is on? It sure makes you wonder, doesn't it?

And Tehachapi hasn't been a women's prison since the earthquake damaged it.

I would say she is NOT using the internet as a research tool since most of her information is incorrect or inflated grossly.

She's sure not making any points with me.

[cookiewench]

Okay. It's fiction.

[Otter]

Okay. It's fiction.

I never read Dalton's book, that sounded like fiction too from what I've read here and other places. Maybe they're dating? :punch: <---for me.

Totally O/T, is anyone else been having a hard time with loading pages over the last few days?

[I'mSun]

I never read Dalton's book, that sounded like fiction too from what I've read here and other places. Maybe they're dating? :punch: <---for me.

Totally O/T, is anyone else been having a hard time with loading pages over the last few days?Hi there, Otter! Dalton's book had terrible reviews, that's for sure. I don't think there was very much truth in his book.

For the most part, I've not had any problems with slow loading pages. Maybe once or twice, but nothing to speak of, really. Sorry.

[I'mSun]

I dare you to email her and ask her that question, You say "you wonder"
why don't you just send her email and ask her?

It must be nice to have all this leisure time to sit around and pick and poke at someone, I bet you know her, and are holding some sort of grudge agaiisnt her.As far as I am aware, nobody knows her and nobody holds a grudge against DT. Here is the problem, P&J: The author of the book posted one page on the net. Unfortunately, that page contains errors. The 'facts' that DT posted were simple enough to research and state correctly. But, she didn't. When so many errors are found in just a few paragraphs, it really takes away credibility. And that's my opinion.

[Otter]

As far as I am aware, nobody knows her and nobody holds a grudge against DT. Here is the problem, P&J: The author of the book posted one page on the net. Unfortunately, that page contains errors. The 'facts' that DT posted were simple enough to research and state correctly. But, she didn't. When so many errors are found in just a few paragraphs, it really takes away credibility. And that's my opinion.

An opinion I share Sun. You put it very well, as always! :beer:

Wow, size 4 font and bolded too. I saw your post P&J. I wonder about her too, but I don't want to email her. Nor do I want her emailing me. The woman put untruths on her website. That's all we can discern. And since this is all we know and has been proved as false, I will not read her book. :)

IMO, Donna Thomas is an uninformed fraud. :seeya:

[cookiewench]

I never read Dalton's book, that sounded like fiction too from what I've read here and other places. Maybe they're dating? :punch: <---for me.



I've been hoping that this book is factual, because it would make a couple of people on the net who've staked their claim to fame on Scott's innocence, and I'd like to see them squirm.

Is there any chance the death row statistics have changed since she first started writing the book?

[Otter]

I've been hoping that this book is factual, because it would make a couple of people on the net who've staked their claim to fame on Scott's innocence, and I'd like to see them squirm.

Is there any chance the death row statistics have changed since she first started writing the book?

According to Sun:

Originally Posted by I'mSun
ITA, Lavindar. It's a good thing this book is fiction because here is another error: DT states 0ver 700 men on DR. The SQ website states there are 622. Here is the link for those who will request it: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Visitors/Facilities/SQ.html

Here is the link for CCWF - where they cage condemned female inmates
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Visitors/Facilities/CCWF.html

And here are the pictures for both sites: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/News/DeathRow/

I don't think the stats have changed in such a short time. 78 more DR inmates would be a huge stretch IMO for the entire country, let alone California.

What did Dalton say that would lead an NG to rethink their position? I was under the impression that his book pulled at straws to point to his innocence.

[cookiewench]

Dalton's book bolstered the NG's weird conspiracy theories.

If this book is factual (and there's still a chance that the part about Scott is, in spite of the statistics quoted being off), there wouldn't be much they could say about it. In fact....I've seen a couple of staunch NG's state that the only way they'd be able to accept his guilt is if he confessed.

Bye bye SII. Bye bye happy haddocks "what are the odds".

[I'mSun]

I don't think the stats have changed in such a short time. 78 more DR inmates would be a huge stretch IMO for the entire country, let alone California.

What did Dalton say that would lead an NG to rethink their position? I was under the impression that his book pulled at straws to point to his innocence.As usual, ITA with you, Otter. Do you remember the number of inmates on DR when ISP moved in? As I recall it was around 623 or something like that.

[Wearing A Halo]

As usual, ITA with you, Otter. Do you remember the number of inmates on DR when ISP moved in? As I recall it was around 623 or something like that.

Hi Sun, at the end of 2004, the number of DRIs at SQ was 641.

[Otter]

As usual, ITA with you, Otter. Do you remember the number of inmates on DR when ISP moved in? As I recall it was around 623 or something like that.

Sounds good to me! If she's saying over 700, I don't remember reading about 70 something executions in the state.

With that degree of fact checking, I wouldn't want that sort of legal representation on any level, even as a mere advocate. Not that I need it. Nor would I believe anything else she would have to say, if she skews facts easily found by googling.

After all these years, we're not easily fooled, even when the word "confession" is tossed into the mix.

MOO of course.

[I'mSun]

Hi Sun, at the end of 2004, the number of DRIs at SQ was 641.Thank you, WAH. Interesting that the number is going down; not up. Nowhere near "over 700."

[Lavindar]

As usual, ITA with you, Otter. Do you remember the number of inmates on DR when ISP moved in? As I recall it was around 623 or something like that.



Well, there was the gang leader who was put to death. and the Sausage King from San Leandro died of natural causes. Don't know how many have been sentenced to death row since Peterson. Chances are very good that the number hasn't varied a lot since the moratorium.

[Wearing A Halo]

Thank you, WAH. Interesting that the number is going down; not up. Nowhere near "over 700."

Okay, currently as of today 2007, the number of DRIs is 622. Sun, you were off by one (LOL), but, that number is current as there was 641 in 2004.

[I'mSun]

Okay, currently as of today 2007, the number of DRIs is 622. Sun, you were off by one (LOL), but, that number is current as there was 641 in 2004.Off by one, eh? LOL! Thanks, WAH.

[Lavindar]

Off by one, eh? LOL! Thanks, WAH.


She said she began seeing him in 2004 so her 700 figure has nothing to do with anything. It's made up - like Marlene or the infamous odds maker from Canada do. I'd say the odds are 10 to 1 she's a liar. Said he confesses in March of 2006

[deputydi]

She said she began seeing him in 2004 so her 700 figure has nothing to do with anything. It's made up - like Marlene or the infamous odds maker from Canada do. I'd say the odds are 10 to 1 she's a liar. Said he confesses in March of 2006

Hey, I wonder if she knows the infamous David Sween. We haven't heard anything about him for a long time.

[Lavindar]

Hey, I wonder if she knows the infamous David Sween. We haven't heard anything about him for a long time. Oh, I LOVED reading about the noted investigator who decided (sans any forensics) that Laci was shot in the head. This case does bring them out of the woodwork doesn't it?

[TopGunner]

Off by one, eh? LOL! Thanks, WAH.

Sun, gasp! You were off by one. :punch: I'm not buying your book either. :tongue:

[I'mSun]

Sun, gasp! You were off by one. :punch: I'm not buying your book either. :tongue:Oh well, that's OK, TG. Especially since you already bought the bridge!!! :biggrin:

[TopGunner]

Oh well, that's OK, TG. Especially since you already bought the bridge!!! :biggrin:

ROFLMAO - touche'!:beer:

[Rachel Cory]

For one thing, she misspells Tehachapi. In the second place, Tehachapi is a men's prison. In the third place, that a college-educated woman doesn't know the difference between a present and past tense. I think she is playing fast and loose with the truth - do you think she could be Matt Dalton writing under a pseudonym?
:D Love it.

[thinkaboutit]

Isn't fiction something that isn't fact? That's Dalton's book.

You have obviously NOT Read Dalton's book. None of it is his opinion - he states it all as fact. Fact that Alameda is next to Berkeley - it is not. Fact that the Church of Satan started in Berkeley - it did not. Fact that there are Satanic cults in Modesto. None have ever been found.

Dalton lied when he said that Martha Aguilar had the same doctor as Laci. Martha Aguilar was old enough to be Laci's mother. The only doctor Laci was seeing was her OB/Gyn. Martha was past child-bearing years.

Dalton was only on this case until August of 2003, He contributed nothing to the case but making a fool of himself. He claimed that there was no money for him to stay in a motel so he had to sleep in the office that Geragos had rented. They couldn't afford copy equipment either. That's odd, because they came up with money for him to stay in hotel/motel in the Bay Area (which is more expensive). Ditto's (a copy place) was across the street from the rented office where Dalton "lived." Funny that he doesn't mention the strong smell of marijuana constantly emanating from that office, isn't it? HE also doesn't mention that towel that he had across the door sill to keep that smoke inside.

