Books on this case.

[TuscanDreams]

What are your favorite books on this case? I've read them all and would like to know which ones you found most informative.

[Hey Paula]

What are your favorite books on this case? I've read them all and would like to know which ones you found most informative.

Hi TD!

I think Catherine Crier's "A Deadly Game" was the most infomative, and the one I would advise reading for those who wish to read only one book.

Sharon Rocha's, "For Laci" was wonderful, albeit a difficult, emotional read.

Anne Bird's, "Blood Brother" offers the reader an interesting Bird's-eye :D view of the Peterson family dynamics.

By choice, I didn't read Amber Frey's "Witness For the Prosecution of Scott Peterson".

[Hey Paula]

I forgot to include the latest book I read - "We the Jury Deciding the Scott Peterson Case", which I also enjoyed. Besides becoming better acquainted with some of the jurors, and how they arrived at their verdicts, it also gives the reader a glimpse into what went on behind closed doors during deliberations.

[concernedperson]

I forgot to include the latest book I read - "We the Jury Deciding the Scott Peterson Case", which I also enjoyed. Besides becoming better acquainted with some of the jurors, and how they arrived at their verdicts, it also gives the reader a glimpse into what went on behind closed doors during deliberations.
That is the only one I didn't read. Ann Byrd's book showed me the dysfunction and better explained Scott's actions. CC is always informative in everything she does...I am a big fan. Sharon I relate to as a mom and her realizatons and the bitter truth was so painful. Amber, well, is Amber. Glad she has moved on.

[TuscanDreams]

I enjoyed "Inside the Mind of Scott Peterson" it was not only informative of Scott Peterson, but other males who perpetrate this type of crime.

Want to discuss one of the books you mentioned?

[Beebee]

I've only read "Presumed Guilty" by Dalton, and I thought it was very good.

[enlightenme]

I've only read "Presumed Guilty" by Dalton, and I thought it was very good.


Don't you think that is very one-sided?

I just don't understand anyone who thought this book was good, sorry.

:rose:

[Beebee]

Don't you think that is very one-sided?

I just don't understand anyone who thought this book was good, sorry.

:rose:

Why the rose?

One sided? No. It just so happens he was the only one to write a book that was actually involved in the case from an investigative standpoint. I pretty much knew the opinion and feelings of the other authors, so I didn't need to buy their books.

I know a lot of people who liked Dalton's book.

[Invrdv8]

Don't you think that is very one-sided?

I just don't understand anyone who thought this book was good, sorry.

:rose:
I totally agree with your "one-sided" comment. I would think anyone interested in this case would want to read all the books. Just like the jury who needs to hear all the evidence. I read all except Dalton's and the jurors book. From what I'd heard from those who did read Dalton's book I gathered his purpose for writing the book was to say he could have done a better job defending Scott than Geragos did. IMO it was his "pay back" for being fired by Geragos. I used CC's book as a reference book. Her's was the only one with an index that made it easier to find specific subjects.

[TuscanDreams]

Which book do you want to discuss? I loved them all! I thought Amber's book wasn't so great, no offense to her.

[aykaie]

Dr. Ablows book "In the Mind of Scott Peterson".

Hi all:seeya:

[TuscanDreams]

Dr. Ablows book "In the Mind of Scott Peterson".

Hi all:seeya:

I learned a lot from that book. Would you like to discuss it? I thought that the analogy of a perfect psychological storm was brilliant.

[accordn2me]

I haven't read any of the books. I've heard of all of them except the book by Dalton. Response to I8's comment as it being "payback" because Dalton felt he could have done better than MG..... HECK! When I saw MG's witness list for a client accused of capital murder - 14 witnesses, 2 of whom were the accused's parents, not to mention the LEOs.... WTF:confused: .....I think I could have done a better job! Seriously! Albeit, like MG, I think Scott's guilty also.

Anyone read or have knowledge of Stone Cold Guilty?

[concernedperson]

I've only read "Presumed Guilty" by Dalton, and I thought it was very good.

Would you be MN? Not that it matters but seriously...Dalton? His behavior set the bar back a bit but hey....defense attorneys are their own breed.

And, no, I haven't read it and no, I don't think I need to. Saw enough during those years to fulfill my need for spin and to understand it.

[TuscanDreams]

I haven't read any of the books. I've heard of all of them except the book by Dalton. Response to I8's comment as it being "payback" because Dalton felt he could have done better than MG..... HECK! When I saw MG's witness list for a client accused of capital murder - 14 witnesses, 2 of whom were the accused's parents, not to mention the LEOs.... WTF:confused: .....I think I could have done a better job! Seriously! Albeit, like MG, I think Scott's guilty also.

Anyone read or have knowledge of Stone Cold Guilty?

I forgot about that book and haven't read it. Thus, I erred when I posted that I'd read them all.

Why did Dalton leave the team? I can't remember and wasn't there an ethical issue surrouding that book?

[accordn2me]

I forgot about that book and haven't read it. Thus, I erred when I posted that I'd read them all.

Why did Dalton leave the team? I can't remember and wasn't there an ethical issue surrouding that book?Beats me. This board was the first I've heard of it.

[Invrdv8]

Beats me. This board was the first I've heard of it.
It's been a while ago but, I believe Geragos did fire Dalton. If memory serves me it had something to do with Dalton speaking to the "wrong people" or breaking the gag order. I'm sure somebody here could give you the exact cause. IIRC Dalton also tried to talk Scott into coming over to the law firm that he worked for. I think that might be the reason for him being accused of being unethical.

[Lili007]

I thought Anne Bird's book was the most interesting. It didn't have an agenda, it was written by someone who was almost an outsider, but who also provided a lot of help and shelter to Scott.

I find her description of Scott's oddities and peculiar behaviour to be completely honest, as she saw it. It's an insight into Scott's mind and personality that I didn't get from any of the other books.

JMO, though.

[TuscanDreams]

I thought Anne Bird's book was the most interesting. It didn't have an agenda, it was written by someone who was almost an outsider, but who also provided a lot of help and shelter to Scott.

I find her description of Scott's oddities and peculiar behaviour to be completely honest, as she saw it. It's an insight into Scott's mind and personality that I didn't get from any of the other books.

JMO, though.

I don't own that book, I just read a friend's copy. Could you post some of the oddities that you mentioned? I remember a few and don't know what page they are on, etc.

[concernedperson]

I don't own that book, I just read a friend's copy. Could you post some of the oddities that you mentioned? I remember a few and don't know what page they are on, etc.
I remember couple of them. One, he was watching news coverage of his missing wife and asked Anne what she thought of his goatee. Also, never acting distressed or crying but was quite able to enjoy a bottle of wine. One more, when her babysitter showed up he started acting all flirty with her and this was about the 3rd week Laci was missing. Oops, one more, during Anne's son Thomas's christening Scott had some tears and the pastor looked away...as if to not be involved in evil (Anne's perception) he ordered two porn channels right after the christening.

[Beebee]

I thought Anne Bird's book was the most interesting. It didn't have an agenda, it was written by someone who was almost an outsider, but who also provided a lot of help and shelter to Scott.

I find her description of Scott's oddities and peculiar behaviour to be completely honest, as she saw it. It's an insight into Scott's mind and personality that I didn't get from any of the other books.

JMO, though.

I e-mailed with Anne Bird quite a bit during Scott's trial. She either lied through her teeth in the e-mails or in her $$$$$$$$ book.

You decide.

[A_seeker]

I e-mailed with Anne Bird quite a bit during Scott's trial. She either lied through her teeth in the e-mails or in her $$$$$$$$ book.

You decide.

And we are to decide this based on what exactly? Are you going to post her emails?

[Beebee]

And we are to decide this based on what exactly? Are you going to post her emails?

I should have been more clear. In all her e-mails (probably 25 of them) she is nothing but 100% supportive of Scott. This was well after his arrest, obviously, so Anne had already witnessed the so called strange behavior.

I'm not going to post the e-mails. They have been preserved/copied, and Scott's defense has them.

Sorry, I can't prove I have them on this board, but I couldn't help but point out based on my personal experience with Anne, she most definately $old out for $$$$.

[A_seeker]

I should have been more clear. In all her e-mails (probably 25 of them) she is nothing but 100% supportive of Scott. This was well after his arrest, obviously, so Anne had already witnessed the so called strange behavior.

I'm not going to post the e-mails. They have been preserved/copied, and Scott's defense has them.

Sorry, I can't prove I have them on this board, but I couldn't help but point out based on my personal experience with Anne, she most definately $old out for $$$$.

Surely you can see how saying definitively, that someone sold out, yet offering no proof, might be questioned. Take for instance, if to prove a point I mention my own emails with Scott....where he confesses to everything...that kind of puts a new light on things, right? You decide.

OK...see how that works?

[Lili007]

I e-mailed with Anne Bird quite a bit during Scott's trial. She either lied through her teeth in the e-mails or in her $$$$$$$$ book.

You decide.

That's cheap. And the only comment it deserves.

[Hey Paula]

I should have been more clear. In all her e-mails (probably 25 of them) she is nothing but 100% supportive of Scott. This was well after his arrest, obviously, so Anne had already witnessed the so called strange behavior.

I'm not going to post the e-mails. They have been preserved/copied, and Scott's defense has them.

Sorry, I can't prove I have them on this board, but I couldn't help but point out based on my personal experience with Anne, she most definately $old out for $$$$.

Good Morning BB!

I think AB was in a tough spot, having been recently united with her biological family, and having been placed in such an awkward position by Jackie, who asked her to take Scott into her household and have him live with her and her family, disrupting their lives.

Under such conditions, people can live in denial for a number of reasons - chief among them, perhaps not wanting to believe a biological sibling could be capable of murdering his pregnant wife. Throughout this time, they will be supportive of their family member, just as Susan Caudillo was once the family spokesperson until she quietly began to question Scott, and withdrew from that position, replaced by Janie Peterson.

I believe Anne's husband, Tim, forced her to see what she didn't want to believe. Then after coming to grips with her subconscious fears, and the oddities of Scott's behavior, which she dismissed even though she recognized them as strange, Anne prepared a list of all the things she had swept into the corners of her mind.

While she might have made money from the book, her account was truthful, since nothing she wrote in it has ever been challenged by the Petersons.

IMO

[Beebee]

Good Morning BB!

I think AB was in a tough spot, having been recently united with her biological family, and having been placed in such an awkward position by Jackie, who asked her to take Scott into her household and have him live with her and her family, disrupting their lives.

Under such conditions, people can live in denial for a number of reasons - chief among them, perhaps not wanting to believe a biological sibling could be capable of murdering his pregnant wife. Throughout this time, they will be supportive of their family member, just as Susan Caudillo was once the family spokesperson until she quietly began to question Scott, and withdrew from that position, replaced by Janie Peterson.

I believe Anne's husband, Tim, forced her to see what she didn't want to believe. Then after coming to grips with her subconscious fears, and the oddities of Scott's behavior, which she dismissed even though she recognized them as strange, Anne prepared a list of all the things she had swept into the corners of her mind.

While she might have made money from the book, her account was truthful, since nothing she wrote in it has ever been challenged by the Petersons.

IMO

Hi Paula,

Just a couple things, and then that's all I'm going to say about Anne Bird.

Anne also praised Jackie in those e-mails, and talked about how amazing she is, more than once. Also, I had lunch with Susan several months ago. Where are you getting the idea that she does not support Scott? The day I saw her she had just had a visit with Scott the day before! With the exception of Anne, Scott's whole family is behind him 100%.

People assume way too much in this case, imo.

[Lili007]

I don't own that book, I just read a friend's copy. Could you post some of the oddities that you mentioned? I remember a few and don't know what page they are on, etc.

Sure. Please give me a few hours, though... it's 12.08 am here and I don't have the book at hand. I will get to it tomorrow, if that's OK.

[Hey Paula]

Hi Paula,

Just a couple things, and then that's all I'm going to say about Anne Bird.

Anne also praised Jackie in those e-mails, and talked about how amazing she is, more than once. Also, I had lunch with Susan several months ago. Where are you getting the idea that she does not support Scott? The day I saw her she had just had a visit with Scott the day before! With the exception of Anne, Scott's whole family is behind him 100%.

People assume way too much in this case, imo.

I didn't say Susan no longer supported Scott, only that she retired from the frontline position of family spokesperson, and was no longer seen as often as she'd been before. It was Susan's telecon with Brent Rocha and the ensuing questions which prompted Jackie's advice to "deny, deny deny", IIRC.

IMO

[JustMyOpinion]

Hi Paula,

Just a couple things, and then that's all I'm going to say about Anne Bird.

Anne also praised Jackie in those e-mails, and talked about how amazing she is, more than once. Also, I had lunch with Susan several months ago. Where are you getting the idea that she does not support Scott? The day I saw her she had just had a visit with Scott the day before! With the exception of Anne, Scott's whole family is behind him 100%.

People assume way too much in this case, imo.

Interesting you believe Scott's whole family is behind him 100 percent. Why do you believe Mark Peterson did not attend one day of preliminary or trial or sentencing if he supports Scott 100 percent?

[A_seeker]

Well I must say As, your posts have been fantastic, and a it's been a real pleasure reading you this morning. Your analysis of this case is impressive.

Keep up the good work!

Why thank you A! The pleasure is all mine.

[thinkaboutit]

Interesting you believe Scott's whole family is behind him 100 percent. Why do you believe Mark Peterson did not attend one day of preliminary or trial or sentencing if he supports Scott 100 percent?

JMO, I think you're assuming that Mark is not behind Scott. Have you ever heard Mark speak out against Scott?

[Invrdv8]

"Corners of her mind" - great phrase. When I read her (ghost written by the guy who wrote "If I Did It" for OJ) book, I immediately clicked on to GSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_sexual_attraction). That is the strongest impression I had from her - that she was VERY attracted to Scott. That, IMO, is why she was so angered by his alleged 'flirting' with the baby sitter, which looked like it was more on the baby sitter's part than on Scott's.

Of course YMMV, but that's what I got from the book - plus that the "33 Reasons" were rubbish made up to sell it.
What was your purpose in calling attention to the fact that Anne's book was written by the same ghost writer that wrote OJ's "If I Did It"? It was your opinion that she was "VERY attracted to Scott"? LOL You state "alleged" flirting as if to say you don't believe Scott flirted with the baby sitter. So if that's the case why would you have the opinion that Anne was "so angered" by it? How can you say "looked like it was more on the baby sitter's part"? Were you there to observe what took place? I'm beginning to think you'll twist just about anything in order to make Scott look good. I think you've taken your screen name to heart. You aren't going to find many "followers" here and certainly no one that's going to drink your Kool-Aid. JMO

[JustMyOpinion]

JMO, I think you're assuming that Mark is not behind Scott. Have you ever heard Mark speak out against Scott?

If you re-read my post, I made no such statement and asked you why you believe Mark did not attend even one day of prelim or trial. If you don't want to offer an opinion on that, okay by me. No, I've not heard Mark Peterson say anything against Scott, but his absence from all proceedings doesn't indicate 100 percent support, ( to me). I have no idea what Mark feels about his brother's guilt or innocence. I do feel bad for him if there is any truth to the report that his father stopped speaking to him for years because of a business dispute, and told him if he attended Laci's memorial service he would cut him off again. I don't think attending Laci's memorial was an act that would be construed by most as non-supportive of Scott or Scott's case. It would have been an act demonstrating compassion and empathy for her family and showing respect for Laci, IMO.

[TuscanDreams]

Did you read up on GSA? Do that, then re-read her book. It will look a lot different to you after that. I own it BTW, and that's what leaped out at me.

What is GSA?

[Toggie]

My favorite book is "For Laci". Sharon wrote from her heart. I read it twice and cried each time...

I am so glad Sharon shared Laci with all of us.:)

[cookiewench]

I should have been more clear. In all her e-mails (probably 25 of them) she is nothing but 100% supportive of Scott. This was well after his arrest, obviously, so Anne had already witnessed the so called strange behavior.