Dalton is no longer practicing criminal law. Maybe his lying is why. He claims that he quit; Geragos claimed he was fired. All I know is that he bragged in his book how he would be hired by a prominent LA firm WHEN he brought Peterson in as a client. I believe that's unethical. Yet he goes on and on about how their conference room was nicer than the one at Geragos and Geragos.

He's scum, imo.

Just had to drop in here.....Lavindar - I wonder how Dalton would feel about you accusing him of smoking marijuana?

How do you know so much about Anthony Flores? Why are you so anti Anthony Flores and so pro Amber Frey?

I just might buy this book - just to see what kind of good dirt DT got from Anthony Flores about Amber.

I'm surprised you guys don't support this book since it's anti-Scott. You must have some kind of inside info that it contains dirt on some of the people you support.

[I'mSun]

I just might buy this book - just to see what kind of good dirt DT got from Anthony Flores about Amber.

I'm surprised you guys don't support this book since it's anti-Scott. You must have some kind of inside info that it contains dirt on some of the people you support.Hi Tai, I won't buy it because I don't like reading trash. I hope you enjoy the book and I look forward to your review.

[Lavindar]

Just had to drop in here.....Lavindar - I wonder how Dalton would feel about you accusing him of smoking marijuana? I woudl assume he would deny deny deny. He, however. cannot deny that he was living in a space rented as an office - illegal as offices are not up to code for residential areas. He ADMITS to living in the office in his book. The smell of marijuana permeated the entire floor. Several people complained to the owner of the building about it. It's common knowledge in town.

] I deplore any man who refuses to pay child support for any reason. Flores did NOT lose his driver's license for paying on time - you only lose your license after a long period of time NOT paying support. Flores and his mother both made multiple statements to the press both in Modesto and in Fresno.

[quote]I just might buy this book - just to see what kind of good dirt DT got from Anthony Flores about Amber. Feel free to throw your money away. I think it'd better be spent on a comic book
I'm surprised you guys don't support this book since it's anti-Scott. You must have some kind of inside info that it contains dirt on some of the people you support.
Maybve we don't like liars, on our side or not.

[TopGunner]

>>>Maybe we don't like liars, on our side or not.<<<:beer:

[TopGunner]

Hi Tai, I won't buy it because I don't like reading trash. I hope you enjoy the book and I look forward to your review.


Hiya Sun,
I'm looking forward to all two reviews as well. haha....

:chicken:

[adnoid]

...Maybve we don't like liars, on our side or not.

So right on.

Fundamental attribution error - ascribing motives to others based on your view of the world. I don't speak for others I do not know, but I can tell you that I, and everyone I know that feels Scott is guilty, does so because of the facts of the case, not due to the personalities of the people involved, allegiences, family loyalties or any other such hogwash. When I think about Marlene's "Kharma points for dirt on Sharon Rocha", I realize that all that us/them crap came from the NG side of the argument. This whole "allegiance to your clan/family/side" stuff is what you see in the uneducated, underdeveloped societies as a general rule.

I'm not anti-Scott, I'm pro-truth and pro-justice. If I determined Scott didn't do the crime I'd advocate as strongly for his release as I do now for his execution.

As far as this book, I have no interest because I don't believe the folks involved are either credible or knowledgeable, even if they appear to agree with my conclusion. Frankly, I'd rather read a book on the case written by Mark Geragos - at least he was involved in it.

[TopGunner]

So right on.

Fundamental attribution error - ascribing motives to others based on your view of the world. I don't speak for others I do not know, but I can tell you that I, and everyone I know that feels Scott is guilty, does so because of the facts of the case, not due to the personalities of the people involved, allegiences, family loyalties or any other such hogwash. When I think about Marlene's "Kharma points for dirt on Sharon Rocha", I realize that all that us/them crap came from the NG side of the argument. This whole "allegiance to your clan/family/side" stuff is what you see in the uneducated, underdeveloped societies as a general rule.

I'm not anti-Scott, I'm pro-truth and pro-justice. If I determined Scott didn't do the crime I'd advocate as strongly for his release as I do now for his execution.

As far as this book, I have no interest because I don't believe the folks involved are either credible or knowledgeable, even if they appear to agree with my conclusion. Frankly, I'd rather read a book on the case written by Mark Geragos - at least he was involved in it.

Adnoid, excellent post, I know you speak for many. It has NEVER been about "winning" (as it is for some). It has always been about TRUTH.

I've pointed out more times than I can count that the NG's "fight" for excuses as to why ISP should walk. Trying to find errors in the investigation and/or trial, yelling foul, rush to judgement, uterus horns (LOL), etc., but NEVER, EVER, EVER does anyone say he didn't commit the murders, that he is INNOCENT ("factually" innocent doesn't cut it).

I don't care if he was convicted by a toss of a coin. He murdered his family, and "how" he got behind bars is a moot point, IMO.

Why ANYONE would support his release, knowing he could easily KILL AGAIN is so far beyond my ability to comprehend, that I don't even try.

I'm just grateful it's not going to be the legacy I leave behind.

The whole point of this book, true or untrue, is one persons word that something was said. Unless ISP put this in writing, or was recorded saying it to the author, it means nothing. Just like Dalton's rambling, no-sence, nonsense. She presents herself as a woman scorned. AF, in his forward, is clearly a man scorned. Dalton's book was a lawyer scorned (actually, I believe the P's were behind the end of his career and credibility, LOL).

Regardless of anyone's opinion of Amber, she had the tapes to back herself up, period.

The book is a joke, but lucky for the author, one or two people will purchase it...NOT because they believe she has something important to contribute, but simply to state "so there", WHOA and ROFLMAO... !!!:patriot:

[thinkaboutit]

Adnoid, excellent post, I know you speak for many. It has NEVER been about "winning" (as it is for some). It has always been about TRUTH.

I've pointed out more times than I can count that the NG's "fight" for excuses as to why ISP should walk. Trying to find errors in the investigation and/or trial, yelling foul, rush to judgement, uterus horns (LOL), etc., but NEVER, EVER, EVER does anyone say he didn't commit the murders, that he is INNOCENT ("factually" innocent doesn't cut it).

I don't care if he was convicted by a toss of a coin. He murdered his family, and "how" he got behind bars is a moot point, IMO.

Why ANYONE would support his release, knowing he could easily KILL AGAIN is so far beyond my ability to comprehend, that I don't even try.

I'm just grateful it's not going to be the legacy I leave behind.

The whole point of this book, true or untrue, is one persons word that something was said. Unless ISP put this in writing, or was recorded saying it to the author, it means nothing. Just like Dalton's rambling, no-sence, nonsense. She presents herself as a woman scorned. AF, in his forward, is clearly a man scorned. Dalton's book was a lawyer scorned (actually, I believe the P's were behind the end of his career and credibility, LOL).

Regardless of anyone's opinion of Amber, she had the tapes to back herself up, period.

The book is a joke, but lucky for the author, one or two people will purchase it...NOT because they believe she has something important to contribute, but simply to state "so there", WHOA and ROFLMAO... !!!:patriot:

For the record - I've said all of this before - I'll say it as many times as I need to....to remind you every time you forget.

I believe Scott is innocent. Not factually innocent - INNOCENT. I would never, never attempt to help someone who I believed was guilty - just to win an argument, prove I was right, say "so there" or any of that other b.s. you and Adnoid posted. Oh I agree that "this whole 'allegiance to your clan/family/side' stuff is what you see in the uneducated, underdeveloped societies as a general rule." It's evident here. You can call me uneducated all you want if it makes you feel good. I'm used to the resorting to insults on this board....insult away.

There's no need to "try" to find errors in this investigation and/or trial, rush to judgement, etc... It's all there, whether you like it or not. And no matter how many times you and the others post that it isn't....it simply doesn't make it true.

Adnoid claims to be pro-truth, pro-justice. Sure he is. Any hint to there being some kind of connection between DR, the Croton Watch and the Medina burglary - and those wheels start turning to find excuses to explain it away. Like.....maybe she found the watch in the park after Scott dumped it there. Okay - sure - whatever. All of you have insulted and berated every NG that has come to this board with their opinion. You are not interested in any opinion other than your own. You are not open to anything other than "Scott is guilty".

It's amazing how one-sided your opinions are Topgunner. Anthony Flores is a man scorned. DT is a woman scorned, Dalton was scorned. But because Amber Frey had tapes to backup that she was scorned - she wasn't scorned? Huh?

Anne Bird's book is also one person's word that something was said. But the G's take it as gospel. No scorning there huh? No bitterness for having been given up for adoption?

You all don't like liars on your side or not? And I guess only the G's are qualified to decide who's lying and who isn't?

But - believe it or not - we agree on one thing.....unless Scott put this confession in writing - I wouldn't believe it either. Words that could possibly be maybe, interpreted as supporting a confession (like the rest of the evidence at trial) won't cut it for me.

[Lavindar]

SNIPPED

Anne Bird's book is also one person's word that something was said. But the G's take it as gospel. No scorning there huh? No bitterness for having been given up for adoption?

Anne Bird was not scorned by Jackie until AFTER she wrote the book.
Anne's life with her adoptive parents was something most children only dream of - educated abroad, loved.

If you read her book, you would know that she NEVER sought Jackie. It was her half-brother Don who sought Jackie out and sought out Anne. Anne was more than happy with the life she had been given.

Maybe you need to find out why Mark was so scorned by the Peterson family when he attempted to attend the memorial for Laci. Laci was alreade dead and buried to the Peterson family, and anyone who showed any sympathy or sorrow at Laci's death was SCORNED BY THE PETERSONS.

BTW, can anyone explain to me what "factually innocent" means. Is that anything like Kermit "factually went beyond the high water line. "Factually innocent" is a term that the fat and ugly Marlene Newell conned and it means nothing except that is "sounds good" to an NG. Factually, he was found guilty, so there's no such thing as "factually innocent."

[Lavindar]

For the record - But because Amber Frey had tapes to backup that she was scorned - she wasn't scorned? Huh?

If you listened to the tapes, you should recall that it was AMBER who broke off the relationship with Scott. Scott was content to keep her dangling for whatever purpose. It wasn't Amber, but SCOTT who wrote her from jail, months after she said it was over.

When WILL you read anything on this case? It's all out there and easily discovered. Scott NEVER SCORNED Amber. Wasn't he still buying her gifts for her birthday in February? That doesn't sound like scorning to me.

[Invrdv8]

Snipped

Anne Bird's book is also one person's word that something was said. But the G's take it as gospel. No scorning there huh? No bitterness for having been given up for adoption?

Why is it the NG's believe Anne is bitter about "having been given up for adoption"? After seeing the "real" Jackie and the "real" Scott, IMO, Anne is thanking her lucky stars she wasn't raised in the Peterson family. You don't think she compared Jackie and Lee to her adoptive parents and realized how lucky she was that Jackie had given her up? I'll just bet John has wished more than once that she had given him up too. It's been reported that his life with Jackie and Lee didn't run all that smoothyly and at one point they kicked him out.

[TopGunner]

*Hark* I think I hear a former mod scorned....:punch:

LOL ... !!! :chicken: :chicken: :chicken:

[adnoid]

*Hark* I think I hear a former mod scorned...

Interesting point. The angry jabs from one who was once trusted to recommend banning - and did so to those who disagreed. As I would know. The true colors always show through eventually.

[deputydi]

So right on.

Fundamental attribution error - ascribing motives to others based on your view of the world. I don't speak for others I do not know, but I can tell you that I, and everyone I know that feels Scott is guilty, does so because of the facts of the case, not due to the personalities of the people involved, allegiences, family loyalties or any other such hogwash. When I think about Marlene's "Kharma points for dirt on Sharon Rocha", I realize that all that us/them crap came from the NG side of the argument. This whole "allegiance to your clan/family/side" stuff is what you see in the uneducated, underdeveloped societies as a general rule.

I'm not anti-Scott, I'm pro-truth and pro-justice. If I determined Scott didn't do the crime I'd advocate as strongly for his release as I do now for his execution.

As far as this book, I have no interest because I don't believe the folks involved are either credible or knowledgeable, even if they appear to agree with my conclusion. Frankly, I'd rather read a book on the case written by Mark Geragos - at least he was involved in it.
I agree with every word. I usually support the underdog unless I am convinced the support is not warranted. As you said so well, if I thought for a minute Scott MIGHT be innocent, I would be a strong advocate for getting him a new trial. I have NO doubt of his guilt and that's not because I dislike him, his lifestyle, his mother, his attorneys or anything else. It's because I think he murdered his beautiful wife and unborn baby. PERIOD.

I have no interest in reading a piece of trash (whether the author agrees with his guilt or not) that is written by a self-serving, greedy person whose involvement in the trial was ZERO. I hope when all is said and done, she ends up owing the publisher money.

[adnoid]

...Wasn't he still buying her gifts for her birthday in February? That doesn't sound like scorning to me.

As Lee would say, "there's no playbook for dumping". I'm sure there's lots of guys that send gifts to girls, call them, try to get together with them, etc. as a way of dumping them. Right?

I've been out wine tasting today, can you tell?

[TopGunner]

I agree with every word. I usually support the underdog unless I am convinced the support is not warranted. As you said so well, if I thought for a minute Scott MIGHT be innocent, I would be a strong advocate for getting him a new trial. I have NO doubt of his guilt and that's not because I dislike him, his lifestyle, his mother, his attorneys or anything else. It's because I think he murdered his beautiful wife and unborn baby. PERIOD.

I have no interest in reading a piece of trash (whether the author agrees with his guilt or not) that is written by a self-serving, greedy person whose involvement in the trial was ZERO. I hope when all is said and done, she ends up owing the publisher money.

Hear hear DD, you said it better than I ever could!

:beer:

[Lavindar]

As Lee would say, "there's no playbook for dumping". I'm sure there's lots of guys that send gifts to girls, call them, try to get together with them, etc. as a way of dumping them. Right?

I've been out wine tasting today, can you tell?

Where's the sarcasm warning....lol. If there are guy who do all of the above trying to dump a girl, I never met any of them. More likely they ignore important dates, refuse to talk to them on the phone and never EVER try to get together with them - not even the ones who are trying to let the girls down easy. I think Scott would still be writing her from death row if she hadn't dumped him.

Look at Scott's history with women - he would cheat and then bombard the one cheated on with flowers and sad stories. I'm not sure that Scott ever dumped anyone in his history.

[Invrdv8]

As Lee would say, "there's no playbook for dumping". I'm sure there's lots of guys that send gifts to girls, call them, try to get together with them, etc. as a way of dumping them. Right?

I've been out wine tasting today, can you tell?

If that's Lee's idea of "dumping" I wonder what he'd call "courting"? :confused:

[Invrdv8]

Interesting point. The angry jabs from one who was once trusted to recommend banning - and did so to those who disagreed. As I would know. The true colors always show through eventually.

Ahhhhh...so is that what was behind Freshwater's apology?

[Lavindar]

If that's Lee's idea of "dumping" I wonder what he'd call "courting"? :confused: I am sitting on my hands instead of typing what I want to say. I would be banned for sure if I typed what I thought here.

[Hipcheck]

Just had to drop in here.....Lavindar - I wonder how Dalton would feel about you accusing him of smoking marijuana?

How do you know so much about Anthony Flores? Why are you so anti Anthony Flores and so pro Amber Frey?

I just might buy this book - just to see what kind of good dirt DT got from Anthony Flores about Amber.

I'm surprised you guys don't support this book since it's anti-Scott. You must have some kind of inside info that it contains dirt on some of the people you support.


The Anthony Flores that helped Donna Thomas write her book is the author not Amber Frey's former boyfriend.

Anthony Flores the author has written many books.

Anthony Flores the former boyfriend of Amber Frey dosesn't write books.
:cuss:

[Rachel Cory]

The Anthony Flores that helped Donna Thomas write her book is the author not Amber Frey's former boyfriend.

Anthony Flores the author has written many books.

Anthony Flores the former boyfriend of Amber Frey dosesn't write books.
:cuss:
Why, thank you. So, how does he know Amber Frey? (I visited the site, too.)
This is all so unimportant. Scott didn't confess to murdering Laci, because he is FACTUALLY NOT GUILTY. Factually.

[deputydi]

Why, thank you. So, how does he know Amber Frey? (I visited the site, too.)
This is all so unimportant. Scott didn't confess to murdering Laci, because he is FACTUALLY NOT GUILTY. Factually.
Didn't you leave out IMO? "Factually" Scott is guilty. "Factually" he was convicted in court. You may "think" he is not guilty, but you "factually" have no way of knowing with an absolute certainty that he is. All you have is an opinion.

[TopGunner]

Why, thank you. So, how does he know Amber Frey? (I visited the site, too.)
This is all so unimportant. Scott didn't confess to murdering Laci, because he is FACTUALLY NOT GUILTY. Factually.