I'm not going to post the e-mails. They have been preserved/copied, and Scott's defense has them.

Sorry, I can't prove I have them on this board, but I couldn't help but point out based on my personal experience with Anne, she most definately $old out for $$$$.

Why in the world would you think the defense team would have use for some emails from a half-sister of the defendent who never even testified at the trial? What bearing would her opinion of or support/lack thereof have to do with anything?

What silliness.

[Sprocket]

If Peterson's family supports him 100%, I take it then, Anne Bird is no longer considered a part of the "family?"

I mean, she was welcomed into it at one time, correct?

[accordn2me]

Why in the world would you think the defense team would have use for some emails from a half-sister of the defendent who never even testified at the trial? What bearing would her opinion of or support/lack thereof have to do with anything?

What silliness.

Read it here cookiewench....I'll bill ya....:tongue:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7047103/

[thinkaboutit]

I totally agree with your "one-sided" comment. I would think anyone interested in this case would want to read all the books. Just like the jury who needs to hear all the evidence. I read all except Dalton's and the jurors book. From what I'd heard from those who did read Dalton's book I gathered his purpose for writing the book was to say he could have done a better job defending Scott than Geragos did. IMO it was his "pay back" for being fired by Geragos. I used CC's book as a reference book. Her's was the only one with an index that made it easier to find specific subjects.

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

[thinkaboutit]

If you re-read my post, I made no such statement and asked you why you believe Mark did not attend even one day of prelim or trial. If you don't want to offer an opinion on that, okay by me. No, I've not heard Mark Peterson say anything against Scott, but his absence from all proceedings doesn't indicate 100 percent support, ( to me). I have no idea what Mark feels about his brother's guilt or innocence. I do feel bad for him if there is any truth to the report that his father stopped speaking to him for years because of a business dispute, and told him if he attended Laci's memorial service he would cut him off again. I don't think attending Laci's memorial was an act that would be construed by most as non-supportive of Scott or Scott's case. It would have been an act demonstrating compassion and empathy for her family and showing respect for Laci, IMO.


My apologies - I guess I was assuming you were inferring that Mark Peterson was not behind Scott Peterson 100%.

I don't know enough about the Petersons to even begin to guess why Mark didn't come to the trial. Do we know for sure that he didn't attend any of the trial? Is it possible he did - but was able to slip in without anyone noticing?

Did the information about Mark not being allowed to attend the memorial service come from Anne's book? I read Anne's book. The only thing that became clear to me is that she has some issues. Did anyone who read her book wonder why the daycare center asked Anne not to bring her kids back to the daycare?

And JJ is right - Ablow's main source for his book was Anne Bird. And that book was loaded with rubbish.

[thinkaboutit]

Why in the world would you think the defense team would have use for some emails from a half-sister of the defendent who never even testified at the trial? What bearing would her opinion of or support/lack thereof have to do with anything?

What silliness.

Why is that so silly? What if Anne had been called as a witness by the prosecution?

[JustMyOpinion]

Ablow's main source for his book was Anne Bird. And that book was loaded with rubbish.

I haven't read it ( I've only read excerpts & reviews) Does Ablow cite Anne Bird as his "main source"? I've read he used contacts at the FBI, hired private investigators & researchers ( and also interviewed family members, including Lee Peterson) Seems to me Ablow tried to perform as thorough a mitigation investigation as he could ( given the limitation that Scott and some members of his family wouldn't consent to be interviewed). Too bad Geragos didn't do what most experienced defense attorney in a death-penalty case would have done from the outset of representation ( started a mitigation investigation so it could be complete by the time his client "could" have faced a sentencing hearing) IMO. What are a few examples of "rubbish" from the book, could you give some?

[thinkaboutit]

I haven't read it ( I've only read excerpts & reviews) Does Ablow cite Anne Bird as his "main source"? I've read he used contacts at the FBI, hired private investigators & researchers ( and also interviewed family members, including Lee Peterson) Seems to me Ablow tried to perform as thorough a mitigation investigation as he could ( given the limitation that Scott and some members of his family wouldn't consent to be interviewed). Too bad Geragos didn't do what most experienced defense attorney in a death-penalty case would have done from the outset of representation ( started a mitigation investigation so it could be complete by the time his client "could" have faced a sentencing hearing) IMO. What are a few examples of "rubbish" from the book, could you give some?

Ablow (admittedly) only interviewed Lee Peterson "briefly" - whatever that means. I'm not sure exactly what Ablow says about Anne's contribution to the book - she is acknowledged - I know that - but if you read it - it's pretty obvious (to me) the majority of the info came from her.

You can't diagnose someone as a sociopath/psychopath without talking to them......by using third-party hearsay. It's irresponsible - to say the least.

I found it hysterical that Ablow supported his diagnosis of Scott with the kind words friends of the family had to say about him. I lost count at how many times Ablow stated something "could have" happened - or "maybe" this happened. The entire book was speculation.

There are blatant lies and deceptions in his book also. He quotes John Bowlby to support his theory that Scott's sociopathy could have started with Scott's brief stay in the hospital for pneumonia as an infant. Or should I say - he MIS-quotes John Bowlby. John Bowlby has an entire chapter in his book - the very book that Ablow quotes from - that states that brief separations between infants and their mothers have no effect on the infant.

Ablow's book is also full of contradictions. He can't decide if Jackie loved Scott too much - or if she was "absent emotionally". He quotes Anne Bird as saying she thinks Jackie treated Scott like a dress up doll from day one - then goes on to admit that Anne Bird did not come into their lives until Scott was an adult. Anne Bird has no idea what Scott's childhood was like. Ablow states that Scott lived in fear of being abandoned because Jackie had given up her first two kids for adoption - then he goes on to say that Scott didn't even know about Don and Anne until he was 20 years old.

Ablow also makes several references to Scott's demeanor in court:

Page 13:

Peterson himself sat emotionless as he received his death sentence.

He had remained eerily stoic while Conner's condition at autopsy was described in court.



Page 16:

How could he be thinking of the mundane when he was shackled, under arrest for the murder of his wife and unborn son? I know that jurors, Laci's family, and Scott's parents wondered the same thing as he sat, unmoved, when he had been found guilty and, later, when he was sentenced to death.



Page 233:

Scott did not shed a tear. Neither did his mother. His father wasn't even in court that day.



Page 237-238:

Scott did not react. Imagine if you were an innocent, normal man in the situation in which he found himself. You would be on your feet, screaming, crying, 'I didn't do it, Mom. You have to believe me! I loved her. I would never hurt her. I'd give my life for her.' But Scott Peterson wasn't even in that courtroom. Not really. He had all but taken his leave of this world before he ever met Laci, before he ever fathered Conner.



Page 240:

Scott Peterson sat stoically as the decision was read.



Now here is a quote from Ablow in an interview about another case:

Court TV Host: We're going to be talking about the trial of David Westerfield with forensic psychiatrist Keith Ablow. In addition to working as a psychiatrist, Ablow is also a writer of both non-fiction and fiction about the human mind. His newest novel, Compulsion, focuses on the investigation of a child's murder. Welcome, Dr. Ablow!

Keith Ablow: Thanks

Question from massviewer: How do you judge Westerfield's demeanor in the courtroom?

Question from Gale: Dr. - have you watched Mr. Westerfield's courtroom behavior - is there anything you can assess from that and his statement to the police that has been played?

Keith Ablow: Mr. Westerfield's behavior in the courtroom doesn't really tell me much. In general, I haven't found it very useful to look at that behavior because it's such a stilted environment where the expression of emotion is essentially prohibited.


He claims that Laci went for a high-tech 3-D ultrasound at Scott's urging - because if there were any birth defects - he wanted to abort the baby. We know from Laci's medical records - that this never happened.

Ablow also says that in a job interview with Feras Almassari, Scott told him several lies, embellishing his personal life and his position with Tradecorp:

Scott had told Almassari that he was independently wealthy and had moved to the United States from Europe to launch the company. He told him he had so much money lying around that his wife hadn’t even shopped around before grabbing a house in Modesto.

We know from Almassari's testimony Scott didn't say any such thing:

HARRIS: You are talking about business lunch. Keep going on. You continue to talk to him, does it become more personal?

ALMASRI: No. At the end of the interview I just noticed that he looked young, so I just asked him, you know, how was he able to get into such a position for his young age. And he indicated that he had met with the company, and he lived in Modesto, and him and his wife just bought a house.

HARRIS: In Modesto?

ALMASRI: Yes.



For more details, if you want - you can read this (but it's long):

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Bookstore/ablow.htm


Another interesting tidbit - Ablow wrote a book (I think it was "Compulsion") - prior to Laci disappearing - about an infant that is murdered - two of the suspects were the infant's older brothers - one had serious issues - bedwetting - firestarter - cruelty to animals. The other was athletic - goodlooking - no childhood behavior problems - and yes - believe it or not - Ablow refers to him as "the golden boy". Can you guess which one he made the murderer? Bet you can. :)

[JustMyOpinion]

Ablow (admittedly) only interviewed Lee Peterson "briefly" - whatever that means. I'm not sure exactly what Ablow says about Anne's contribution to the book - she is acknowledged - I know that - but if you read it - it's pretty obvious (to me) the majority of the info came from her.

You can't diagnose someone as a sociopath/psychopath without talking to them......by using third-party hearsay. It's irresponsible - to say the least.

I found it hysterical that Ablow supported his diagnosis of Scott with the kind words friends of the family had to say about him. I lost count at how many times Ablow stated something "could have" happened - or "maybe" this happened. The entire book was speculation.

There are blatant lies and deceptions in his book also. He quotes John Bowlby to support his theory that Scott's sociopathy could have started with Scott's brief stay in the hospital for pneumonia as an infant. Or should I say - he MIS-quotes John Bowlby. John Bowlby has an entire chapter in his book - the very book that Ablow quotes from - that states that brief separations between infants and their mothers have no effect on the infant.

Ablow's book is also full of contradictions. He can't decide if Jackie loved Scott too much - or if she was "absent emotionally". He quotes Anne Bird as saying she thinks Jackie treated Scott like a dress up doll from day one - then goes on to admit that Anne Bird did not come into their lives until Scott was an adult. Anne Bird has no idea what Scott's childhood was like. Ablow states that Scott lived in fear of being abandoned because Jackie had given up her first two kids for adoption - then he goes on to say that Scott didn't even know about Don and Anne until he was 20 years old.

Ablow also makes several references to Scott's demeanor in court:

Page 13:

Peterson himself sat emotionless as he received his death sentence.

He had remained eerily stoic while Conner's condition at autopsy was described in court.



Page 16:

How could he be thinking of the mundane when he was shackled, under arrest for the murder of his wife and unborn son? I know that jurors, Laci's family, and Scott's parents wondered the same thing as he sat, unmoved, when he had been found guilty and, later, when he was sentenced to death.



Page 233:

Scott did not shed a tear. Neither did his mother. His father wasn't even in court that day.



Page 237-238:

Scott did not react. Imagine if you were an innocent, normal man in the situation in which he found himself. You would be on your feet, screaming, crying, 'I didn't do it, Mom. You have to believe me! I loved her. I would never hurt her. I'd give my life for her.' But Scott Peterson wasn't even in that courtroom. Not really. He had all but taken his leave of this world before he ever met Laci, before he ever fathered Conner.



Page 240:

Scott Peterson sat stoically as the decision was read.



Now here is a quote from Ablow in an interview about another case:




He claims that Laci went for a high-tech 3-D ultrasound at Scott's urging - because if there were any birth defects - he wanted to abort the baby. We know from Laci's medical records - that this never happened.

Ablow also says that in a job interview with Feras Almassari, Scott told him several lies, embellishing his personal life and his position with Tradecorp:



We know from Almassari's testimony Scott didn't say any such thing:



For more details, if you want - you can read this (but it's long):

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Bookstore/ablow.htm


Another interesting tidbit - Ablow wrote a book (I think it was "Compulsion") - prior to Laci disappearing - about an infant that is murdered - two of the suspects were the infant's older brothers - one had serious issues - bedwetting - firestarter - cruelty to animals. The other was athletic - goodlooking - no childhood behavior problems - and yes - believe it or not - Ablow refers to him as "the golden boy". Can you guess which one he made the murderer? Bet you can. :)

Thanks for taking the time to post so many examples, and some of the other reasons you believe some of Ablow's theories as put forward in the book are not credible. I agree that Ablow cannot diagnose Scott, I was under the impression the book was put forward as his theory & his opinion ( not medical diagnosis) I do believe Ablow could have obtained information that was not brought into trial. ( i.e just because a witness did not go into the same detail at trial, it doesn't necessarily mean he didn't convey detailed information to Ablow). Does Ablow claim Laci HAD the 3-D ultrasound, or, does he claim that Laci told others ( that he interviewed) Scott wanted her to obtain one because he feared birth defects?
I think it would have been very difficult for Ablow to do more than speculate about many details in Scott's childhood ( perhaps this is why he can't seem to make up his mind) He didn't have access to Jackie or Scott, Lee spoke to him briefly, and the brother that lived in the home wasn't interviewed either.
I personally believe that how Scott was nurtured ( and the childhood experiences of each of his parents) is a big factor in the development of his personality. I also believe he likely suffers from a serious, pervasive personality disorder ( he is likely a sociopath IMO). Like Geragos said, if the man did this to his family, he's a sociopath. As you know, I believe he did this crime. ( and I think Geragos couldn't put him on the stand because he IS a sociopath, and that would have been made quite clear to the jury if he testified, IMO)

[thinkaboutit]

Thanks for taking the time to post so many examples, and some of the other reasons you believe some of Ablow's theories as put forward in the book are not credible. I agree that Ablow cannot diagnose Scott, I was under the impression the book was put forward as his theory & his opinion ( not medical diagnosis) I do believe Ablow could have obtained information that was not brought into trial. ( i.e just because a witness did not go into the same detail at trial, it doesn't necessarily mean he didn't convey detailed information to Ablow). Does Ablow claim Laci HAD the 3-D ultrasound, or, does he claim that Laci told others ( that he interviewed) Scott wanted her to obtain one because he feared birth defects?
I think it would have been very difficult for Ablow to do more than speculate about many details in Scott's childhood ( perhaps this is why he can't seem to make up his mind) He didn't have access to Jackie or Scott, Lee spoke to him briefly, and the brother that lived in the home wasn't interviewed either.
I personally believe that how Scott was nurtured ( and the childhood experiences of each of his parents) is a big factor in the development of his personality. I also believe he likely suffers from a serious, pervasive personality disorder ( he is likely a sociopath IMO). Like Geragos said, if the man did this to his family, he's a sociopath. As you know, I believe he did this crime. ( and I think Geragos couldn't put him on the stand because he IS a sociopath, and that would have been made quite clear to the jury if he testified, IMO)

You are welcome.

As far as the ultrasound - Ablow says that Heather told Renee about a troubling conversation between her and Laci and Scott. Regardless of whether he was told this information or not - it is the author's responsibility to check these things out before he prints it - ultimately he is responsible for any falsehoods printed in his book. As a doctor, IMO, he should have been even more careful that the information he was basing his diagnosis on was correct. To diagnose based on speculation is irresponsible and unethical.

I also believe in nurture over nature. And there is no evidence of the Peterson family being anything but a kind, loving family.

[JustMyOpinion]

I also believe in nurture over nature. And there is no evidence of the Peterson family being anything but a kind, loving family.
Agree, in the penalty phase defense brought no evidence of abuse/family dysfunction during Scott's childhood that could have been weighed as a mitigating factor. If one looks at the testimony from Jackie & Lee, there are clues, but jurors had no way to construe how the parents' experiences might have impacted Scott, IMO.