Hey Rach, ummm....did you by chance miss the trial? He was convicted, found GUILTY, so like.....you are factually incorrect.

:patriot:

[Lavindar]

The Anthony Flores that helped Donna Thomas write her book is the author not Amber Frey's former boyfriend.

Anthony Flores the author has written many books.

Anthony Flores the former boyfriend of Amber Frey dosesn't write books.
:cuss:


the only Anthony Flores that I can find on the internet is Amber's ex boy-friend. I checked on Amazon and they have no books listed for an Anthony Flores. So he must not be an author or many books. Will try some other book sites, but it's not looking good for your story.

[JustMyOpinion]

Why, thank you. So, how does he know Amber Frey? (I visited the site, too.)
This is all so unimportant. Scott didn't confess to murdering Laci, because he is FACTUALLY NOT GUILTY. Factually.

Did you miss the verdict?

[deputydi]

the only Anthony Flores that I can find on the internet is Amber's ex boy-friend. I checked on Amazon and they have no books listed for an Anthony Flores. So he must not be an author or many books. Will try some other book sites, but it's not looking good for your story.
I did a quick Google on "anthony flores" and came up with plenty of hits. Among them are doctors, lawyers, athletes, authors, and just plain nobodys. This must be quite a common name.

[Wearing A Halo]

For the record - I've said all of this before - I'll say it as many times as I need to....to remind you every time you forget.

I believe Scott is innocent. Not factually innocent - INNOCENT. I would never, never attempt to help someone who I believed was guilty - just to win an argument, prove I was right, say "so there" or any of that other b.s. you and Adnoid posted. Oh I agree that "this whole 'allegiance to your clan/family/side' stuff is what you see in the uneducated, underdeveloped societies as a general rule." It's evident here. You can call me uneducated all you want if it makes you feel good. I'm used to the resorting to insults on this board....insult away.

There's no need to "try" to find errors in this investigation and/or trial, rush to judgement, etc... It's all there, whether you like it or not. And no matter how many times you and the others post that it isn't....it simply doesn't make it true.

Adnoid claims to be pro-truth, pro-justice. Sure he is. Any hint to there being some kind of connection between DR, the Croton Watch and the Medina burglary - and those wheels start turning to find excuses to explain it away. Like.....maybe she found the watch in the park after Scott dumped it there. Okay - sure - whatever. All of you have insulted and berated every NG that has come to this board with their opinion. You are not interested in any opinion other than your own. You are not open to anything other than "Scott is guilty".

It's amazing how one-sided your opinions are Topgunner. Anthony Flores is a man scorned. DT is a woman scorned, Dalton was scorned. But because Amber Frey had tapes to backup that she was scorned - she wasn't scorned? Huh?

Anne Bird's book is also one person's word that something was said. But the G's take it as gospel. No scorning there huh? No bitterness for having been given up for adoption?

You all don't like liars on your side or not? And I guess only the G's are qualified to decide who's lying and who isn't?

But - believe it or not - we agree on one thing.....unless Scott put this confession in writing - I wouldn't believe it either. Words that could possibly be maybe, interpreted as supporting a confession (like the rest of the evidence at trial) won't cut it for me.

!ROFLMAO!

TAI, that is whole lot of rambling of nothingness.

[Lavindar]

I did a quick Google on "anthony flores" and came up with plenty of hits. Among them are doctors, lawyers, athletes, authors, and just plain nobodys. This must be quite a common name. But how many are in Colorado and/ir CA. Thoams claims "her flores is in so CA, which is where the Anthony Flores involved iwth Amber lives. How many books did you find that he authored since he has had many books published?

[Lavindar]

I suggest that we no longer post corrections to Donna Thomas's information on this site. It appears that what we say is immediately being put onto her web site. Poor woman can't even do her own homework.

[thinkaboutit]

Interesting point. The angry jabs from one who was once trusted to recommend banning - and did so to those who disagreed. As I would know. The true colors always show through eventually.

Ah yes....the truth according to Adnoid. :rolleyes:

[deputydi]

But how many are in Colorado and/ir CA. Thoams claims "her flores is in so CA, which is where the Anthony Flores involved iwth Amber lives. How many books did you find that he authored since he has had many books published?
Here's one who died in 2004 at the age of 33:
http://anthony-flores.memory-of.com/

Here is the review of a movie from the NY Times. This Flores is an actor so I assume he must have spent some time on the West Coast:
http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/342646/Tortillas-Again-/overview

A football player from Norwalk, CA:
http://collegefootball.rivals.com/cviewplayer.asp?Player=40269

Here's some kid on a bike from LA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGk20Jg4Uec

An attorney from San Francisco:
http://www.floresfirm.com/

This one is a Graphic Designer who went to Ca Polytech (can you believe it?):
http://sip-the-juice.com/default4.asp

I'm having so much fun with this that I hate to stop, but you get the picture. This is not an uncommon name.

[Lavindar]

Here's one who died in 2004 at the age of 33:
http://anthony-flores.memory-of.com/

Here is the review of a movie from the NY Times. This Flores is an actor so I assume he must have spent some time on the West Coast:
http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/342646/Tortillas-Again-/overview

A football player from Norwalk, CA:
http://collegefootball.rivals.com/cviewplayer.asp?Player=40269

Here's some kid on a bike from LA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGk20Jg4Uec

An attorney from San Francisco:
http://www.floresfirm.com/

This one is a Graphic Designer who went to Ca Polytech (can you believe it?):
http://sip-the-juice.com/default4.asp

I'm having so much fun with this that I hate to stop, but you get the picture. This is not an uncommon name.

No, it's not an uncommon name, but what is the point of having an Anthony Flores who has no connection to this case post a forward. Didn't he say (before she removed it from her website) that Donna contacted his mother first? So much for Anthony Flores being the boyfriend of Donnd Thomas. Most women do NOT contact a mother to reach her boyfriend. This whole thing is so fishy. Methinks she's been drinking some water from the Bay

[Lavindar]

Here's one who died in 2004 at the age of 33:
http://anthony-flores.memory-of.com/

Here is the review of a movie from the NY Times. This Flores is an actor so I assume he must have spent some time on the West Coast:
http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/342646/Tortillas-Again-/overview

A football player from Norwalk, CA:
http://collegefootball.rivals.com/cviewplayer.asp?Player=40269

Here's some kid on a bike from LA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGk20Jg4Uec

An attorney from San Francisco:
http://www.floresfirm.com/

This one is a Graphic Designer who went to Ca Polytech (can you believe it?):
http://sip-the-juice.com/default4.asp

I'm having so much fun with this that I hate to stop, but you get the picture. This is not an uncommon name.

You can eliminate the one from Norwalk - he's still in high school. You can eliminate the dead one because he's not alive to write this forward. I am working on the rest of them. Oh you can eliminate the kid on the bike from LA - too young. Attorney is too old - practicing law since 1987. Gtaphic designed is also too old.

Amber's Anthony is 31, does not have any degrees. He had a window washing business according to his mother. I guess he went to cosmotology school because he claims to be a hairdresser on his myspace page.

There's a picture of him on Donna's book website. Check it now, before she deletes it.

[Rachel Cory]

Didn't you leave out IMO? "Factually" Scott is guilty. "Factually" he was convicted in court. You may "think" he is not guilty, but you "factually" have no way of knowing with an absolute certainty that he is. All you have is an opinion.
Three years ago, I would have added IMO. It is not MOO any longer. The truth is Scott did NOT murder his wife. He is factually not guilty of the crime. The jury, three years ago, made a mistake. They did not have the information that is now known, and in reality, the verdict was THEIR opinion. You seem to believe that since they found him guilty, he most assuredly is. They were wrong. Perhaps you should question your firm belief. (And maybe do a little bit of sleuthing.)

[Rachel Cory]

Did you miss the verdict?
I didn't miss anything.

[TopGunner]

Three years ago, I would have added IMO. It is not MOO any longer. The truth is Scott did NOT murder his wife. He is factually not guilty of the crime. The jury, three years ago, made a mistake. They did not have the information that is now known, and in reality, the verdict was THEIR opinion. You seem to believe that since they found him guilty, he most assuredly is. They were wrong. Perhaps you should question your firm belief. (And maybe do a little bit of sleuthing.)


Rach, you know..........this sounds a little silly. It wasn't a pretend trial. It was the real deal, facts and evidence presented. To blatently state he's not guilty is ridiculous. Unless you're about to pull the "secret papers" deal, and nah..hah..nah...na...nah, which isn't allowed. It most certainly IS your opinion unless you have proof to show otherwise.:seeya:

[cookiewench]

Three years ago, I would have added IMO. It is not MOO any longer. The truth is Scott did NOT murder his wife. He is factually not guilty of the crime. The jury, three years ago, made a mistake. They did not have the information that is now known, and in reality, the verdict was THEIR opinion. You seem to believe that since they found him guilty, he most assuredly is. They were wrong. Perhaps you should question your firm belief. (And maybe do a little bit of sleuthing.)


Ahhhh; let me guess: the "information that is now known (by whom?)" has to remain Top Secret while the guy rots on death row.

Sure. Can't let that super-secret "new" information out there because.....why?

[cookiewench]

Anne Bird's book is also one person's word that something was said. But the G's take it as gospel. No scorning there huh? No bitterness for having been given up for adoption?



You believe that children who are given up for adoption end up bitter, even when they've had a wonderful life?

But wait! Jackie first gave up Don....then still didn't bother to use birth control (or control her promiscuous self) and gave away Anne....and then was trying to give John away.

Yet you think she is the "best of the best"....the cream of the crop, the sale of the earth and all that?

Yet you postulate that adoption can cause a lifetime of bitterness - bitterness that would lead to lying about your brother, even when he's on death row?

One would think that if you believe that adoption leads to such heinous behavior in the adopted, that you would also believe that women who get themselves repeatedly pregnant by virtual strangers and then give the baby to strangers would kinda be less than the cream of the crop.

[Lavindar]

You believe that children who are given up for adoption end up bitter, even when they've had a wonderful life?

But wait! Jackie first gave up Don....then still didn't bother to use birth control (or control her promiscuous self) and gave away Anne....and then was trying to give John away.

Yet you think she is the "best of the best"....the cream of the crop, the sale of the earth and all that?

Yet you postulate that adoption can cause a lifetime of bitterness - bitterness that would lead to lying about your brother, even when he's on death row?

One would think that if you believe that adoption leads to such heinous behavior in the adopted, that you would also believe that women who get themselves repeatedly pregnant by virtual strangers and then give the baby to strangers would kinda be less than the cream of the crop.


I agree that Anne was not bitter. She did not seek out Jackie, Don did. He found Jackie, then he found Anne and introduced her to Jackie. Anne NEVER sought out her birth mother. So, to assume that Anne was bitter, is to ignore the true situation. Don only sought out Jackie because his adoptive parents were dead.

[cookiewench]

I agree that Anne was not bitter. She did not seek out Jackie, Don did. He found Jackie, then he found Anne and introduced her to Jackie. Anne NEVER sought out her birth mother. So, to assume that Anne was bitter, is to ignore the true situation. Don only sought out Jackie because his adoptive parents were dead.

But Anne hates Scott because he got all that attention as a major murder suspect and she was jealous of how much everyone hated his guts and couldn't wait til he got arrested.....


And....and.....and Laci threw down the mop the minute Scott left the house, put on a broken Croton watch that she didn't like and was trying to sell.....and went out with the dog she had stopped walking two months ago...to investigate a burglary that was going on at the Medinas while they were still home and packing their car......which she saw through her closed drapes.....and was kidnapped by burglars on bicycles during a daylight burglary and all this happened within the 20 minutes between the time Scott left the house and the dog was found...and no one saw or heard anything....and then they stored her body in a bathtub and borrowed a car while they were in prison and drove Laci and Conner to the shore and dumped them there to frame Scott.....even though they were not suspects in her disappearance and had kept the body well hidden for four months and...and.... and......and.

[Lavindar]

But Anne hates Scott because he got all that attention as a major murder suspect and she was jealous of how much everyone hated his guts and couldn't wait til he got arrested.....


And....and.....and Laci threw down the mop the minute Scott left the house, put on a broken Croton watch that she didn't like and was trying to sell.....and went out with the dog she had stopped walking two months ago...to investigate a burglary that was going on at the Medinas while they were still home and packing their car......which she saw through her closed drapes.....and was kidnapped by burglars on bicycles during a daylight burglary and all this happened within the 20 minutes between the time Scott left the house and the dog was found...and no one saw or heard anything....and then they stored her body in a bathtub and borrowed a car while they were in prison and drove Laci and Conner to the shore and dumped them there to frame Scott.....even though they were not suspects in her disappearance and had kept the body well hidden for four months and...and.... and......and.


Really points out the ridiculousness of the theories, doesn't it?

[adnoid]

Really points out the ridiculousness of the theories, doesn't it?

Actually, it doesn't even come close. Where is the world's largest conspiracy, involving everyone from the dog catcher to the FBI & CIA? There's no mention of the phrase "Convicted by The Media™". No tribute to the genius of Justin Falconer. No mention of "Rush to Judgment". No baseless accusations against Laci's family. You've got to do better than that!

[Buckethead]

Ah yes....the truth according to Adnoid. :rolleyes:

Well, now that you mention it, YES, Adnoid certainly tells it like it is, doesn't he. :seeya:

[TopGunner]

Well, now that you mention it, YES, Adnoid certainly tells it like it is, doesn't he. :seeya:

You bet BH!
:D

[I'mSun]

Ah yes....the truth according to Adnoid. :rolleyes:Yep, that's right! You have a problem with it?

[WaitN4Ever]

I suggest that we no longer post corrections to Donna Thomas's information on this site. It appears that what we say is immediately being put onto her web site. Poor woman can't even do her own homework.

Donna Thomas isn't really her name.
Her actual name is Elizabeth Boggs.
I'd like to see her put that on her website.
Just tell the truth for once.

[Wearing A Halo]

But Anne hates Scott because he got all that attention as a major murder suspect and she was jealous of how much everyone hated his guts and couldn't wait til he got arrested.....


And....and.....and Laci threw down the mop the minute Scott left the house, put on a broken Croton watch that she didn't like and was trying to sell.....and went out with the dog she had stopped walking two months ago...to investigate a burglary that was going on at the Medinas while they were still home and packing their car......which she saw through her closed drapes.....and was kidnapped by burglars on bicycles during a daylight burglary and all this happened within the 20 minutes between the time Scott left the house and the dog was found...and no one saw or heard anything....and then they stored her body in a bathtub and borrowed a car while they were in prison and drove Laci and Conner to the shore and dumped them there to frame Scott.....even though they were not suspects in her disappearance and had kept the body well hidden for four months and...and.... and......and.

...and Conner was dumped, err, I mean, placed to be found for proper burial because the "real killer" really cared for him.

[Wearing A Halo]

Donna Thomas isn't really her name.
Her actual name is Elizabeth Boggs.
I'd like to see her put that on her website.
Just tell the truth for once.

!LOL!

"He was a builder, not a destroyer."

[TopGunner]

Yep, that's right! You have a problem with it?

Actually Sun, it appears to be more like a frustrated-crush, because it's in no way reciprocated. :biggrin:

[deputydi]

Three years ago, I would have added IMO. It is not MOO any longer. The truth is Scott did NOT murder his wife. He is factually not guilty of the crime. The jury, three years ago, made a mistake. They did not have the information that is now known, and in reality, the verdict was THEIR opinion. You seem to believe that since they found him guilty, he most assuredly is. They were wrong. Perhaps you should question your firm belief. (And maybe do a little bit of sleuthing.)
Once again, Rachel, you have absolutely no way of knowing he is "factually not guilty". You want to talk about facts -- a jury found him to be guilty and theirs is the only opinion that counts. That, alone, makes him "factually" guilty. What information is "now known" that wasn't available to them and would prove him not guilty? Like it or not, Scott has been convicted -- that makes him guilty of murder in the first degree. Your OPINION is based on your own interpretation of the evidence and that does not make it fact. You are entitled to have an opinion based on what you believe to be the facts, but you are not entitled to state it as the only "truth". I followed this case as closely as everyone else on this board and I am still waiting to hear something that would exonerate him. So far, none of the NG theories make a lick of sense.

[Buckethead]

Three years ago, I would have added IMO. It is not MOO any longer. The truth is Scott did NOT murder his wife. He is factually not guilty of the crime. The jury, three years ago, made a mistake. They did not have the information that is now known, and in reality, the verdict was THEIR opinion. You seem to believe that since they found him guilty, he most assuredly is. They were wrong. Perhaps you should question your firm belief. (And maybe do a little bit of sleuthing.)


The jury was wrong? After hearing ALL the testimony, ALL the evidence, all the things YOU didn't hear, you're saying they were wrong?