[accordn2me]

To you believers in nuture over nature....let me tell y'all....my kid arrived with her own personality and set in her ways! I don't know how many times I've been tempted to take her back to the hospital, demand a DNA test, and find my real child.

[JustMyOpinion]

To you believers in nuture over nature....let me tell y'all....my kid arrived with her own personality and set in her ways! I don't know how many times I've been tempted to take her back to the hospital, demand a DNA test, and find my real child.

LOL A2M
I believe it is a combination of nature and nurture. It's been proven some personality traits are genetic, IMO. And, environment ( nurture) has the capability of actually changing the brain, IMO.

[Anne2719]

I used to be a much bigger "nurture" believer, till I ended up with 3 kittens from the same litter. They've been together since birth and have three totally distinct personalities. Prior to their arrival in my life, I would've chalked up the big differences in my two daughters to their birth order and the changes in environment over the years. Now I'm not quite so sure.

[One2Snoop]

To you believers in nuture over nature....let me tell y'all....my kid arrived with her own personality and set in her ways! I don't know how many times I've been tempted to take her back to the hospital, demand a DNA test, and find my real child.

You have one of those too huh? LOL - they are something else, aren't they? I have two to contend with and they are quite a challange sometimes (most of the time)! I always blame my Mother-in-law for their behavior because they really do act just like her. :eek: :tongue:

[thinkaboutit]

But those that believe nature over nurture : that no matter what you do - if you do everything right - provide a stable home, give that child love, attention, discipline - that they could still be capable of murder?

[Anne2719]

But those that believe nature over nurture : that no matter what you do - if you do everything right - provide a stable home, give that child love, attention, discipline - that they could still be capable of murder?
Your post reminds me of that old movie "The Bad Seed," with Patty McCormack. I wonder if it really is possible to have a child who is genetically programmed for murder?

[accordn2me]

But those that believe nature over nurture : that no matter what you do - if you do everything right - provide a stable home, give that child love, attention, discipline - that they could still be capable of murder?
I've read this (your post) times, silently and aloud, I'm not 100% clear on your question...but I'll anwer what I'm thinking you are asking....

In my opinion, it doesn't matter what you do as a parent. Children turn out, how they turn out, good or bad, in spite of you....not to spite you, necessarily...

[Toggie]

To you believers in nuture over nature....let me tell y'all....my kid arrived with her own personality and set in her ways! I don't know how many times I've been tempted to take her back to the hospital, demand a DNA test, and find my real child.

I can relate....I have two daughters.:)

[JustMyOpinion]

But those that believe nature over nurture : that no matter what you do - if you do everything right - provide a stable home, give that child love, attention, discipline - that they could still be capable of murder?

I think all human beings are capable of committing murder, but I don't think any human being is born "a sociopath". JMO

[Anne2719]

Interesting article here: http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/psychopath/1.html

[One2Snoop]

Interesting article here: http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/psychopath/1.html

Very interesting! Thanks for the link.

[enlightenme]

They are very umm "special" don't you think?

Please read what I meant and not what I said, thankyouverymuch.

(^children after the number 5) LMAO!!!!


LOL!! I'd kill myself if I had 5 MILs!! :lol:

[cookiewench]

Why is that so silly? What if Anne had been called as a witness by the prosecution?

But she wasn't. The trial is over, and she wasn't.

Of what use would her emails either before, during, or after the trial be to the defense team?

Handing them over to the defense would have no purpose and is an invasion of her privacy, IMO.

She was not witness to anything other than Scott's demeanor in the months after the murder.

And her opinion on Scott's guilt or innocence means nothing in the context of the trial, either.

[TuscanDreams]

I have a hard time in Matt's or Catherine's book being the best. So these are top 2 for me.
Imo, I feel Keith describing Scott also could have pertained to Anne, Don, or Jackie's other son. (I believe John is his name)

Even though, I feel Keith's book to be a good read.

If I remember correctly, the book was based on the fact that Scott was the youngest child and had seen what happens when you don't please your parents. Jackie had given up children for adoption, Lee wasn't close to his kids and John was kicked out of their house. Scott developed a psychopathic tendency from his belief that he had to have a persona of a perfect world.

I'll have to find my book on that.

[JustMyOpinion]

If I remember correctly, the book was based on the fact that Scott was the youngest child and had seen what happens when you don't please your parents. Jackie had given up children for adoption, Lee wasn't close to his kids and John was kicked out of their house. Scott developed a psychopathic tendency from his belief that he had to have a persona of a perfect world.

I'll have to find my book on that.

Hi TuscanDreams:
I read in a review of the book that Ablow cites early signs that Scott was losing his ability to empathize with others. If you find your book and the time, could you post what Ablow wrote about this? TIA.

[TuscanDreams]

Hi TuscanDreams:
I read in a review of the book that Ablow cites early signs that Scott was losing his ability to empathize with others. If you find your book and the time, could you post what Ablow wrote about this? TIA.

I think I'll be going to Barnes and Noble for another copy of that book- our house is being remodeled and I just tried to look for it. :eek: I'm not going back into that attic without garlic around my neck. :D

What you posted is my memory that Ablow showed Scott was unable to show empathy.

[JustMyOpinion]

I think I'll be going to Barnes and Noble for another copy of that book- our house is being remodeled and I just tried to look for it. :eek: I'm not going back into that attic without garlic around my neck. :D

What you posted is my memory that Ablow showed Scott was unable to show empathy.

Thanks TusconDreams, since your house is being re-modeled you were very kind, indeed to even go looking for it.

[Sprocket]

I hav a copy, but I don't even think I've read this book yet.

I skimmed through some pages, and went to the chapter that discusses when Peterson was born. It's here, that Ablow talks about the very early separation Peterson experienced as an infant due to pneumonia, and goes onto explain an opinion on this by another famed psychiatrist John Bowlby.

Do you have something more specific in mind that you are looking for in this book?

[JustMyOpinion]

.

Do you have something more specific in mind that you are looking for in this book?

Hi Sprocket,
In a review a read on a book site, the claim was made that Ablow writes about early signs that Scott was losing his ability to empathize with others. Since he had only a few interviews with Lee ( and none that I'm aware of with Jackie or other siblings) I was interested in what early signs he was made aware of, and who gave him that history.
I can well imagine that Jackie had the kind of childhood experience where she could not develop empathy ( from her testimony, from what has been written about her life) I can easily conclude that Jackie could not give something to Scott that she had never experienced ( i.e. nurturing), but I was interested in any early behavioral signs that Scott lacked empathy and if Ablow truly cites any of these.

[TuscanDreams]

Hi Sprocket,
In a review a read on a book site, the claim was made that Ablow writes about early signs that Scott was losing his ability to empathize with others. Since he had only a few interviews with Lee ( and none that I'm aware of with Jackie or other siblings) I was interested in what early signs he was made aware of, and who gave him that history.
I can well imagine that Jackie had the kind of childhood experience where she could not develop empathy ( from her testimony, from what has been written about her life) I can easily conclude that Jackie could not give something to Scott that she had never experienced ( i.e. nurturing), but I was interested in any early behavioral signs that Scott lacked empathy and if Ablow truly cites any of these.

I seem to remember that Jackie's father was murdered with a blunt object. Correct me if I'm wrong, please. Jackie was then moved around and never bonded with anyone. She gave 2 kids up for adoption and I could never blame her for that- I commend her. She then had John and kept him and then met and married Lee Peterson
.
Lee Peterson had problems of his own and when Scott was born, he'd watched his two parents create a faux perfect world. I'm not blaming Jackie or Lee for Scott's life experiences, he made his own mistake. I'm just explaining how Dr. Ablow tied those experiences together to explan Scott's actions, not to excuse them.

In one portion of the book that I remember, Scott and Laci were looking at a children's grave yard. Laci wanted to plant flowers and make the area beautiful and Scott agreed to this. Dr. Ablow explained some kind of a link between the flowers, graveyard and Laci and Scott's relationship.

I'm taking my 2 year old grandson to see the Easter Bunny today :eek: , my house is full of construction workers and I may not be back until tomorrow afternoon. If my grandson behaves, I'll go to Barnes and Noble and pick up this book. If not, I'll pick up a copy tomorrow or Monday. It's a fascinating book into this case, but it is a great reference to other cases.

[JustMyOpinion]

I seem to remember that Jackie's father was murdered with a blunt object. Correct me if I'm wrong, please. Jackie was then moved around and never bonded with anyone. She gave 2 kids up for adoption and I could never blame her for that- I commend her. She then had John and kept him and then met and married Lee Peterson
.
Lee Peterson had problems of his own and when Scott was born, he'd watched his two parents create a faux perfect world. I'm not blaming Jackie or Lee for Scott's life experiences, he made his own mistake. I'm just explaining how Dr. Ablow tied those experiences together to explan Scott's actions, not to excuse them.

In one portion of the book that I remember, Scott and Laci were looking at a children's grave yard. Laci wanted to plant flowers and make the area beautiful and Scott agreed to this. Dr. Ablow explained some kind of a link between the flowers, graveyard and Laci and Scott's relationship.

I'm taking my 2 year old grandson to see the Easter Bunny today :eek: , my house is full of construction workers and I may not be back until tomorrow afternoon. If my grandson behaves, I'll go to Barnes and Noble and pick up this book. If not, I'll pick up a copy tomorrow or Monday. It's a fascinating book into this case, but it is a great reference to other cases.

Thanks for posting additional details you remember from the book. Perhaps I'll buy a copy, too. Have a great day w/ grandson & EB!

[cookiewench]

I actually do sort-of blame Jackie for the children she gave away.

She was planning on giving John away, too - but her doctor talked her out of it.

I think that her behavior shows a carelessness concerning other humans and their feelings.

I would think that it would be so excrutiatingly painful to give up the first one, that the woman would be extemely overly-cautious about it ever happening again.


But it happened to Jackie two more times - which tells me that the giving-away thing wasn't painful for her at all.

[One2Snoop]

Amber killed her baby. She did not give the baby a chance to say what it wanted out of life. This option of adaption was available for Amber and she chose to end a life.

In your opinion, correct? I think this is a bit of a stretch. If Amber did choose to have an abortion she did so under the direction of a physician. IMO I don't think we should even get into the discussion of abortion because it has nothing to do with the murder of Laci and Conner. JMO

[enlightenme]

Given the circumstances of how Jackie was raised, giving her kids up for adaption would seem like the more appropriate thing to do.
There was birth control during this time and this should have been thought of by both. We do not know the circumstances surrounding the love trialngle.

When Jackie's dad died, her mother put the both of her kids in a home.
These men may not have died, but in Jackie's mind her giving her children up for adaption was the right thing to do because the fathers were not around to help with the responsibilty of what they helped create.

You could also look at it as that Jackie gave them a better life then what she could have at the time.
Also, being a single mother at this time was critisized by people.

Now if you bring up one thing that has nothing to do with Scott's trial, then it is only fair to bring up another.
Amber killed her baby. She did not give the baby a chance to say what it wanted out of life. This option of adaption was available for Amber and she chose to end a life.


Abortion wasn't legal at the time of Jackie's pregnancies.
Amber has also stated that she has regretted her decision of have an abortion every day of her life.
People make mistakes and some people learn by them, grow by them, and do not repeat them.

[cookiewench]

Jackie's toss-away attitude towards his babies is only relevant if we look into reasons why Scott turned out the way he did.

Jackie didn't take responsibility for her actions. She told one of her children (I believe it was Anne) that her father was "a one-night stand".

That in itself is very insensitive, IMO. Jackie could have made up a story for Anne that would make her feel a little more "special" than just being the product of a one-night stand.

She never told her her adopted-out children that she was sorry she had to give them away, that it broke her heart or hurt them, that she had wondered or worried about them over the years or thought of them on their birthdays.

This tells me that she didn't care much about other people, and that she didn't learn from her mistakes.


Some people believe this attitude rubbed off on Scott.

[thinkaboutit]

Snipped....

As for Anne's book, I have a completely oppositie opinion. I felt she was honest to the point of pain. Not only that, but I felt she continued to buffer things for the P family. Had I been in her situtation, I assure you, I wouldn't have let half the things "slide" as she did. Unless she's come forward and admitted to lying, then saying her book is full of rubbish is merely an opinion pulled out of thin air.

Not only do I believe she told the truth, but I found it extremely telling that Birds book, Criers Book, Rocha's Book and Frey's were all consistent with each other, all of them. At the time they were authored, they did not know each other. If someone was lying, that woud be impossible.


You misunderstood my post. I was saying that imo Ablow's book was full of rubbish - not Anne Bird's.

In what way are these books consistent with each other? Can you give specific examples of consistency that proves they are telling the truth? I can give you examples of inconsistencies in the books. Such as....Bird gives an entirely different reason for not attending Laci's wedding, than Sharon Rocha does. That's one that I can think of off the top of my head - the rest I will have to look up.

[thinkaboutit]

Jackie's toss-away attitude towards his babies is only relevant if we look into reasons why Scott turned out the way he did.

Jackie didn't take responsibility for her actions. She told one of her children (I believe it was Anne) that her father was "a one-night stand".

That in itself is very insensitive, IMO. Jackie could have made up a story for Anne that would make her feel a little more "special" than just being the product of a one-night stand.

She never told her her adopted-out children that she was sorry she had to give them away, that it broke her heart or hurt them, that she had wondered or worried about them over the years or thought of them on their birthdays.

This tells me that she didn't care much about other people, and that she didn't learn from her mistakes.


Some people believe this attitude rubbed off on Scott.


Jackie's "toss away attitude"? I have a real problem with this statement. It borderlines bashing.

Could you please state the source where you read that Anne was told her father was a one night stand? I believe Anne's father was Jackie's brother's best friend. And was not a one night stand.

IMO, considering how young Jackie was and how she probably could not have provided for her baby - giving a child up for adoption was a very responsible thing to do. No one knows how painful this was for Jackie. And just because she doesn't talk about it, doesn't mean it wasn't painful for her. People often don't talk about the things that are painful for them. Jackie welcomed the children she gave up for adoption back into her life with open arms...I think that says alot.

I would be careful in believing what you read. You have only "heard" one side of the story, and imo it is irresponsible to form an opinion based on a one-sided story. Maybe if Anne Bird would have given her relationship with Jackie more time - maybe eventually they would have had that discussion Anne seemed to need to have so badly. Testimonies of many other people describe Jackie as a very caring, kind woman.

[JustMyOpinion]

I would be careful in believing what you read. You have only "heard" one side of the story, and imo it is irresponsible to form an opinion based on a one-sided story. Maybe if Anne Bird would have given her relationship with Jackie more time - maybe eventually they would have had that discussion Anne seemed to need to have so badly. Testimonies of many other people describe Jackie as a very caring, kind woman.


Anne comes across to me as compassionate, empathetic & truthful and as Jackie chooses not to comment, I have no reason to disbelieve Anne. Some people might close the door to Jackie after being "shamed" for speaking their own truth, IMO, but Anne wasn't doing that at the time of her interview with Lauer. ( see excerpt below) Jackie's own words & conduct prior to, during and after trial spoke volumes to me as well. But, if you choose to believe I'm irresponsible in forming an opinion about Anne's truthfulness, that's certainly your right.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7047103/page/5/
SNIP:Anne wondered how her biological mom, Jackie, could still defend Scott.

Lauer: You think to the very last moment she was still trying to protect the golden child?

Bird: Yes.

Lauer: Do you blame her?

Bird: I think that there were a few times that came up where she could have talked to him and had him 'fess up, that this charade had gone on long enough. And she chose not to.

On November 12, 2004, the jury found Scott Peterson guilty of murdering his wife, Laci, and his unborn son, Conner.

Bird: I was a little bit relieved, because I always thought how would I ever have my children around him? Already, you know, we've kind of stopped talking about Uncle Scott in our house. You know, my son still asks what happened to Aunt Laci. And that's been hard.

During the penalty phase of Scott's trial, Anne was asked to testify, but not by the prosecution.