ROFL, are you going to provide links to back up your claims? If not, then it really is your opinion only, and should be stated as such, as per TOS. :seeya:

[deputydi]

You can eliminate the one from Norwalk - he's still in high school. You can eliminate the dead one because he's not alive to write this forward. I am working on the rest of them. Oh you can eliminate the kid on the bike from LA - too young. Attorney is too old - practicing law since 1987. Gtaphic designed is also too old.

Amber's Anthony is 31, does not have any degrees. He had a window washing business according to his mother. I guess he went to cosmotology school because he claims to be a hairdresser on his myspace page.

There's a picture of him on Donna's book website. Check it now, before she deletes it.
I was just replying to the post in which you said you couldn't find an Anthony Flores other than Ambers ex. There are many, many Anthony Flores'. I have to admit I haven't visited the website nor did I look back at the conversation that preceded your post. Sorry.

Do you have the website addy? I'd really like to check it out -- just out of curiosity.

[JustMyOpinion]

Three years ago, I would have added IMO. It is not MOO any longer. The truth is Scott did NOT murder his wife. He is factually not guilty of the crime. The jury, three years ago, made a mistake. They did not have the information that is now known, and in reality, the verdict was THEIR opinion. You seem to believe that since they found him guilty, he most assuredly is. They were wrong. Perhaps you should question your firm belief. (And maybe do a little bit of sleuthing.)


Factually, he was found guilty by a sworn jury in a court of law, and a verdict is not an "opinion".

It appears you believe they got it wrong, and it is your opinion that Scott didn't commit these crimes.

[Wearing A Halo]

Ah yes....the truth according to Adnoid. :rolleyes:

TAI, tell us how much you believe the lies told by Marlene Newell and Neil Morrison (aka happyhaddock, AVOS, etc, etc, etc)!

[cookiewench]

This was the orginal forward from Flores. I'm willing to bet a million dollars no such Anthony Flores contributed to this fake book because there is no Donna Thomas.

How did I meet Donna Thomas? I would have to go back to early April in 2005. My brother called me and said he’d got a card in the mail that was addressed to our mom at his house, which she asked him to open and read. He told me the card was really about me and said I should come and get it. It was a few days before I was able to go to my brother's house. I sat in the backyard and read the card. It was from a lady named Donna Thomas. She said she was a friend of Scott Peterson and was trying to help him by finding justice, and that I may or may not be able to help Scott. She went on to say that she would go anywhere in the world to talk to me. There were tons of email addresses and telephone numbers on that card. She gave me her entire schedule for the month of April, almost hour by hour. Since the card was directed to my mom, Donna ended it by asking: From one parent to another, how would you feel if your son was sitting on death row for cheating on his wife? Not for killing her, but just for cheating on her? Please try your best to have Anthony contact me. I'm thanking you in advance.

:chicken:

I think it actually may be "the" Anthony Flores, and it's one of the things that gives me pause about this book.

It sounds like Thomas was going to try to discredit Amber through Anthony. You don't have to be a legal analyst to know that nothing that could come out about Amber could affect Scott's case. It wouldn't matter if Amber had been a street hooker or a crack head or even an ex-con: the evidence that was used in the tapes was to show what SCOTT said, how SCOTT acted, how SCOTT lied, how SCOTT didn't concern himself with his missing wife, etc.

Amber committed no crime, Amber was not on trial, and to drag her and her "past" through the mud in a effort to save Scott is just despicable.


Other than that, I'm still holding out a bit of hope that Donna Thomas actually did have a legal/friend relationship with Scott, that she did get letters, and that he did confess.

What a kick that would be.

[cookiewench]

I was just replying to the post in which you said you couldn't find an Anthony Flores other than Ambers ex. There are many, many Anthony Flores'. I have to admit I haven't visited the website nor did I look back at the conversation that preceded your post. Sorry.

Do you have the website addy? I'd really like to check it out -- just out of curiosity.

If that's not Amber's Anthony Flores, then he stole the photo he posted from "that" Flores's myspace. He looks just like the Flores on the myspace, and the Flores who did a TV interview about his relationship with Amber, years ago.

[TopGunner]

I've been sitting here following links and Googling names. It sure seems pretty obvious to me that Donna Thomas is a complete fraud and the book is a work of pure fiction. I never really believed that Scott confessed to anyone, let alone an author who was sure to make the world aware of it. Her switch from Kathrynne Belmont to Donna Thomas wasn't concealed very well -- they are the same person. Her "10 year affair" with Scott just didn't happen. Scott had been followed by LE so closely in the weeks prior to his arrest, there is no way they were together as she claimed. IMO she made the whole thing up.

Hopefully DD, the two people that ultimately purchase this book will share additional fabrications from it. I do believe the author has been here promoting her "work", and up close and personal, she isn't very NICE.
:no: More than likely the book will end up on the Rita Cosby shelf, i.e., the bs shelf.:D

[adnoid]

TAI, tell us how much you believe the lies told by Marlene Newell and Neil Morrison (aka happyhaddock, AVOS, etc, etc, etc)!

Hey, at least you'll never hear ME spout off about people being held in bathtubs!

[I'mSun]

Hey, at least you'll never hear ME spout off about people being held in bathtubs!...or Kermit, Monkey and Doll nudging and bumping :biggrin:

[adnoid]

...or Kermit, Monkey and Doll nudging and bumping :biggrin:

The infamous Richmond Jetty Experiment. (http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Research&Analysis/field/jetty/071506/field.htm#4)

I still say the paragraph headings make for one heck of a low-budget porn film script. "Scene 25: Monkey still stuck, Kermit gets nudged some more". Classic.

Still, the biggest joke is the conclusion:

2. This evidence shows that objects making it through the rocks can end up in the general area where Conner was found.

Followed by

The evidence contained in these video clips prove that Conner did not wash ashore

[deputydi]

We go around and around with the same facts and evidence. They did not convince me then, and since the verdict, I've done some googling myself. (I'm not the only one, as you are well aware.) One fact led to another and another until a totally different story of the abduction and murder of Laci Peterson appeared. I'll give in. The conclusion I came to is only my opinion. In fact, I may be in the tiny minority of researchers who do not believe that the Medina burglary is connected. Of course, that is only my opinion. Just as I am of the opinion that Scott is not guilty of the murder of his wife and baby, I am also of the opinion that neither are Steven Todd and Donald Pearce. Believe me, that puts me "out of the loop!"
If, when you put all your "facts" together, the resulting story made sense, I might pay attention to it. No matter how many Kermit experiments you try or how loud and long you try to make sense out of the bathtub theory, it just doesn't work. There isn't a shred of actual evidence that any of your "theories" happened the way you want to believe they did. Do you have any solid evidence that would stand up in court? If you do have evidence that could exonerate Scott once and for all, why is it imperative that you keep it secret? "Secret" evidence is no good to anyone.

[TopGunner]

We go around and around with the same facts and evidence. They did not convince me then, and since the verdict, I've done some googling myself. (I'm not the only one, as you are well aware.) One fact led to another and another until a totally different story of the abduction and murder of Laci Peterson appeared. I'll give in. The conclusion I came to is only my opinion. In fact, I may be in the tiny minority of researchers who do not believe that the Medina burglary is connected. Of course, that is only my opinion. Just as I am of the opinion that Scott is not guilty of the murder of his wife and baby, I am also of the opinion that neither are Steven Todd and Donald Pearce. Believe me, that puts me "out of the loop!"

Well Rach, I'm not sure how "googling" over-rides a full blown 6 months trial with a million dollar defense, 40,000 pages of investigative research, and 167 witnesses - but thanks for admitting it's only your opinion, much appreciated.

:rose:

[cookiewench]

We go around and around with the same facts and evidence. They did not convince me then, and since the verdict, I've done some googling myself. (I'm not the only one, as you are well aware.) One fact led to another and another until a totally different story of the abduction and murder of Laci Peterson appeared. I'll give in. The conclusion I came to is only my opinion. In fact, I may be in the tiny minority of researchers who do not believe that the Medina burglary is connected. Of course, that is only my opinion. Just as I am of the opinion that Scott is not guilty of the murder of his wife and baby, I am also of the opinion that neither are Steven Todd and Donald Pearce. Believe me, that puts me "out of the loop!"

You truly believe that Scott's million-dollar defense team didn't know how to google???? Heck - whatever you found, they probably PUT IT there.

[Wearing A Halo]

You truly believe that Scott's million-dollar defense team didn't know how to google???? Heck - whatever you found, they probably PUT IT there.

SMFOBPLMAO

[TopGunner]

SFBPLMAO

OMGITAPIMP2!!!!