Lauer: Jackie very much wanted you to testify on Scott's behalf during the penalty phase?

Bird: Yes. She said that they had a whole string of people that were going to come in: his old coach and a lady whose tire he changed, and things like that, to come in and speak for Scott's defense. And couldn't I just come in there and say what a great person he was? And I just couldn't.

Lauer: Was she angry?

Bird: You know, she was. She was very hurt and very upset that I didn't do this. And she said everyone's very disappointed in me, and especially Scott.

The jury recommended the death penalty. The judge is expected to approve that decision on march 16. Which will leave just one big question: why did Scott do it?

Lauer: Do you think he killed Laci to be with Amber?

Bird: No. I think she was a part of it.

Lauer: How much do you think Laci's pregnancy had to do with it?

Bird: Probably a lot.

Lauer: You think that the baby represented being trapped to him?

Bird: Yeah.

Anne thinks Scott felt trapped in his marriage. And unable to face the shame of a messy divorce, felt it was better for him if Laci and the baby just disappeared.

Bird: I think it had a lot to do with this golden boy image that he had. So if he screwed up, he would have to kind of push it under the carpet.

She'd grown up without her biological brother and mother. She met them, got to know them, grew to love them. Then came the wrenching realization that her long-lost brother was a murderer. But Scott Peterson still says he is innocent. Jackie Peterson still believes her son. And Anne Bird knows that by judging Scott guilty, she may be cutting herself off from her new family forever.

Lauer: To the people what say, you know, there were no winners in any of this, and now here comes Anne and she's writing a book, sounds a little opportunistic to me. How would you respond?

Bird: I certainly don't feel like a winner in any of this.

Lauer: Is this about money?

Bird: No. This is about my piece of the puzzle that I'm able to put in.

Lauer: So you don't feel in any way, Anne, that you're betraying Scott and betraying your family?

Bird: Well, I do feel that I'm betraying them on some level. I feel sad and, you know, I don't intend for this to be hurtful in any way.

I think at the very least, Laci and Connor deserved the truth.

Lauer: And is there just even a little bit of a message to Jackie, "I'm the one you gave away, look what happened with the one you kept?"

Bird: No. You know, my life has been blessed. And I'm never going to shut doors to the Peterson family. But I am going to tell the truth.

The case continues to put a strain on Anne's own family. She says she and her husband are still struggling with the problems they ran into as a result of her loyalty to Scott Peterson. But, she says. they're getting through it. And through it all, Anne has had the love and support of her adoptive parents. She says she also remains in close contact with her other long-lost biological brother, Don.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7047103/page/5/

[thinkaboutit]

Anne comes across to me as compassionate, empathetic & truthful and as Jackie chooses not to comment, I have no reason to disbelieve Anne. Some people might close the door to Jackie after being "shamed" for speaking their own truth, IMO, but Anne wasn't doing that at the time of her interview with Lauer. ( see excerpt below) Jackie's own words & conduct prior to, during and after trial spoke volumes to me as well. But, if you choose to believe I'm irresponsible in forming an opinion about Anne's truthfulness, that's certainly your right.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7047103/page/5/
SNIP:Anne wondered how her biological mom, Jackie, could still defend Scott.

Lauer: You think to the very last moment she was still trying to protect the golden child?

Bird: Yes.

Lauer: Do you blame her?

Bird: I think that there were a few times that came up where she could have talked to him and had him 'fess up, that this charade had gone on long enough. And she chose not to.

On November 12, 2004, the jury found Scott Peterson guilty of murdering his wife, Laci, and his unborn son, Conner.

Bird: I was a little bit relieved, because I always thought how would I ever have my children around him? Already, you know, we've kind of stopped talking about Uncle Scott in our house. You know, my son still asks what happened to Aunt Laci. And that's been hard.

During the penalty phase of Scott's trial, Anne was asked to testify, but not by the prosecution.

Lauer: Jackie very much wanted you to testify on Scott's behalf during the penalty phase?

Bird: Yes. She said that they had a whole string of people that were going to come in: his old coach and a lady whose tire he changed, and things like that, to come in and speak for Scott's defense. And couldn't I just come in there and say what a great person he was? And I just couldn't.

Lauer: Was she angry?

Bird: You know, she was. She was very hurt and very upset that I didn't do this. And she said everyone's very disappointed in me, and especially Scott.

The jury recommended the death penalty. The judge is expected to approve that decision on march 16. Which will leave just one big question: why did Scott do it?

Lauer: Do you think he killed Laci to be with Amber?

Bird: No. I think she was a part of it.

Lauer: How much do you think Laci's pregnancy had to do with it?

Bird: Probably a lot.

Lauer: You think that the baby represented being trapped to him?

Bird: Yeah.

Anne thinks Scott felt trapped in his marriage. And unable to face the shame of a messy divorce, felt it was better for him if Laci and the baby just disappeared.

Bird: I think it had a lot to do with this golden boy image that he had. So if he screwed up, he would have to kind of push it under the carpet.

She'd grown up without her biological brother and mother. She met them, got to know them, grew to love them. Then came the wrenching realization that her long-lost brother was a murderer. But Scott Peterson still says he is innocent. Jackie Peterson still believes her son. And Anne Bird knows that by judging Scott guilty, she may be cutting herself off from her new family forever.

Lauer: To the people what say, you know, there were no winners in any of this, and now here comes Anne and she's writing a book, sounds a little opportunistic to me. How would you respond?

Bird: I certainly don't feel like a winner in any of this.

Lauer: Is this about money?

Bird: No. This is about my piece of the puzzle that I'm able to put in.

Lauer: So you don't feel in any way, Anne, that you're betraying Scott and betraying your family?

Bird: Well, I do feel that I'm betraying them on some level. I feel sad and, you know, I don't intend for this to be hurtful in any way.

I think at the very least, Laci and Connor deserved the truth.

Lauer: And is there just even a little bit of a message to Jackie, "I'm the one you gave away, look what happened with the one you kept?"

Bird: No. You know, my life has been blessed. And I'm never going to shut doors to the Peterson family. But I am going to tell the truth.

The case continues to put a strain on Anne's own family. She says she and her husband are still struggling with the problems they ran into as a result of her loyalty to Scott Peterson. But, she says. they're getting through it. And through it all, Anne has had the love and support of her adoptive parents. She says she also remains in close contact with her other long-lost biological brother, Don.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7047103/page/5/

I found nothing compassionate about Anne Bird's book. Under my definition of family it classifies as betrayal.

Anne didn't mean for the book to be hurtful in any way? How could writing this book have been anything but hurtful for the Peterson family?

You say you have no reason to disbelieve Anne because Jackie chooses not to comment. The fact that Jackie chooses not to comment says volumes to me about the type of person she is - a demonstration of true class imo.

[JustMyOpinion]

I found nothing compassionate about Anne Bird's book. Under my definition of family it classifies as betrayal.

Anne didn't mean for the book to be hurtful in any way? How could writing this book have been anything but hurtful for the Peterson family?

You say you have no reason to disbelieve Anne because Jackie chooses not to comment. The fact that Jackie chooses not to comment says volumes to me about the type of person she is - a demonstration of true class imo.

I find no reason to disbelieve Anne because: she comes across as truthful, compassionate & empathetic to me, Jackie didn't come across in the same way to me prior to and during trial, and Jackie hasn't denied the events took place that Anne wrote about in the book. I personally believe Jackie & Scott deceived Anne, used her to suit their purposes, betrayed Anne's trust & love. Anne acknowledges the book is probably hurtful or that she may have committed betrayal on some level,, ( again, she appears to have empathy, IMO, she accepts responsibility, IMO) but opines that her own truth is also important, and that Laci and Conner deserve the truth. I don't see what "class" has to do with this discussion. And finally, IMO, a healthy family respects each member as an individual, with rights to their own voice, thoughts, feelings and opinions and does not experience differences as "betrayal". JMO

[lilmiss1960]

When it comes to Jackie Peterson, I feel she shows more dignity by not responding to people such as Anne Bird.
Next, who said that a Doctor adviced her not to give up John? Anne? Did Jackie make that statement during testimony?
The reason why I ask is simple. A doctor in no way, shape or form will tell his patient not to give a baby up for adoption, no matter how many pregnancies she has. If she chooses to give up everyone of her children, a doctor has no say in it.
Next, she was raised the Catholic way and you have to remember what those days were like back then. It isn't like it is today where unwed pregnancies are more accepted than they were back then.
Catholics do not support birth control. They also didn't discuss sex or support sex education. They are very much against it so I believe Jackie when she says they never told her about sex or anything.
Yes, she gave away 2 children for adoption. I don't look at it as "throwing" them away. She did no such thing. They gave a special gift to parents who couldn't have children of their own, which back then, most unwed mother's gave their babies up for adoption because she couldn't give them what they deserved to have. She couldn't give them a good life and she knew it.
Unless you ever gave up a child for adoption, you have no right to say how she felt. It is the most hardest thing a mother can do.
Unlike Amber, Jackie didn't have anyone to support emotionaly or help her if she needed help.
Someone stated we learn from our mistakes, insinuating that Jackie didn't learn from her mistakes. It seems to me Amber didn't learn a darn thing either.
It actually doesn't matter how many children Jackie gave up for adoption and why she did. It is a private matter between her and her family.

[thinkaboutit]

When it comes to Jackie Peterson, I feel she shows more dignity by not responding to people such as Anne Bird.
Next, who said that a Doctor adviced her not to give up John? Anne? Did Jackie make that statement during testimony?
The reason why I ask is simple. A doctor in no way, shape or form will tell his patient not to give a baby up for adoption, no matter how many pregnancies she has. If she chooses to give up everyone of her children, a doctor has no say in it.
Next, she was raised the Catholic way and you have to remember what those days were like back then. It isn't like it is today where unwed pregnancies are more accepted than they were back then.
Catholics do not support birth control. They also didn't discuss sex or support sex education. They are very much against it so I believe Jackie when she says they never told her about sex or anything.
Yes, she gave away 2 children for adoption. I don't look at it as "throwing" them away. She did no such thing. They gave a special gift to parents who couldn't have children of their own, which back then, most unwed mother's gave their babies up for adoption because she couldn't give them what they deserved to have. She couldn't give them a good life and she knew it.
Unless you ever gave up a child for adoption, you have no right to say how she felt. It is the most hardest thing a mother can do.
Unlike Amber, Jackie didn't have anyone to support emotionaly or help her if she needed help.
Someone stated we learn from our mistakes, insinuating that Jackie didn't learn from her mistakes. It seems to me Amber didn't learn a darn thing either.
It actually doesn't matter how many children Jackie gave up for adoption and why she did. It is a private matter between her and her family.

I agree lilmiss1960 - and welcome to the board!

[lilmiss1960]

Thank you thinkaboutit. I forgot to mention I'm new here. I hope everyone had a wonderful Easter.

[JustMyOpinion]

Someone stated we learn from our mistakes, insinuating that Jackie didn't learn from her mistakes. It seems to me Amber didn't learn a darn thing either.
It actually doesn't matter how many children Jackie gave up for adoption and why she did. It is a private matter between her and her family.

It isn't a private matter, Jackie testified about relinquishing two children, single parenting the third before she married Lee & gave birth to Scott. Anne is one of the children she relinquished, and Anne has written a book. Amber wrote a book revealing information about some of her personal choices. Ablow wrote a book which includes known details about Scott's family of origin. The thread is designated for a discussion of books about the case.
I personally have no way of knowing what Jackie actually felt at the time she relinquished each of the two children, or what Amber actually felt at the time she terminated a pregnancy, and I believe they both did the best they could in those moments in time. JMO

[lilmiss1960]

It isn't a private matter, Jackie testified about relinquishing two children, single parenting the third before she married Lee & gave birth to Scott. Anne is one of the children she relinquished, and Anne has written a book. Amber wrote a book revealing information about some of her personal choices. Ablow wrote a book which includes known details about Scott's family of origin. The thread is designated for a discussion of books about the case.
I personally have no way of knowing what Jackie actually felt at the time she relinquished each of the two children, or what Amber actually felt at the time she terminated a pregnancy, and I believe they both did the best they could in those moments in time. JMO

JMO, it is my opinion that Anne was jealous of Scott. She proved it in her book and in every interview she gave to promote her book. She constantly called Scott "the golden boy."
Now, maybe I missed it somewhere, but I never saw or heard Jackie Peterson call Scott her "golden boy" at any time. Don, the one son who was given up for adoption, was the one who told Anne Scott was the golden boy when he picked her up to meet Jackie for the first time and he was telling her about everyone she would be meeting.
In Anne's book, she calls Scott "the golden boy, the baby that was kept." That smacks of a person who is jealous and when she claims she isn't, then I call her liar. I would expect her to be jealous that Jackie moved on with her life, had more children and kept them and it would be understandable why she would be jealous.

[JustMyOpinion]

JMO, it is my opinion that Anne was jealous of Scott. She proved it in her book and in every interview she gave to promote her book. She constantly called Scott "the golden boy."
Now, maybe I missed it somewhere, but I never saw or heard Jackie Peterson call Scott her "golden boy" at any time. Don, the one son who was given up for adoption, was the one who told Anne Scott was the golden boy when he picked her up to meet Jackie for the first time and he was telling her about everyone she would be meeting.
In Anne's book, she calls Scott "the golden boy, the baby that was kept." That smacks of a person who is jealous and when she claims she isn't, then I call her liar. I would expect her to be jealous that Jackie moved on with her life, had more children and kept them and it would be understandable why she would be jealous.

I did not sense Amber was "jealous" of Scott, since she revealed she also experienced a "privileged" ( financially) upbringing, and she stated she had loving, adoptive parents. JMO. I agree that Anne revealed that Don first described Scott as the "golden boy" of the Peterson family, and if he included the phrase "that was kept" ( which I don't recall, and he hasn't given interviews) then this would indicate Don may have had feelings about being relinquished by his birth mother, IMO. I don't think Anne is a liar ( but Scott is a proven, admitted liar & convicted murderer, and Jackie has also shown herself at times to be less than honest, & truthful, in my own opinion)
As for Anne, I didn't pick up from her that she felt "jealous" of Scott, to the contrary, I picked up from her book & comments & actions that she cared for him and felt affection for him, JMO. Anne tried to help Scott repeatedly from the outset of his report that Laci was "missing", i.e. she sought an alibi witness at Marina, she sheltered him in her own home & provided new shelter via her parent's lake cabin when her husband no longer wanted his presence in their home. JMO

[Sprocket]

Do you think you could describe what you feel Anne was jealous of? I mean, what was it specifically?

Are the individuals who write books about crimes committed by other family members all betraying their family members? Would that also include testifying in court? And, why would writing a book be different than getting on the stand, and testifying to what you obsrved/saw?

[Otter]

JMO, it is my opinion that Anne was jealous of Scott. She proved it in her book and in every interview she gave to promote her book. She constantly called Scott "the golden boy."
Now, maybe I missed it somewhere, but I never saw or heard Jackie Peterson call Scott her "golden boy" at any time. Don, the one son who was given up for adoption, was the one who told Anne Scott was the golden boy when he picked her up to meet Jackie for the first time and he was telling her about everyone she would be meeting.
In Anne's book, she calls Scott "the golden boy, the baby that was kept." That smacks of a person who is jealous and when she claims she isn't, then I call her liar. I would expect her to be jealous that Jackie moved on with her life, had more children and kept them and it would be understandable why she would be jealous.

I don't know if she was jealous of Scott. Maybe in a way that we'd only understand if we were adults when we met our birth mothers. I certainly wouldn't judge her on that one way or the other. Anne had a very privileged life, but I'm pretty sure that the nagging feeling of why she was given up may have always been with her. But she definitely moved on with her own life.

On page 19:

"She kept going back to Scott, however. As Don had said, Scott was clearly her baby, her golden boy. And she actually used those words: my golden boy. As she talked about him, I noticed that her expression became soft and dreamy."

I'll take Anne's word for it that Mrs. Peterson used the expression. She's talked to her many times.

[A_seeker]

I've always felt it's a little strange to put family ties above truth. I would not expect my family to lie to cover for me, and would be ashamed if they did.

There was the guy in upstate New York ("Bucky" or something like that) that escaped from prison & killed at least one person. His sister knew where he was but wouldn't turn him in because he was "family". This IMO is perverse.

NOTE: This is not directed at the original poster, just a general observation on the concept of "family loyalty" being more important than truth & justice for some.

WHEW...thank you! I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who feels this way. I have blood relatives who have been involved in crimes...and no way will I cover for them. They can pay for their sins same as anyone else. And if I commit a crime, I do not expect...nor will I ask...a single friend or family member to go easy on me because of our connection.

[accordn2me]

WHEW...thank you! I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who feels this way. I have blood relatives who have been involved in crimes...and no way will I cover for them. They can pay for their sins same as anyone else. And if I commit a crime, I do not expect...nor will I ask...a single friend or family member to go easy on me because of our connection.
I come from a bunch of strict law-n-order conservatives. They'll throw you under the bus if they catch you in a lie or wrong-doing.:eek:

[thinkaboutit]

I've always felt it's a little strange to put family ties above truth. I would not expect my family to lie to cover for me, and would be ashamed if they did.

There was the guy in upstate New York ("Bucky" or something like that) that escaped from prison & killed at least one person. His sister knew where he was but wouldn't turn him in because he was "family". This IMO is perverse.

NOTE: This is not directed at the original poster, just a general observation on the concept of "family loyalty" being more important than truth & justice for some.

Thanks for the disclaimer - I did not take offense. :) But no, that's not what I meant. Right is right and wrong is wrong. If my brother had committed a crime and the police needed my testimony to put him away - absolutely I would do it.

But that's not what we're talking about here. Scott had been convicted. Her book was written after the fact. If my brother had been convicted - I wouldn't write a book about it. I would try to put it in my past and go on - I wouldn't be making public appearances talking about it.

If during the investigation, Anne had these suspicions, she would have been right in going to the police with them. However - the only interviews Anne did with the MPD - at least the only ones that were brought out through Grogan's testimony - were in favor of Scott.

IMO

[lilmiss1960]

Anne refers to ISP as "the golden boy" because that's what the P's called him. Their words, not hers. She has stated many times that she was adopted by wonderful people and lived a privledged life. I never picked up that she was jealous of ANYTHING about Scott. What was there to be jealous of? She was very loved by two people she loves. She expressed her love, gratitude for, and respect of her adoptive parents many times over.

To suggest writing her book was betrayal is silly. The P's wanted to write a book, nobody would publish it. They got on TV and in the papers/magazines at every opportunity, and just lied and lied. They got caught lying. They got caught telling ISP to deny, deny, deny. They were heard "we want those", and "THAT baby" and on and on we could go.

Anne Bird had every right to tell her story. It's a free country, and just because she told the TRUTH, it's called betrayal. No doubt if she wrote a book called "33 Reason My Brother is Innocent" and it was the TRUTH, it'd be just dandy.

I respect Anne Bird. It took a lot of courage and integrity to come forward. I hope wherever she is, she's doing well.


The P's didn't tell her he was their golden boy, it was Don who refereed to Peterson as the golden boy. It's right there in Anne's book. Don had found her, Don had contacted her, Don suggested she meet the Peterson's but Anne had no interest at that time to meet Jackie. Don later picks up Anne and drives her to meet Jackie face to face for the first time. It was during that ride when Don referred to Peterson as the golden boy.
Please show me the link where the Peterson's themselves call Scott the golden boy, not Anne, not Don. Only the Peterson's.
As for the P's telling Scott to deny anything, that seems to be very good advice to me. If you didn't commit a crime, deny it, don't admit that you did it, especially if you didn't do anything wrong. Having an affair with the first woman who jumps into the sack with you on the first night you meet isn't illegal, it is only morally wrong when you are married, not criminally; at least in this country it is suppose to be.
There is also nothing wrong in giving your child advice, as for him getting an attorney, everyone said it was a good idea for him to get one. Even John Walsh agreed it was a smart move for him to do because he would have been considered a suspect, no matter what the LE would have said at the time. He was thought of as a suspect from that very first night and it started from one comment from Ron G.

[thinkaboutit]

Anne refers to ISP as "the golden boy" because that's what the P's called him. Their words, not hers. She has stated many times that she was adopted by wonderful people and lived a privledged life. I never picked up that she was jealous of ANYTHING about Scott. What was there to be jealous of? She was very loved by two people she loves. She expressed her love, gratitude for, and respect of her adoptive parents many times over.

To suggest writing her book was betrayal is silly. The P's wanted to write a book, nobody would publish it. They got on TV and in the papers/magazines at every opportunity, and just lied and lied. They got caught lying. They got caught telling ISP to deny, deny, deny. They were heard "we want those", and "THAT baby" and on and on we could go.

Anne Bird had every right to tell her story. It's a free country, and just because she told the TRUTH, it's called betrayal. No doubt if she wrote a book called "33 Reason My Brother is Innocent" and it was the TRUTH, it'd be just dandy.

I respect Anne Bird. It took a lot of courage and integrity to come forward. I hope wherever she is, she's doing well.

Just out of curiosity - does Anne Bird specifically say, anywhere in her book, that "Golden Boy" was a name that Jackie and Lee had for Scott? Or does she just lead you to believe that?

Your statement that the P's wanted to write a book and could not get it published is pure RUMOR. If you have proof of this - please post the link - or the quote. The Petersons did not lie, lie, lie. Can you post some specifics of these proven lies?

Yes Anne did state MANY times that she had a wonderful life with her adoptive parents - imo almost too many times. Have you ever heard the old saying - "thou dost protest too much" ?

[thinkaboutit]

I don't know if she was jealous of Scott. Maybe in a way that we'd only understand if we were adults when we met our birth mothers. I certainly wouldn't judge her on that one way or the other. Anne had a very privileged life, but I'm pretty sure that the nagging feeling of why she was given up may have always been with her. But she definitely moved on with her own life.

On page 19:

"She kept going back to Scott, however. As Don had said, Scott was clearly her baby, her golden boy. And she actually used those words: my golden boy. As she talked about him, I noticed that her expression became soft and dreamy."

I'll take Anne's word for it that Mrs. Peterson used the expression. She's talked to her many times.

It's very possible Anne used those words "golden boy", regarding Scott, first in her conversation to Jackie - and Jackie agreed - yes he is my "golden boy". Do you notice there are no quotes or specifics about that conversation?

[accordn2me]

snip

As for the P's telling Scott to deny anything, that seems to be very good advice to me. If you didn't commit a crime, deny it, don't admit that you did it, especially if you didn't do anything wrong. Having an affair with the first woman who jumps into the sack with you on the first night you meet isn't illegal, it is only morally wrong when you are married, not criminally; at least in this country it is suppose to be.
There is also nothing wrong in giving your child advice, ...snip

He was thought of as a suspect from that very first night and it started from one comment from Ron G.If you didn't do anything wrong, why would you need to deny? I believe the question his SIL wanted to know was if he'd had an affair. His mother advised him to lie. Good advice? How do you think that made SIL think of Scott once Amber gave the press conference (if Scott took his mom's advice and lied to her)?

DO NOT start in on Laci's family. Ron asked Scott that first night about his "fishy" fishing story because he suspected Scott was seeing another woman. Scott LIED and said he wasn't. Smart move? NO.

IT STARTED WITH THE MURDERER.

[lilmiss1960]

Thanks for the disclaimer - I did not take offense. :) But no, that's not what I meant. Right is right and wrong is wrong. If my brother had committed a crime and the police needed my testimony to put him away - absolutely I would do it.

But that's not what we're talking about here. Scott had been convicted. Her book was written after the fact. If my brother had been convicted - I wouldn't write a book about it. I would try to put it in my past and go on - I wouldn't be making public appearances talking about it.

If during the investigation, Anne had these suspicions, she would have been right in going to the police with them. However - the only interviews Anne did with the MPD - at least the only ones that were brought out through Grogan's testimony - were in favor of Scott.

IMO


Exactly thinkaboutit. There was no need for Anne to write a book. She didn't need a closure, healing or anything else. I also find it odd that she would go through Gloria A. to get her book published. The same could be said for Amber. There was no need for her to write a book. She wasn't all that usefull before, during or after the trial. Her so called testimony and tapes proved nothing other than Peterson was having an affair with her and lied to her about being single. Big whoop. A lot of men lie when they have an affair. She started to write the book during the trial and it wasn't all that good to begin with. It sounded like a 3rd grader wrote it.
IMHO, the books writen by these people wrote them for the money and their 15 minutes of fame.

[JustMyOpinion]

Exactly thinkaboutit. There was no need for Anne to write a book. She didn't need a closure, healing or anything else. I also find it odd that she would go through Gloria A. to get her book published. The same could be said for Amber. There was no need for her to write a book. She wasn't all that usefull before, during or after the trial. Her so called testimony and tapes proved nothing other than Peterson was having an affair with her and lied to her about being single. Big whoop. A lot of men lie when they have an affair. She started to write the book during the trial and it wasn't all that good to begin with. It sounded like a 3rd grader wrote it.
IMHO, the books writen by these people wrote them for the money and their 15 minutes of fame.

I don't know how you can determine what someone else does or doesn't need.
IMO, Anne was clear, she was in therapy, she was trying to heal from the entire experience, she was trying to heal her marital relationship, and she felt at the very least LACI & CONNER deserved the truth. Amber was quite useful to MPD, IMO. She agreed to tape her phone conversations with Scott, I think his words on those tapes became key evidence as to his deceptive, manipulative character and , as to his state of mind, IMO. I also cannot justify Scott's conduct ( deceiving & manipulating Amber, Shawn, police, Laci's family, others) by saying it's okay because a lot of men lie. JMO. It appears you are comfortable with deceitfulness, IMO. I do hope Amber & Anne made money which could have assisted them in improving their lives, the lives of their children,and recovering from any lingering trauma associated with their involvement with Scott Peterson and this extraordinary case. JMO

[cookiewench]

It's very possible Anne used those words "golden boy", regarding Scott, first in her conversation to Jackie - and Jackie agreed - yes he is my "golden boy".


Nope. Anne did not use that expression first.

Have you not read the book?

[cookiewench]

Abortion wasn't legal at the time of Jackie's pregnancies.



I believe that it was. Didn't it become legal in 1971 or 1972?

[cookiewench]

Jackie's "toss away attitude"? I have a real problem with this statement. It borderlines bashing.

Could you please state the source where you read that Anne was told her father was a one night stand? I believe Anne's father was Jackie's brother's best friend. And was not a one night stand.

IMO, considering how young Jackie was and how she probably could not have provided for her baby - giving a child up for adoption was a very responsible thing to do. No one knows how painful this was for Jackie. And just because she doesn't talk about it, doesn't mean it wasn't painful for her. People often don't talk about the things that are painful for them. Jackie welcomed the children she gave up for adoption back into her life with open arms...I think that says alot.

I would be careful in believing what you read. You have only "heard" one side of the story, and imo it is irresponsible to form an opinion based on a one-sided story. Maybe if Anne Bird would have given her relationship with Jackie more time - maybe eventually they would have had that discussion Anne seemed to need to have so badly. Testimonies of many other people describe Jackie as a very caring, kind woman.

Then it was one of her other children who was fathered by a "one-night stand". Jackie said it - I didn't. Jackie didn't know any of the fathers well enough that she could provide info to help their children find them.

We avoid repeating the things that are extremely painful for us. Jackie didn't change her behavior after the first "mistake", and from this I deduce that it didn't mean much to her.

I certainly don't think it's "responsible" to get pregnant over & over again while unmarried & not able to provide.


Jackie had no problem judging other people and looking down her nose at them.

I believe Anne. In fact, everything that Anne says has a ring of truth to it, and everything that Jackie says, doesn't (IMO).

[Anne2719]

I believe that it was. Didn't it become legal in 1971 or 1972?
Roe v. Wade was in 1973. I remember that abortion was legal in New York State a couple years before that. But Anne Bird was born in 1965 and according to the excerpt of her book on Amazon, she was Jackie's second pregnancy.

[JustMyOpinion]

We avoid repeating the things that are extremely painful for us. Jackie didn't change her behavior after the first "mistake", and from this I deduce that it didn't mean much to her.

I certainly don't think it's "responsible" to get pregnant over & over again while unmarried & not able to provide.


(IMO).

It is entirely possible that the first relinquishment wasn't experienced as painful by Jackie, that she didn't grieve or feel loss/sadness, IMO..which could be why she was able to relinquish again. I just don't have any way of knowing, but your deduction is partly based on observable behavior. ( She repeated the exact behavior by relinquishing a second time) Since she had not experienced some of the actual consequences of her own actions the first two times ( she relinquished, did not live out the stressful circumstances that single parenthood can bring) perhaps this is partly why she became pregnant a third time, maybe this is why it's reported her doctor wouldn't help her with relinquishment of a third child. Maybe he saw a pattern that he felt would change if she experienced the actual consequences in her own life by assuming responsibility for raising her own child. ( clearly I'm speculating) Reading Jackie's testimony about her childhood ( and reading excerpts from Ablow's book), I can see why Jackie had no experience with being nurtured and valued by her own mother, or , anyone else, it seems. How can someone "attach" and "bond" to a vulnerable, dependent, needy child when nobody did this for them when they needed ? Jackie was experienced by her mother & other family members as a burden, as "too much", she was sent away to an institution! ( I've read that her mother didn't even visit often, yet brought her home to care for HER when she needed help & Jackie was old enough to serve in that capacity) I really don't think Jackie "knew better", so she didn't "do better", UNTIL she was forced by her doctor to try. I try to understand "why", I have no desire to cast blame or shame, but this doesn't imply I don't hold her responsible for her own choices in adulthood.
I do think that learning of her deception ( it's reported Jackie never told anyone in the family about Don and Anne) likely had some kind of impact on Scott, but this is JMO.

[thinkaboutit]

Nope. Anne did not use that expression first.

Have you not read the book?


I read the book....could you please quote the portion that says Jackie used the term first? Like I said - notice in that portion of the book - Anne uses no quotes. She doesn't say exactly what was said. However she does in many other parts of the book. I wonder why - so should you.

[thinkaboutit]

Then it was one of her other children who was fathered by a "one-night stand". Jackie said it - I didn't. Jackie didn't know any of the fathers well enough that she could provide info to help their children find them.

We avoid repeating the things that are extremely painful for us. Jackie didn't change her behavior after the first "mistake", and from this I deduce that it didn't mean much to her.

I certainly don't think it's "responsible" to get pregnant over & over again while unmarried & not able to provide.


Jackie had no problem judging other people and looking down her nose at them.

I believe Anne. In fact, everything that Anne says has a ring of truth to it, and everything that Jackie says, doesn't (IMO).

I'll ask you again - to provide a link or a quote from the source where you are getting your information regarding this "one night stand."

"Jackie didn't know any of the fathers well enough that she could provide info to help their children find them."??????? Where are you getting your information?

It may not be responsible to get pregnant over and over again while unmarried and not able to provide - I'll agree with that. But people make mistakes. You cannot come to the conclusion that giving her first baby up for adoption was not painful simply because she got pregnant again. Would it have been more responsible for her to keep a child she couldn't provide for?

Let's apply your logic to Amber Frey - using your logic - we can deduce that Amber Frey's abortion was not painful for her because she got pregnant again while unmarried.

Giving a child up for adoption to a good family is one of the most selfless things a woman can do for her child.

[JustMyOpinion]

You cannot come to the conclusion that giving her first baby up for adoption was not painful simply because she got pregnant again. Would it have been more responsible for her to keep a child she couldn't provide for?