:biggrin:

[Wearing A Halo]

OMGITAPIMP2!!!!

:biggrin:

LOL IHA!

[I'mSun]

LOL IHA!OMGPIMPLMAO2!! TG & WAH :beer:

[Lili007]

I didn't mean to strike a cord by pointing out the obvious. Don't waste our time trying to convince us this book is real when you know it isn't. Deal?

jmo

:no:

" OUR time"? Unless you're royalty and using the royal plural by default, please don't presume to speak on anyone else's behalf but your own.

For my part, Cookie's not "wasting" MY time. She makes a very good point, and a lot more graciously.

JMO

[deputydi]

There is no deal to make, because I never tried to convince anyone that this book is "real". Ever. I have stated that I believe it is possible - I am not "convinced".

A book is coming out in a few weeks. Some were sure that it was "fake" the minute they heard about it.

I am willing to wait until it comes out before I make that judgement. It would be interesting if it is authentic, but I have no idea if it is or isn't - nor do you.

Meanwhile - this is a discussion board, and posters are permitted to discuss their opinions on different subjects surrounding the Scott Peterson case.
Quite honestly, I would like nothing better than to be able to believe that Scott "fessed up" to what he did. Sadly, Scott has never taken responsibility for anything he ever did. He reminds me of the type who always finds someone else or something else to blame for his problems.

[Lavindar]

Everything I found went to the Petersons. I'm a nobody from miles away, but the connections are certainly there. Another thing, even if I gave you the names of the killers, you wouldn't recognize them. I've never seen them posted anywhere in reference to this case. That's good for them, I admit. But they weren't as clever as they thought they were, now were they? I found them. I'll never give the information over the internet. Why, you know, they or some of their associates or relatives may be lurking right now. If so, let me say to them, "Your time is short." They'll know exactly what I mean.

By the way, you don't know what MY theories are. They actually make sense. I don't believe the bathtub thing. (And I'm not Marlene Newell.)

Obviously the Petersons don't believe your theory either or they'd have Scott out by now. Do you think they are going to sit on them for another 7 years rather than see Scott go free? If they had any real information that would set Scott, free, don't you think they'd contact Greta or one of the other sympathetic TV commentators to tell the world?

[TopGunner]

Everything I found went to the Petersons. I'm a nobody from miles away, but the connections are certainly there. Another thing, even if I gave you the names of the killers, you wouldn't recognize them. I've never seen them posted anywhere in reference to this case. That's good for them, I admit. But they weren't as clever as they thought they were, now were they? I found them. I'll never give the information over the internet. Why, you know, they or some of their associates or relatives may be lurking right now. If so, let me say to them, "Your time is short." They'll know exactly what I mean.

By the way, you don't know what MY theories are. They actually make sense. I don't believe the bathtub thing. (And I'm not Marlene Newell.)


Ahem.......I told myself, don't respond. You did not just read Rachel saying that SHE personally FOUND the "real" killers of Laci Peterson, no you did not TG. You see, I've been meaning to have my eyes checked, and now I'm thinking it's too late, they're too far gone.

Very bold statement Rach. The REAL killer of Laci Denise Peterson, and her baby Conner, is sittting on death row as we speak. I think this might fall into the catagory of "secret papers", but oh hey.....I won't tell.

:patriot:

[TopGunner]

Obviously the Petersons don't believe your theory either or they'd have Scott out by now. Do you think they are going to sit on them for another 7 years rather than see Scott go free? If they had any real information that would set Scott, free, don't you think they'd contact Greta or one of the other sympathetic TV commentators to tell the world?


ShhhhhhhhHHHH Lavindar!!!! The real killers are lurking, HERE, eek gads!

:eek: We might be causing them to run ...!!! ROFLMAO!!!!!!

[Buckethead]

Everything I found went to the Petersons. I'm a nobody from miles away, but the connections are certainly there. Another thing, even if I gave you the names of the killers, you wouldn't recognize them. I've never seen them posted anywhere in reference to this case. That's good for them, I admit. But they weren't as clever as they thought they were, now were they? I found them. I'll never give the information over the internet. Why, you know, they or some of their associates or relatives may be lurking right now. If so, let me say to them, "Your time is short." They'll know exactly what I mean.

By the way, you don't know what MY theories are. They actually make sense. I don't believe the bathtub thing. (And I'm not Marlene Newell.)

Surely you jest!

[deputydi]

Ahem.......I told myself, don't respond. You did not just read Rachel saying that SHE personally FOUND the "real" killers of Laci Peterson, no you did not TG. You see, I've been meaning to have my eyes checked, and now I'm thinking it's too late, they're too far gone.

Very bold statement Rach. The REAL killer of Laci Denise Peterson, and her baby Conner, is sittting on death row as we speak. I think this might fall into the catagory of "secret papers", but oh hey.....I won't tell.

:patriot:
I'm with you TG. I just cannot -- willnot -- take a chance on getting banned. You gotta admit though, the post is pretty funny.:chicken:

[I'mSun]

Everything I found went to the Petersons. I'm a nobody from miles away, but the connections are certainly there. Another thing, even if I gave you the names of the killers, you wouldn't recognize them. I've never seen them posted anywhere in reference to this case. That's good for them, I admit. But they weren't as clever as they thought they were, now were they? I found them. I'll never give the information over the internet. Why, you know, they or some of their associates or relatives may be lurking right now. If so, let me say to them, "Your time is short." They'll know exactly what I mean.

By the way, you don't know what MY theories are. They actually make sense. I don't believe the bathtub thing. (And I'm not Marlene Newell.)At first, I thought you were serious. Then, after I read it again, I realized it was meant as a joke. Good one! :biggrin:

[cookiewench]

Let's hope that "The Real Killers (TM) don't read Crime Library. They might decide to run off to Argentina with that "new, secret evidence" and Scott will really be f***ed.

[I'mSun]

Let's hope that "The Real Killers (TM) don't read Crime Library. They might decide to run off to Argentina with that "new, secret evidence" and Scott will really be f***ed.LOL!! Scott already is. :D

[TopGunner]

Let's hope that "The Real Killers (TM) don't read Crime Library. They might decide to run off to Argentina with that "new, secret evidence" and Scott will really be f***ed.

Rof........LMAO!!!!!
:D :beer:

[Wearing A Halo]

Everything I found went to the Petersons. I'm a nobody from miles away, but the connections are certainly there. Another thing, even if I gave you the names of the killers, you wouldn't recognize them. I've never seen them posted anywhere in reference to this case. That's good for them, I admit. But they weren't as clever as they thought they were, now were they? I found them. I'll never give the information over the internet. Why, you know, they or some of their associates or relatives may be lurking right now. If so, let me say to them, "Your time is short." They'll know exactly what I mean.

By the way, you don't know what MY theories are. They actually make sense. I don't believe the bathtub thing. (And I'm not Marlene Newell.)

Do you, RC, mean that you found info that leads to the Ps being responsible for the murders of Laci and Conner or did you actually give your info away to the Ps for nothing? If it the latter, the Ps would be the last people anyone should be giving info to. You, RC, may want to trust them, but I would not. The Ps will want to take credit for all your work of googling. As for "finding them," did you, RC, find the people or just their names?

[Lavindar]

When I read this
Everything I found went to the Petersons. , my first thought that all the evidence pointed to the Petersons. Then I realized that this person was actually serious. I'm so sorry that you are letting Scott languish on death row while you are bragging on a message board that you have the information to free him. Modesto is just so full of murderers and low-lifes that would kidnap and murder a pregnant lady. Good thing the police usually get their "man. I guess you didn't read that Matt Dalton has to now remove one of his "missing, pregnant women" from his list of similar cases within "80 miles" of Modesto. Too bad she wasn't pregnant and it was never EVER reported that she was pregnant - in fact one of her distinguishing marks was her hysterectomy scars. Hey, if Matt Dalton couldn't free Scott with his fictional evidence, I venture to think no one could with any "real" evidence. Rachel, have the Petersons not paid you the reward for your information yet?

[adnoid]

...you don't know what MY theories are...

Every day I try to find something in this world for which I am thankful. You have done my work for me today, and you have my gratitude.

[margaritaville]

Everything I found went to the Petersons. I'm a nobody from miles away, but the connections are certainly there. Another thing, even if I gave you the names of the killers, you wouldn't recognize them. I've never seen them posted anywhere in reference to this case. That's good for them, I admit. But they weren't as clever as they thought they were, now were they? I found them. I'll never give the information over the internet. Why, you know, they or some of their associates or relatives may be lurking right now. If so, let me say to them, "Your time is short." They'll know exactly what I mean.