Let's apply your logic to Amber Frey - using your logic - we can deduce that Amber Frey's abortion was not painful for her because she got pregnant again while unmarried.

Giving a child up for adoption to a good family is one of the most selfless things a woman can do for her child.

I think it is possible Jackie didn't grieve or experience loss or sadness with the first relinquishment ( it could have felt like a huge relief to her), therefore she was able to relinquish yet again. Amber did become pregnant (after terminating a pregnancy early in her life), kept all of the children and has SAID she grieved and regretted her termination decision. ( and there's no evidence she terminated a pregnancy a second time). I don't see how Jackie could "know" whether or not the babies were going to "a good family", ( although it's likely she felt they'd have a better chance with a family then in an institution) and I don't know that her decision was "self less". At those precise times in her life, relinquishment may have been more "self serving"..IMO

[thinkaboutit]

Snipped....

I can see why Jackie had no experience with being nurtured and valued by her own mother, or , anyone else, it seems. How can someone "attach" and "bond" to a vulnerable, dependent, needy child when nobody did this for them when they needed ?

Snipped



JMO - all these "could have's" and "maybes" you're starting to sound like Dr. Ablow! ;)

If you are suggesting that Jackie was unable to nurture, attach to, and/or bond with her children - all evidence points to the contrary. Even according to Anne Bird - I believe her position was that she loved Scott so much - Jackie was willing to lie for him. Here are some more statements regarding who Jackie and the rest of the Peterson family really are. Statements from people who had first-hand experience with them:

Sworn testimony of Joanne Farmer, Jackie’s friend since the age of 14:
HARRIS: What do you remember Jackie being like in those days?

FARMER: She was fun. She still is fun. She laughs a lot. She is always looking on the bright side. I don't think I have ever seen Jackie really, really down. Always manages to see the good in people.........
<<<

HARRIS: When you were separated, did you get to see Jackie interact with her mother in her home?

FARMER: Yes, I did.

HARRIS: What was that like?

FARMER: They were very close. Helen was a dear, dear woman. Jackie is a lot like her, just sweet. Just the nicest person you ever want to meet …

<<<

HARRIS: You became aware at some point that Jackie met Lee Peterson?

FARMER: Yes, I sure did.

HARRIS: And you have been able to observe their marriage?

FARMER: ........ They have always been close. They have always been very loving, and just a great couple. I have never heard them, they respect each other very highly. And I have never heard them have an argument, or even say anything, you know, toward that. They just are sweet, sweet people. They are a sweet couple.






Sworn testimony of Jeffrey Cleveland, Peterson friend and former employee:

...............

CLEVELAND: It's one of the few families that I have ever met that it was almost seamless. There was no rough edge where they joined. There was no friction.

<<<

CLEVELAND: Again, it was, you have to understand, I have to explain one thing about the Petersons. I have never seen a family that was so mellow, if you will. There is no abuse in any level that I ever observed from anyone. There is no physical abuse. There was no mental the abuse. There is no emotional abuse. I never heard them raise their voices against him. He never saw anger expressed. And it wasn't as if they kept it all bottled inside. There wasn't anything to keep inside. They were just happy, contented, peaceful people. And they all interacted that way. ..............

Sworn testimony of Craig Farmer, Joanne’s son – friend of family and former employee:

>>>>

HARRIS: How would you, as far as just looking at the family and sort of talking about their interaction, how would you classify, how would you say their interaction, what was it like?

FARMER: I was actually very jealous of their interactions. They were just so together, and that there was no animosity towards each other. I wish I would have had more to that in my life, coming from a divorced family. I was somewhat envious of their relationship.

HARRIS: When you say envious, and so forth, what specifically, give me an example of the kinds of things you are talking about.

FARMER: Well, the relationship that Lee had with his sons impressed me very much. I was close to my father, but I do not have the relationship that he has with his sons. And it was something I always admired greatly.


Aaron Fritz – friend of Scott’s
HARRIS: You say you saw him interact with Jackie there. What was their relationship like from what you observed?
FRITZ: . . . So she was always there for him, but always allowing him to have his own independence as well. So it was kind of a nice combination. But, more importantly, was the fact that she completely trusted him and would not hesitate to, you know, I guess, let him have privilege to go places or do things, and invite me along, or what have you. That was probably more so than I think most of my peers had. It was just kind of a friendship in addition to parent-child relationship.

Sworn testimony of Joan Pernicano, Jackie Peterson's friend

HARRIS: How did you end up meeting the Peterson family?

PERNICANO: Jackie was the cub scout den mother and so that's how, you know, my son joined the cub scouts and that's how I met her.

HARRIS: Did you end up developing a friendship with Jackie?

PERNICANO: Oh, yes, almost instantly.

HARRIS: Why is that?

PERNICANO: To know Jackie is to love Jackie. She, she is such a giving, loving person and gregarious, outstanding, there's just instant rapport. And plus we discovered that we both had attended the same Catholic girls high school in San Diego. Our brothers both went to the Catholic boys school. The people that we knew, there were a lot of similarities. We both were starting out businesses, we had fledgling businesses, big families.
<<<

HARRIS: On those occasions did you have a chance to see Jackie and Lee interact?

PERNICANO: Yes.

HARRIS: What would you, how would you characterize their relationship?

PERNICANO: Calm, easy going. It was very different than in my home. My home was a little chaotic and very boisterous, whereas Jackie's was more even, more organized. They, everybody got along.

HARRIS: Did they seem to have a loving relationship?

PERNICANO: Yes, definitely.

<<<

HARRIS: Did he seem to have a good relationship with his parents?

PERNICANO: Oh, excellent. Excellent. I think that's one of the things that struck me. I was always in awe of the family because Scott spent as much time with his dad as he did with his mom. If he wasn't with his mom he was with his dad.


Joseph Peterson – Scott’s brother:

HARRIS: As a husband to Jackie first, want to talk about your mother. But first I want to talk about Jackie. As a husband to Jackie, what did you see?

PETERSON: A lot of warmth, a lot of love, a stable environment, a stable home. She was a lot like dad, that she would take us, all the kids under her wing, and we would be with them. We did family things together. We weren't separated. And that was definitely a part of their marriage, and the marriage that they have. And we could see that as kids, was, also taught us about relationships and how a couple should be.

John Latham – Jackie’s brother:

LATHAM: …. You, as you get older you have family, you tend to get back together, when you weren't so close when you were younger.

HARRIS: Was Jackie instrumental trying to bring family back together?

LATHAM: She is probably the heartbeat of our family.

<<<

HARRIS: And the more you got to sort of reconnect with your sister, what did you find out about her as far as her being a person, what kind of person she was?

LATHAM: Well, she's a sweetheart. She has been a sweetheart to our family. I have never, she is one of those rare people that rarely says a bad thing about anybody, even if she doesn't like them. She is stoic about things and thinks about things. She is absolutely delightful. She would do anything for anybody. I mean someone on the street would have as good a dinner at her house as I would, probably.

HARRIS: When you say she's stoic, is that somewhat of a family trait from your side of the family?

LATHAM: Well, I have seen that in her. I have seen it in myself. Although we do get emotional at times. We have had a lot of things happen in our lives, and you move on. You try to sort it out. And I would say she's not a whiner or, a whiner or a crier.

[thinkaboutit]

Robert Latham – Jackie’s brother:

HARRIS: I think one thing I want the jury to be clear on, I know that we talked a little bit about Jackie at that time, John talk about the orphanage, this wasn't a situation where your mother didn't want you, is that correct?

LATHAM: No, I never felt unloved. I always felt mom wanted us home, but it wasn't possible.

HARRIS: She just couldn't?

LATHAM: She couldn't take care of us. We ended up taking care of her.

HARRIS: So what I want to talk to you about then is the time period after you came back. And we've heard from John about the reconnection in the family, how did you see it from your angle with Jackie sort of reconnecting all the family?

LATHAM: Pretty much the same way. Jacquelyn was the heartbeat of the family and she would call and coordinate, you know, getting us reservations down in San Diego and just, she would coordinate mainly with John's return.


Sworn testimony of Lee Peterson on his relationship with Scott:

HARRIS: How would you describe your own relationship with your son?

PETERSON: I love him very much. I have great respect for him. I just have all these wonderful memories about him as a little guy growing up. I just love him very much.

HARRIS: Are you close?

PETERSON: Yes.

<<<

Judge Delucchi: D 9 F 1. Okay.

Pat Harris: How old is he [Scott] in that picture?

Lee Peterson: He looks like he's about three.

Pat Harris: And would you read with him frequently?

Lee Peterson: Yeah. We had a real nice comfortable area where we could sit down in that red chair. He liked to snuggle so he'd come snuggling around with a book. I'd read to him

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Penalty/Dexhibits/9F-1.jpg

Sworn testimony of Lee Peterson on Jackie:

Pat Harris: Still married today?

Lee Peterson: Oh, yeah. 33 years.

Pat Harris: How would you describe your relationship?

Lee Peterson: Wonderful. She is the best thing that ever happened to me. She's just a wonderful, sweet woman. Such a great disposition. I'm the grouch, and she's the, she wakes up happy every morning. She's just so pleasant. Just a wonderful person.
<<<

HARRIS: I want to ask you this, you obviously, you were around the family and you were home a lot, were you able to spend a lot of time with Scott? You saw the relationship that Scott had with his mother, how would you describe that?

PETERSON: Very loving. Jackie's a hugger, she loves to hug him and she loves him and he loves her as much as any parents can love a single child.

HARRIS: Would you describe it as a close relationship?

PETERSON: Close, very close.

HARRIS: Jackie, as far as her personality, you've known her for a lot of years, how would you describe how she reacts to adversity?

PETERSON: With stoism, she's very stoic, very cheerful.

HARRIS: Does she cry a lot?

PETERSON: Cry a lot?

HARRIS: Yeah?

PETERSON: Never. Well, I shouldn't say never, but she, she doesn't indulge in self pity, she accepts her circumstances and just goes on and tries to make things pleasant for people around her. She has tons of friends she corresponds with and calls and she just, she's very high-spirited. She has a great heart.


http://www.scottisinnocent.com/

[thinkaboutit]

I think it is possible Jackie didn't grieve or experience loss or sadness with the first relinquishment ( it could have felt like a huge relief to her), therefore she was able to relinquish yet again. Amber did become pregnant (after terminating a pregnancy early in her life), kept all of the children and has SAID she grieved and regretted her termination decision. ( and there's no evidence she terminated a pregnancy a second time). I don't see how Jackie could "know" whether or not the babies were going to "a good family", ( although it's likely she felt they'd have a better chance with a family then in an institution) and I don't know that her decision was "self less". At those precise times in her life, relinquishment may have been more "self serving"..IMO

But you don't know that they were self serving. Just because Amber "SAID" she grieved - we should believe her? Just because Jackie doesn't talk about it - it means she didn't grieve?

I never said Amber terminated her pregnancy a second time. She didn't - in fact she kept both of her other children (that she got pregnant with while unmarried). Cookiewench said that the fact that Jackie got pregnant again shows that giving her first child up was not painful for her. I said - using that logic - we can come to the conclusion that Amber's abortion was not painful for her - since she got pregnant again.

IMO, it's possible Amber is someone that dwells on things - Jackie is not.

[enlightenme]

Sounds like Jackie needs to be nominated for sainthood. :rolleyes:

Have you ever heard the saying, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't?"

I'm sorry, Jackie's words, actions, and non-actions have led me to an entirely different conclusion.

JMO

[JustMyOpinion]

But you don't know that they were self serving. Just because Amber "SAID" she grieved - we should believe her? Just because Jackie doesn't talk about it - it means she didn't grieve?

I never said Amber terminated her pregnancy a second time. She didn't - in fact she kept both of her other children (that she got pregnant with while unmarried). Cookiewench said that the fact that Jackie got pregnant again shows that giving her first child up was not painful for her. I said - using that logic - we can come to the conclusion that Amber's abortion was not painful for her - since she got pregnant again.

IMO, it's possible Amber is someone that dwells on things - Jackie is not.

I didn't say I knew, I said it may have been more self-serving. Reading her testimony, she said she was young, naive, struggling financially, and neither man loved or wanted to be with her. (i.e. she didn't tell Anne's father she was pregnant, because she didn't want a man who didn't love her)Whether you believe Amber or not is your choice. I have found no reason to disbelieve her, and her behavior is consistent with her words.( she gave birth to three children/is raising them, to my knowledge hasn't terminated a pregnancy again) As for "dwelling on things", I haven't formed an opinion about that. I do think Jackie comes across at times as very "stoic". JMO

[thinkaboutit]

Sounds like Jackie needs to be nominated for sainthood. :rolleyes:

Have you ever heard the saying, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't?"

I'm sorry, Jackie's words, actions, and non-actions have led me to an entirely different conclusion.

JMO

So even though all of these people opinions of Jackie are consistent with one another - they are all lying?

I assume when you say "Jackie's words" you are referring to what has been reported in the media - or what others have told you she said?

Actions? Non-actions? Could you be more specific?

[thinkaboutit]

I didn't say I knew, I said it may have been more self-serving. Reading her testimony, she said she was young, naive, struggling financially, and neither man loved or wanted to be with her. (i.e. she didn't tell Anne's father she was pregnant, because she didn't want a man who didn't love her)Whether you believe Amber or not is your choice. I have found no reason to disbelieve her, and her behavior is consistent with her words.( she gave birth to three children/is raising them, to my knowledge hasn't terminated a pregnancy again) As for "dwelling on things", I haven't formed an opinion about that. I do think Jackie comes across at times as very "stoic". JMO


Actually - in regards to Anne's father - Jackie testified that she knew the father would marry her - but he had already fallen in love with someone else while away at school - and she didn't want to marry someone who was in love with someone else. I'd say that was a pretty wise choice.

I did not say I didn't believe Amber. You said you believed Amber grieved because she said so. My point was.....just because someone talks about their grief and another person doesn't - doesn't mean they didn't both grieve.

AGAIN - the issue wasn't whether Amber terminated more than one pregnancy - the issue was.....because she made the mistake of getting pregnant again (while still unmarried) after having an abortion -
does that indicate that having an abortion was not painful to her?

[JustMyOpinion]

Actually - in regards to Anne's father - Jackie testified that she knew the father would marry her - but he had already fallen in love with someone else while away at school - and she didn't want to marry someone who was in love with someone else. I'd say that was a pretty wise choice.



Withholding information from the father of a child about the pregnancy ( because he doesn't love you ) doesn't seem "wise" or "unwise" to me, but it is is self-serving, IMO. Again, Jackie likely felt relief when she could relinquish yet another child that didn't get her what she said she wanted most ( "a family") By the time John was born, she testified she was ready to believe she & the baby could be the "family". ( my interpretation).
It's my opinion Jackie did the best she knew or best she could at the time.
( but I do not interpet her motivations as self-less or noble).JMO

[thinkaboutit]

Withholding information from the father of a child about the pregnancy ( because he doesn't love you ) doesn't seem "wise" or "unwise" to me, but it is is self-serving, IMO. Again, Jackie likely felt relief when she could relinquish yet another child that didn't get her what she said she wanted most ( "a family") By the time John was born, she testified she was ready to believe she & the baby could be the "family". ( my interpretation).
It's my opinion Jackie did the best she knew or best she could at the time.
( but I do not interpet her motivations as self-less or noble).JMO

Just wanted to note that I noticed that you commented on one portion of my post - but ignored my question to you so I'll ask again:

AGAIN - the issue wasn't whether Amber terminated more than one pregnancy - the issue was.....because she made the mistake of getting pregnant again (while still unmarried) after having an abortion -
does that indicate that having an abortion was not painful to her?

[JustMyOpinion]

Just wanted to note that I noticed that you commented on one portion of my post - but ignored my question to you so I'll ask again:

I answered it in previous posts. I'll do so again if that will please you.

You asked:
AGAIN - the issue wasn't whether Amber terminated more than one pregnancy - the issue was.....because she made the mistake of getting pregnant again (while still unmarried) after having an abortion -
does that indicate that having an abortion was not painful to her?

My answer: I did not post an opinion that Jackie or Amber's subsequent pregnancies indicate anything about emotions they experienced during prior relinquishment or termination. Amber has said the termination of her 1st pregnancy was emotionally painful, that she regrets it, that she grieves about it. I believe her.

[cookiewench]

But you don't know that they were self serving. Just because Amber "SAID" she grieved - we should believe her? Just because Jackie doesn't talk about it - it means she didn't grieve?

I never said Amber terminated her pregnancy a second time. She didn't - in fact she kept both of her other children (that she got pregnant with while unmarried). Cookiewench said that the fact that Jackie got pregnant again shows that giving her first child up was not painful for her. I said - using that logic - we can come to the conclusion that Amber's abortion was not painful for her - since she got pregnant again.

IMO, it's possible Amber is someone that dwells on things - Jackie is not.


I would say that it doesn't work that way. Amber's abortion was painful to her, so she didn't have another one. Jackie's adopting out was not painful to her, therefor she didn't go out of her way to not have it happen again.

A young woman having an early abortion is barely aware that she's even pregnant. Carrying a child full term and giving birth and then giving that baby away would be so traumatic to most women that their whole life and behavior would revolve around making sure it never happens again, IMO.

Jackie's attitude and statements on meeting Anne was shocking to me and show shallowness of feeling.


You don't have to (IMO) believe or disbelieve either Jackie or Amber in order to see that one of them is in touch with the rull range of human emotions, and one of them isn't.

Jackie (like Scott) doesn't know enough about real emotions to be able to even fake them. She says things that come off as cold or callous without her even realizing she's doing it.

I think that Scott probably inherited at least part of his emotional blank slate from her.

[JustMyOpinion]

Jackie (like Scott) doesn't know enough about real emotions to be able to even fake them. She says things that come off as cold or callous without her even realizing she's doing it.

I think that Scott probably inherited at least part of his emotional blank slate from her.

I agree with you about Jackie's apparent ( to me) detachment from deep emotions. She can't "fake" that which she cannot "feel", IMO, and I think she did come across at times as cold, devoid of compassion/empathy, and certainly , she seemed to feel angry to me ( at times). I think anger is a secondary emotion that covers up primary emotions of fear and/or sadness. Perhaps fear and/or sadness are emotions that would make Jackie feel too vulnerable, and might open the door to a lifetime of sadness, loss & grief buried inside, perhaps she shut down very young in order to survive the HELL that it's reported she lived in. I think Scott likely learned & developed the same defense mechanisms, although I doubt he inherited the "emotional blank slate" in the genetic sense. JMO

[thinkaboutit]

I would say that it doesn't work that way. Amber's abortion was painful to her, so she didn't have another one. Jackie's adopting out was not painful to her, therefor she didn't go out of her way to not have it happen again.

Can you not see what is wrong with this statement? Using your logic I ask - if Amber's abortion was painful to her (and I'm not saying it wasn't) - why didn't she "go out of her way to not have it happen again" - by making sure she didn't get pregnant again? You are judging Jackie Peterson without knowing all of the details of her situation at the time.


A young woman having an early abortion is barely aware that she's even pregnant. Carrying a child full term and giving birth and then giving that baby away would be so traumatic to most women that their whole life and behavior would revolve around making sure it never happens again, IMO.

Not to hear Amber tell it. That abortion was very traumatic for her. Most women? I can say you certainly can't speak for me.


Jackie's attitude and statements on meeting Anne was shocking to me and show shallowness of feeling.

Which statements were so shocking? Are you talking about Anne Bird's version of those conversations?

Speaking of Anne Bird - wasn't there a part about Anne being upset with (a pregnant) Laci because she wouldn't babysit for Anne's neice or something to that effect? Did you notice how Don, Scott and Anne's half brother - is only mentioned up until page 72? Nor is he mentioned in the acknowledgements.



You don't have to (IMO) believe or disbelieve either Jackie or Amber in order to see that one of them is in touch with the rull range of human emotions, and one of them isn't.

Maybe not - but imo - you do need more information than you have to come to that conclusion.

Jackie (like Scott) doesn't know enough about real emotions to be able to even fake them. She says things that come off as cold or callous without her even realizing she's doing it.

I think that Scott probably inherited at least part of his emotional blank slate from her.

I think Scott did inherit some of his emotional traits from Jackie - his stoicism - and his ability to think positively - to look at the bright side.

[JustMyOpinion]

I think Scott did inherit some of his emotional traits from Jackie - his stoicism - and his ability to think positively - to look at the bright side.

So, you think Scott is impassive & indifferent to pleasure or pain? ( definition of stoicism)

[cookiewench]

Can you not see what is wrong with this statement? Using your logic I ask - if Amber's abortion was painful to her (and I'm not saying it wasn't) - why didn't she "go out of her way to not have it happen again" - by making sure she didn't get pregnant again? You are judging Jackie Peterson without knowing all of the details of her situation at the time.



Not to hear Amber tell it. That abortion was very traumatic for her. Most women? I can say you certainly can't speak for me.



Which statements were so shocking? Are you talking about Anne Bird's version of those conversations?

Speaking of Anne Bird - wasn't there a part about Anne being upset with (a pregnant) Laci because she wouldn't babysit for Anne's neice or something to that effect? Did you notice how Don, Scott and Anne's half brother - is only mentioned up until page 72? Nor is he mentioned in the acknowledgements.




Maybe not - but imo - you do need more information than you have to come to that conclusion.


I think Scott did inherit some of his emotional traits from Jackie - his stoicism - and his ability to think positively - to look at the bright side.


Amber did not repeat the same situation. She kept her baby. Jackie repeated the same cycle until stopped by her doctor. It's really not that hard to understand. Abortion = traumatic = didn't do it again.

I happen to believe Anne Bird. There is absolutely no reason at all to NOT believe Anne Bird.

In fact, Anne's statements about Jackie IMO are backed up by Jackie's demeanor and public statements about Laci and Conner.


BTW: I don't recall anything from Anne's book about her ever being "upset" at Laci.

If she had been, what relevancy does this have to the topic at hand? I'm afraid I don't get it.

[cookiewench]

I saw neither stoicism or "the ability to look on the bright side" from Jackie.

I saw one emotion: anger.


What bright side is there to look at in the murder of a young woman and baby?

[thinkaboutit]

So, you think Scott is impassive & indifferent to pleasure or pain? ( definition of stoicism)

I prefer these definitions:

sto·ic (stk) KEY

NOUN:

One who is seemingly indifferent to or unaffected by joy, grief, pleasure, or pain.


ADJECTIVE:
also sto·i·cal (--kl) KEY
Seemingly indifferent to or unaffected by pleasure or pain; impassive: "stoic resignation in the face of hunger" (John F. Kennedy).


2 stoic, unemotional person

someone who is seemingly indifferent to emotions

adjective
1 stoic, stoical

seeming unaffected by pleasure or pain; impassive; "stoic courage"; "stoic patience"; "a stoical sufferer"


Fortitude implies not only patience but courage and strength of character in the midst of pain, affliction, or hardship: to show fortitude in adversity. Stoicism is calm fortitude, with such repression of emotion as to seem almost like indifference to pleasure or pain


stoicism
brave or patient acceptance of suffering and misfortune.

[cookiewench]

Scott smirks way too much to be defined as "stoic".

Jackie lashes out way to much to be defined as "stoic".

[thinkaboutit]

Amber did not repeat the same situation. She kept her baby. Jackie repeated the same cycle until stopped by her doctor. It's really not that hard to understand. Abortion = traumatic = didn't do it again.

I happen to believe Anne Bird. There is absolutely no reason at all to NOT believe Anne Bird.

In fact, Anne's statements about Jackie IMO are backed up by Jackie's demeanor and public statements about Laci and Conner.


BTW: I don't recall anything from Anne's book about her ever being "upset" at Laci.

If she had been, what relevancy does this have to the topic at hand? I'm afraid I don't get it.

The whole "doctor stopped Jackie from giving John up for adoption" is hogwash - period.

When I get home and have access to Anne's book - I'll quote the portion I'm referring to. The relevance is that Anne imo has a skewed view of the world.

You may have no reason to not believe Anne - but IMO you have no valid reason to believe her either.

[JustMyOpinion]

I prefer these definitions:

sto·ic (stk) KEY

NOUN:

One who is seemingly indifferent to or unaffected by joy, grief, pleasure, or pain.


ADJECTIVE:
also sto·i·cal (--kl) KEY
Seemingly indifferent to or unaffected by pleasure or pain; impassive: "stoic resignation in the face of hunger" (John F. Kennedy).


2 stoic, unemotional person

someone who is seemingly indifferent to emotions

adjective
1 stoic, stoical

seeming unaffected by pleasure or pain; impassive; "stoic courage"; "stoic patience"; "a stoical sufferer"


Fortitude implies not only patience but courage and strength of character in the midst of pain, affliction, or hardship: to show fortitude in adversity. Stoicism is calm fortitude, with such repression of emotion as to seem almost like indifference to pleasure or pain


stoicism
brave or patient acceptance of suffering and misfortune.
So you prefer to see Scott as brave & patient and accepting of his own suffering? Did he seem brave to you or like he was accepting his own suffering when he phoned Amber from his missing wife's vigil and painted a vivid picture for her of his presence on the streets of Paris?

[thinkaboutit]

So you prefer to see Scott as brave & patient and accepting of his own suffering? Did he seem brave to you or like he was accepting his own suffering when he phoned Amber from his missing wife's vigil and painted a vivid picture for her of his presence on the streets of Paris?

Not sure what that has to do with stoicism.

Actually the way I see the whole Paris thing....is he was trying give her a few details to ensure she wouldn't doubt him being out of the country.

How long was that pre-vigil message anyway - approx. 20 seconds right?

[cookiewench]

The whole "doctor stopped Jackie from giving John up for adoption" is hogwash - period.

When I get home and have access to Anne's book - I'll quote the portion I'm referring to. The relevance is that Anne imo has a skewed view of the world.

You may have no reason to not believe Anne - but IMO you have no valid reason to believe her either.


Why would you want to quote Anne's book, when you think she's a liar anyway?

She doesn't appeared to me to have a skewed view at all. And since I don't have a skewed view of the world, I believe that my view of Anne's view is totaly valid.

I have many reasons to believe Anne. Not only does what she say "ring true", but her descriptions of Scott and his demeanor match up with all of the other observations of him by different people.

[cookiewench]

Not sure what that has to do with stoicism.

Actually the way I see the whole Paris thing....is he was trying give her a few details to ensure she wouldn't doubt him being out of the country.

How long was that pre-vigil message anyway - approx. 20 seconds right?


And he's such a wonderful actor! He actually SOUNDS happy!


Just the fact alone that he cared what Amber believed or thought at a time like that shows that his mind doesn't operate properly, IMO.

[JustMyOpinion]

Not sure what that has to do with stoicism.

Actually the way I see the whole Paris thing....is he was trying give her a few details to ensure she wouldn't doubt him being out of the country.

How long was that pre-vigil message anyway - approx. 20 seconds right?

Okay, I guess you don't want to answer. ( it is you who posted you prefer to believe Scott is patient, brave & accepting of suffering, your definition of stoicism) I'll assume you don't believe Scott was behaving in a "stoic" manner when he painted vivid lies for Amber Frey. Since you appear to believe he was trying to ensure she wouldn't doubt him being out of the country, would you agree he was employing calculated deception to manipulate her perception of reality?

[Otter]

The whole "doctor stopped Jackie from giving John up for adoption" is hogwash - period.

When I get home and have access to Anne's book - I'll quote the portion I'm referring to. The relevance is that Anne imo has a skewed view of the world.

You may have no reason to not believe Anne - but IMO you have no valid reason to believe her either.

Is this the portion you mean? Page 47:

"One afternoon I dropped onto the couch, exhausted, and called Laci to see if she would take the two girls off my hands for a night or two.

'I wish I could,' Laci said. 'I'm too pregnant myself.'

'Really?' I asked. 'Wait till you're my size'.

But there was something in what she'd said that concerned me. For one thig, she was barely in her second ttimester; she shouldn't be feeling 'too pregnant,' not yet. For another, she wasn't as bubbly and talkative as usual.

'Everything okay?' I asked.

'Yeah,' she said. 'Great.'

The converstaion petered out, and I went to tend to Ryan and my houseguests."



I don't see upset. I sure don't see a skewed view. Anne's niece was 18, her friend's age undisclosed, hardly in need of a babysitter. This was the episode of the sapphire ring Anne wanted Jackie to try and sell. Her niece delivered it to Jackie when she went to visit. Its this same visit by the niece when Jackie said to Anne:

"'Did Laci say anything?' she asked. 'I think they're having problems.'"

Jackie brought it up, then dropped it. I guess Anne wasn't as much in the family as she thought.

[Anne2719]

Just wanted to note that I noticed that you commented on one portion of my post - but ignored my question to you so I'll ask again:
Sorry, still catching up here, so apologies if someone has already said this and I haven't read it yet . . .

But my answer to your question is this. I think that there's a difference in the way Jackie and Amber reacted to their subsequent repeat mistakes. Jackie solved it by falling back on the same solution, which -- to outside eyes -- might indicate that it wasn't as painful to her to keep her from doing it again with the same result. Amber, on the other hand, chose a different solution the second time around. She could easily have had another abortion, but chose this time to keep the baby. To outside eyes (because nobody knows what emotional turmoil goes on in anyone else and certainly not in Jackie or Amber), it would appear that she didn't want to repeat her first solution, so she chose a different outcome.

[thinkaboutit]

Why would you want to quote Anne's book, when you think she's a liar anyway?

She doesn't appeared to me to have a skewed view at all. And since I don't have a skewed view of the world, I believe that my view of Anne's view is totaly valid.

I have many reasons to believe Anne. Not only does what she say "ring true", but her descriptions of Scott and his demeanor match up with all of the other observations of him by different people.


Matches up with which people?

[thinkaboutit]

Okay, I guess you don't want to answer. ( it is you who posted you prefer to believe Scott is patient, brave & accepting of suffering, your definition of stoicism) I'll assume you don't believe Scott was behaving in a "stoic" manner when he painted vivid lies for Amber Frey. Since you appear to believe he was trying to ensure she wouldn't doubt him being out of the country, would you agree he was employing calculated deception to manipulate her perception of reality?

What do you mean I don't want to answer? I did answer. I stated that being strong in the face of adversity and not wearing your emotions on your sleeve has nothing to do with what transpired during that 20 seconds on the telephone.

"Employing calculated deception to manipulate her perception of reality"? - is that some fancy terminology for lying? If it is - then I agree - he lied to her - wasn't the first time nor the last time he lied to his mistress.

[thinkaboutit]

Is this the portion you mean? Page 47:

"One afternoon I dropped onto the couch, exhausted, and called Laci to see if she would take the two girls off my hands for a night or two.

'I wish I could,' Laci said. 'I'm too pregnant myself.'

'Really?' I asked. 'Wait till you're my size'.

But there was something in what she'd said that concerned me. For one thig, she was barely in her second ttimester; she shouldn't be feeling 'too pregnant,' not yet. For another, she wasn't as bubbly and talkative as usual.

'Everything okay?' I asked.

'Yeah,' she said. 'Great.'

The converstaion petered out, and I went to tend to Ryan and my houseguests."



I don't see upset. I sure don't see a skewed view. Anne's niece was 18, her friend's age undisclosed, hardly in need of a babysitter. This was the episode of the sapphire ring Anne wanted Jackie to try and sell. Her niece delivered it to Jackie when she went to visit. Its this same visit by the niece when Jackie said to Anne:

"'Did Laci say anything?' she asked. 'I think they're having problems.'"