By the way, you don't know what MY theories are. They actually make sense. I don't believe the bathtub thing. (And I'm not Marlene Newell.)


WOW!! You broke the case all form "google"...As Scott would say, "AMAZING"

What are you going to do with all the reward money?

I see that the Petersons are so thrilled about the break in the case and getting you the reward money that they have told......NOBODY

How exactly did you shut them up??? I would have thought they would be screaming this from the rooftops....picketing SQ to let their innocent son out..

[deputydi]

WOW!! You broke the case all form "google"...As Scott would say, "AMAZING"

What are you going to do with all the reward money?

I see that the Petersons are so thrilled about the break in the case and getting you the reward money that they have told......NOBODY

How exactly did you shut them up??? I would have thought they would be screaming this from the rooftops....picketing SQ to let their innocent son out..

Shhhhhhh. It's a secret.

[Lavindar]

This scam is getting really creepy. I e-mailed a few questions to the person listed for DTM and you know what I got? They took my e-mail address and used it as their own via Verizon. It had all this computer language on it and that was it.

:eek:

This whole thing is starting to reek of fraud.

[Rachel Cory]

You've been making this same claim for years now.

...names from Lord knows where....

You do this because you say "they can't get to you all the way in Denmark"

I'm not Skov.

[Wearing A Halo]

I'm not Skov.

You are not Marlene and you are not Skov, then you are Jules-!LOL!

Tic-toc, tic-toc, tic-toc.

[Wearing A Halo]

Why is she claiming some strange guy who's nam just happens to be Anthony Flores is her boyfriend when she states she is married?

:confused:

Oh, I got a mention on her self published site. I feel so special.

:D

ROFLMAO...

...and that Perkydelic sure gets around!

[Heyes]

Ahem.......I told myself, don't respond. You did not just read Rachel saying that SHE personally FOUND the "real" killers of Laci Peterson, no you did not TG. You see, I've been meaning to have my eyes checked, and now I'm thinking it's too late, they're too far gone.

Very bold statement Rach. The REAL killer of Laci Denise Peterson, and her baby Conner, is sittting on death row as we speak. I think this might fall into the catagory of "secret papers", but oh hey.....I won't tell.

:patriot:
Hey TopGunner.
I have to also ask..
What "secret papers"?
To just get here and read some of this is mind boggling. I cannot believe we have a person among us that has solved the crime, knows the name of the murderers and scott's still behind bars. Could this be true???? What are these "secret papers" about? Oh my, did anyone call greta? :rolleyes:
IMO

[TopGunner]

Hey TopGunner.
I have to also ask..
What "secret papers"?
To just get here and read some of this is mind boggling. I cannot believe we have a person among us that has solved the crime, knows the name of the murderers and scott's still behind bars. Could this be true???? What are these "secret papers" about? Oh my, did anyone call greta? :rolleyes:
IMO

Heys, SHUSH!!!! Didn't anyone tell you that the REAL KILLERS read here, and we might be unintentionally letting them know that any second now...or year now, they're gonna get CAUGHT?! Heaves Heys, I thought everyone knew about THE SECRET.
:biggrin: :seeya:

[Heyes]

Heys, SHUSH!!!! Didn't anyone tell you that the REAL KILLERS read here, and we might be unintentionally letting them know that any second now...or year now, they're gonna get CAUGHT?! Heaves Heys, I thought everyone knew about THE SECRET.
:biggrin: :seeya:
D'OH.
I didn't get the memo!

besides how do ya all know it ain't me??? bwa ha ha ha

Seriously the things people come up with to show loyalty for a murderer.
This is something I see lots of boards. weird.
So when do we get the murderers names and see the secret papers??

[Lavindar]

D'OH.
I didn't get the memo!

besides how do ya all know it ain't me??? bwa ha ha ha

Seriously the things people come up with to show loyalty for a murderer.
This is something I see lots of boards. weird.
So when do we get the murderers names and see the secret papers??

I believe they are figments of an active imagination. If Jackie knew the names, don't you think she'd call in the AP, ABC, NBC, CBs, CourtTV and everyone else in broadcasting to announce it?

[TopGunner]

I believe they are figments of an active imagination. If Jackie knew the names, don't you think she'd call in the AP, ABC, NBC, CBs, CourtTV and everyone else in broadcasting to announce it?


Oh, I know, DUH! They're gonna wait till Christmas Eve to let him out...one of his most memorable holiday's.
:no:

[Heyes]

Oh, I know, DUH! They're gonna wait till Christmas Eve to let him out...one of his most memorable holiday's.
:no:
I would think geregos would say something, he's got a microphone in his face just about every other night! :rolleyes:

[TopGunner]

Thanks Results. Word about Sycamore has been "on the streets" for a week or so now, LOL, and everyone is planning to be there!!:rose: :patriot:

[One2Snoop]

Heys, SHUSH!!!! Didn't anyone tell you that the REAL KILLERS read here, and we might be unintentionally letting them know that any second now...or year now, they're gonna get CAUGHT?! Heaves Heys, I thought everyone knew about THE SECRET.
:biggrin: :seeya:

:seeya: http://i16.tinypic.com/6z8vv9d.gif

[deputydi]

Okay. Now I remember. Shredded. Not a secret. Just shredded to protect the innocent.
Could you at least tell us what shredded papers you sent to the Petersons?

[adnoid]

Could you at least tell us what shredded papers you sent to the Petersons?

Probably not - I think it's a secret.

[Wearing A Halo]

The book has been shipped out (supposedly). Anyone have a review yet? TIA

[Wearing A Halo]

By whom? It's not released according to Amazon nor Barnes & Noble.

:shrug:

According to her website, by DT herself and/or the puplisher. There is a second printing already in the works!

!LOL!

[TopGunner]

According to her website, by DT herself and/or the puplisher. There is a second printing already in the works!

!LOL!

LOL WAH, maybe someone should inform Ms. Thomas of something they call "price breaks". The more quantity you order, the less each copy costs, therefore, she should really put in an order for more than two. Just in case. *wink*
:tongue:

[thinkaboutit]

You believe that children who are given up for adoption end up bitter, even when they've had a wonderful life?

But wait! Jackie first gave up Don....then still didn't bother to use birth control (or control her promiscuous self) and gave away Anne....and then was trying to give John away.

Yet you think she is the "best of the best"....the cream of the crop, the sale of the earth and all that?

Yet you postulate that adoption can cause a lifetime of bitterness - bitterness that would lead to lying about your brother, even when he's on death row?

One would think that if you believe that adoption leads to such heinous behavior in the adopted, that you would also believe that women who get themselves repeatedly pregnant by virtual strangers and then give the baby to strangers would kinda be less than the cream of the crop.

Let's not put words into my mouth, please.

I did not say children who are given up for adoption are bitter.

I said, it's my opinion that Anne Bird is/was bitter.

And it does not surprise me that you would take this opportunity to turn this into a Jackie bashing session.

How do you know that Anne had a wonderful life? Because she said so? Which only supports what I said - that you take her word as the gospel.

I agree with you on one point - lying about your brother when he is on death row is heinous behavior.

[Invrdv8]

Let's not put words into my mouth, please.

I did not say children who are given up for adoption are bitter.

I said, it's my opinion that Anne Bird is/was bitter.

And it does not surprise me that you would take this opportunity to turn this into a Jackie bashing session.

How do you know that Anne had a wonderful life? Because she said so? Which only supports what I said - that you take her word as the gospel.

I agree with you on one point - lying about your brother when he is on death row is heinous behavior.

For what reason could Anne possibly be bitter about being given up by Jackie? Why is it not OK to bash Jackie, but OK to bash Anne? Anne said she had a wonderful life and there's been nothing brought out to the contrary so why wouldn't one believe her? Just exactly what lies did Anne tell about Scott since he's been on DR? Or is it just a case of anything negative said about Scott is a lie?

[deputydi]

Let's not put words into my mouth, please.

I did not say children who are given up for adoption are bitter.

I said, it's my opinion that Anne Bird is/was bitter.

And it does not surprise me that you would take this opportunity to turn this into a Jackie bashing session.

How do you know that Anne had a wonderful life? Because she said so? Which only supports what I said - that you take her word as the gospel.

I agree with you on one point - lying about your brother when he is on death row is heinous behavior.
Did you read Anne's book? I didn't think she came across as bitter at all. In fact, I thought she went out of her way to give the Petersons (all of them) the benefit of every doubt. Yes, I would take Anne's word as gospel that she had a wonderful life and was, in fact, greatful that Jackie didn't raise her. But, BITTER????? No way.