Jackie brought it up, then dropped it. I guess Anne wasn't as much in the family as she thought.

I guess I was mis-remembering that portion of the book - thanks for posting it Otter. Admittedly - it's been a while since I have read the book. So Anne wasn't upset.

But this is a perfect example of the contents of this book. What Laci said - "concerned" Anne. This was Anne's interpretation of her conversation with Laci - something must be wrong in her marriage. At least I gather - that's what she is implying.

Did it ever occur to Anne that maybe Laci was a little put out that Anne was asking her to take her daughters for a couple of days? They didn't appear to be that close, imo.

This is the problem with coming to a conclusion about anything based on one person's interpretation/side of a conversation.

[thinkaboutit]

Sorry, still catching up here, so apologies if someone has already said this and I haven't read it yet . . .

But my answer to your question is this. I think that there's a difference in the way Jackie and Amber reacted to their subsequent repeat mistakes. Jackie solved it by falling back on the same solution, which -- to outside eyes -- might indicate that it wasn't as painful to her to keep her from doing it again with the same result. Amber, on the other hand, chose a different solution the second time around. She could easily have had another abortion, but chose this time to keep the baby. To outside eyes (because nobody knows what emotional turmoil goes on in anyone else and certainly not in Jackie or Amber), it would appear that she didn't want to repeat her first solution, so she chose a different outcome.

I take issue with "easily have had another abortion". I don't think any decision is easy when faced with an unexpected pregnancy. Jackie can't even be given credit for keeping her third - instead this story is made up (and I don't mean by the poster who posted it here) that the doctor told her she couldn't keep doing this.

And how do we know Jackie didn't try to make sure this didn't happen again? My mother got pregnant 3 times using different forms of birth control.

I realize what this might look like to "outside eyes". My point is no one on the outside knows enough about this situation to come to these conclusions. Things are not always what they seem.

[JustMyOpinion]

What do you mean I don't want to answer? I did answer. I stated that being strong in the face of adversity and not wearing your emotions on your sleeve has nothing to do with what transpired during that 20 seconds on the telephone.

"Employing calculated deception to manipulate her perception of reality"? - is that some fancy terminology for lying? If it is - then I agree - he lied to her - wasn't the first time nor the last time he lied to his mistress.

I don't recall any evidence or assertion that Amber was "Scott's mistress". Amber testified that Scott first represented himself as single, never married, Shawn testified he initially told her he had never been married, was looking to settle down, had lost his soul-mate in college.
Do you believe Amber somehow deserved this treatment from Scott? Why do you label her "Scott's mistress"?

[Invrdv8]

The whole "doctor stopped Jackie from giving John up for adoption" is hogwash - period.
It's "hogwash"? Can I ask how YOU know that? If the Dr. didn't tell Jackie she couldn't keep having babies and give them up what was her reason for keeping John and not Don or Anne? Why didn't she keep Don and then do something to prevent becoming pregnant again? How is it that what Jackie did is acceptable/excuseable but what Amber did is not?

[Otter]

I guess I was mis-remembering that portion of the book - thanks for posting it Otter. Admittedly - it's been a while since I have read the book. So Anne wasn't upset.

But this is a perfect example of the contents of this book. What Laci said - "concerned" Anne. This was Anne's interpretation of her conversation with Laci - something must be wrong in her marriage. At least I gather - that's what she is implying.

Did it ever occur to Anne that maybe Laci was a little put out that Anne was asking her to take her daughters for a couple of days? They didn't appear to be that close, imo.

This is the problem with coming to a conclusion about anything based on one person's interpretation/side of a conversation.

Anne's concern wasn't about the marriage, IMO. She was concerned as to why Laci wasn't "herself" at that point in her pregnancy. I only added the part about the marriage because it was in the same episode. It was Jackie who brought up the marriage to Anne. Anne didn't have any concerns about the marriage at the time.

Its been a long time since I've read this book, but looking for these snippets brought back some memories. They talked alot, Anne and Laci. They had a friendship along with being SIL's. Was Laci put out by Anne's request? Who knows, she said she was "too pregnant". Being put out or not feeling up to guests are two different things. IMO.

[thinkaboutit]

I don't recall any evidence or assertion that Amber was "Scott's mistress". Amber testified that Scott first represented himself as single, never married, Shawn testified he initially told her he had never been married, was looking to settle down, had lost his soul-mate in college.
Do you believe Amber somehow deserved this treatment from Scott? Why do you label her "Scott's mistress"?

Scott was married and not to Amber. By definition she was his mistress.

mistress
the female lover of a man married to another woman



Why are you continually trying to put words in my mouth? When did I ever say anything that could possibly have given you the idea that I thought Amber deserved the treatment she got from Scott?

[JustMyOpinion]

Scott was married and not to Amber. By definition she was his mistress.

mistress
the female lover of a man married to another woman



Why are you continually trying to put words in my mouth? When did I ever say anything that could possibly have given you the idea that I thought Amber deserved the treatment she got from Scott?

mis·tress (mĭs'trĭs)
n.
A woman who has a continuing sexual relationship with a usually married man who is not her husband and from whom she generally receives material support.http://www.answers.com/topic/mistress

mistress
n 1: an adulterous woman; a woman who has an ongoing extramarital
sexual relationship with a man [syn: kept woman, fancy
woman]http://dict.die.net/mistress/

[thinkaboutit]

Anne's concern wasn't about the marriage, IMO. She was concerned as to why Laci wasn't "herself" at that point in her pregnancy. I only added the part about the marriage because it was in the same episode. It was Jackie who brought up the marriage to Anne. Anne didn't have any concerns about the marriage at the time.

Its been a long time since I've read this book, but looking for these snippets brought back some memories. They talked alot, Anne and Laci. They had a friendship along with being SIL's. Was Laci put out by Anne's request? Who knows, she said she was "too pregnant". Being put out or not feeling up to guests are two different things. IMO.


If Anne didn't have any concerns about the marriage - then what does this paragraph mean - page 48 - after hanging up with Jackie:

"I was worried, but not overly so. If there was one thing about Laci that gave me hope, it was her faith in the potential for perfection. Everything in her life had to be just right. If she was having problems with Scott, I knew she would do everything in her power to fix it."

I agree being put out or not feeling up to guests are two different things. That is definitely a third possibility - which strengthens my point - you can't come to conclusions based on one persons interpretation/side of a conversation/story.

[cookiewench]

I don't believe that it's proper to use the word "mistress" for Amber, when she believed that she was dating a married man.

To me, the person who uses it is just trying to take the fault for the situation off of Scott and put it on her, for personal reasons.

[thinkaboutit]

mis·tress (mĭs'trĭs)
n.
A woman who has a continuing sexual relationship with a usually married man who is not her husband and from whom she generally receives material support.http://www.answers.com/topic/mistress

mistress
n 1: an adulterous woman; a woman who has an ongoing extramarital
sexual relationship with a man [syn: kept woman, fancy
woman]http://dict.die.net/mistress/

And your point is?

Many words have variations to their definitions. Does that make my definition (which I did not make up - should I post the link?) wrong? Amber was (not knowingly) Scott's mistress. Why do you have such an issue with this?

[thinkaboutit]

I don't believe that it's proper to use the word "mistress" for Amber, when she believed that she was dating a married man.

To me, the person who uses it is just trying to take the fault for the situation off of Scott and put it on her, for personal reasons.


Now you're saying that my referring to Amber as Scott's mistress has some deep meaning?

Have you noticed how you and JMO keep putting words into my mouth and changing the subject - implying I am saying things I am not saying. Maybe you should go back and read all the posts - and tell me specifically where I said that Scott's affair was Amber's fault? Please - don't read things into my posts that are simply not there. I don't play games - I say what I mean.

[Anne2719]

The primary definition, at least in the American Heritage Dictionary, includes the implication of material support. Your definition leaves that part out. I think the generally accepted perception of the word "mistress" includes material support -- at least that's how I've always thought of it. Amber wasn't being "kept" by Scott and didn't even know he was married. In my opinion, she can't be considered a mistress.

[JustMyOpinion]

And your point is?

Many words have variations to their definitions. Does that make my definition (which I did not make up - should I post the link?) wrong? Amber was (not knowingly) Scott's mistress. Why do you have such an issue with this?

I don't think Amber belonged to Scott, It's proven Scott deceived Amber about his marital status and life, and I don't think objectifying her as "Scott's mistress" denotes respect for her as a separate, worthful person, but that's JMO.

[enlightenme]

Not sure what that has to do with stoicism.

Actually the way I see the whole Paris thing....is he was trying give her a few details to ensure she wouldn't doubt him being out of the country.

How long was that pre-vigil message anyway - approx. 20 seconds right?


It's the content of the call that's important, not the length, IMO.

He's at the Eiffel Tower in Paris, with his friends, Francios, Pasqual and Jeff. They're playing American Pop music in the background and the crowd is HUGE. Scott laughs.

Around him people are setting up for the vigil and looking worried sick/and or crying.

Strange lies at a strange time, IMO.

[thinkaboutit]

It's "hogwash"? Can I ask how YOU know that? If the Dr. didn't tell Jackie she couldn't keep having babies and give them up what was her reason for keeping John and not Don or Anne? Why didn't she keep Don and then do something to prevent becoming pregnant again? How is it that what Jackie did is acceptable/excuseable but what Amber did is not?

Yes - it is hogwash. There is nothing to substantiate this story. I guess I should have said - in my opinion it's hogwash.

Jackie's answers to why she gave up Don and Anne up and why she kept John are in her testimony. You are welcome to go read it. Anything beyond that - I don't know.

Could you please quote my post in which I said that what Amber did was unacceptable or unexcusable? I would not even begin to judge Amber for the decisions that she made. I have only been defending Jackie against the judgements made against her by posters here.

[thinkaboutit]

The primary definition, at least in the American Heritage Dictionary, includes the implication of material support. Your definition leaves that part out. I think the generally accepted perception of the word "mistress" includes material support -- at least that's how I've always thought of it. Amber wasn't being "kept" by Scott and didn't even know he was married. In my opinion, she can't be considered a mistress.


I disagree that the generally accepted perception of the word "mistress" includes material support. There are many definitions of the word. I provided the definition that applies to how I was using the word. I didn't mean anything derogatory by it. Merriam-Websters Dictionary is a respected dictionary also. You don't apply the first definition. You apply the definition that fits with how the person using the word meant it. See definition #4:

mistress
2 entries found for mistress.
To select an entry, click on it.
mistressmistress of ceremonies

Main Entry: mis·tress
Pronunciation: 'mis-tr&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English maistresse, from Anglo-French mestresse, feminine of mestre master -- more at MASTER
1 : a woman who has power, authority, or ownership: as a : the female head of a household b : a woman who employs or supervises servants c : a woman who is in charge of a school or other establishment d : a woman of the Scottish nobility having a status comparable to that of a master
2 a chiefly British : a female teacher or tutor b : a woman who has achieved mastery in some field
3 : something personified as female that rules, directs, or dominates <when Rome was mistress of the world>
4 a : a woman other than his wife with whom a married man has a continuing sexual relationship b archaic : SWEETHEART
5 a -- used archaically as a title prefixed to the name of a married or unmarried woman b chiefly Southern & Midland : MRS. 1a

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=mistress

Oprah and Court TV and many others obviously agree with me. Here are just a couple - do a yahoo search for Amber Frey mistress and you get 10 pages of hits.:

Scott Peterson's Mistress: Amber Frey Reveals Her Story To Oprah
http://images.oprah.com/images/curve.gif

Report: Peterson mistress Amber Frey two-timed detectives
http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/062504_crier_ctv.html

[cookiewench]

Now you're saying that my referring to Amber as Scott's mistress has some deep meaning?

Have you noticed how you and JMO keep putting words into my mouth and changing the subject - implying I am saying things I am not saying. Maybe you should go back and read all the posts - and tell me specifically where I said that Scott's affair was Amber's fault? Please - don't read things into my posts that are simply not there. I don't play games - I say what I mean.


Yes.

It's an agenda to make Amber look complicit in Scott's dishonesty, IMO.

Amber thought she was his "girlfriend".


"Mistress" implies both complicity and knowledge - knowledge that Amber never had.

If she had continued to date him and sleep with him after she became aware that he was married, then she would have been his mistress.

[JustMyOpinion]

Have you noticed how you and JMO keep putting words into my mouth


IF "JMO" refers to me, I asked you a question, you answered.

[thinkaboutit]

First let me say - I referred to Amber as Scott's mistress one time. I was not trying to objectify her nor was I trying to transfer blame for the affair to Amber. I meant nothing by it - I used that term because we were referring to one of the conversations between Amber and Scott in which Scott was lying to Amber. And it is my belief that men often lie to the women they are cheating on their wives with.

If it bothers all of you so much - I will no longer refer to Amber as Scott's mistress. I am not here to start unwanted friction between the SII's and the SIG's.

I wonder if I would get the same compliance if I asked other certain posters not to refer to Scott as DRISP or ISP? Or to remove signature lines that offend me?

[thinkaboutit]

Yes.

It's an agenda to make Amber look complicit in Scott's dishonesty, IMO.

......


Now I have an agenda? You have no idea how wrong you are about this.

[Anne2719]

First let me say - I referred to Amber as Scott's mistress one time. I was not trying to objectify her nor was I trying to transfer blame for the affair to Amber. I meant nothing by it - I used that term because we were referring to one of the conversations between Amber and Scott in which Scott was lying to Amber. And it is my belief that men often lie to the women they are cheating on their wives with.

If it bothers all of you so much - I will no longer refer to Amber as Scott's mistress. I am not here to start unwanted friction between the SII's and the SIG's.

I wonder if I would get the same compliance if I asked other certain posters not to refer to Scott as DRISP or ISP? Or to remove signature lines that offend me?
I'm behind you all the way on asking posters not to use disrespectful nicknames. Seeing "DRISP" and "ISP" has always rubbed me the wrong way. I have gone to my user options and turned off sig lines so I don't have to see them, but I've heard that there are some which are offensive.

If people expect to be treated with respect here, they should be respectful in return.

[JustMyOpinion]

First let me say - I referred to Amber as Scott's mistress one time. I was not trying to objectify her nor was I trying to transfer blame for the affair to Amber. I meant nothing by it - I used that term because we were referring to one of the conversations between Amber and Scott in which Scott was lying to Amber. And it is my belief that men often lie to the women they are cheating on their wives with.

If it bothers all of you so much - I will no longer refer to Amber as Scott's mistress. I am not here to start unwanted friction between the SII's and the SIG's.

I wonder if I would get the same compliance if I asked other certain posters not to refer to Scott as DRISP or ISP? Or to remove signature lines that offend me?

As you previously posted, you "say what you mean". If you feel comfortable referring to Amber as his mistress, than my opinion about the phrase is immaterial. ( and you explained the term as you understood it) I didn't feel personally offended.
As to "men often lie to women they are cheating with", that is probably true.
Scott's circumstances at the time of his continued, vivid painting of the truth to Amber were not simply those of a married man who was cheating on his wife, IMO. He was a person of interest in the case of his missing, pregnant wife,there was a police investigation on-going, he had deceived police claiming the marriage was fine and not revealed the affair, he had retained an attorney, and he knew he had previously told Amber he had lost his wife and would spend his first holidays alone, and he WAS now spending his first holidays alone after reporting his wife missing.
As for other posters who post abbreviations for Scott you find offensive, perhaps you can contact them off the board and make a request.

[JustMyOpinion]

But that does not make it right, honorable or defensible. And it reflects in a very negative way on the man that does it. The fact that some number of others do it does not matter to me.

Infidelity, to me, is a major indicator of defective character. It doesn't make him a killer, I'm not saying it does.

I'm in total agreement.

[enlightenme]

But that does not make it right, honorable or defensible. And it reflects in a very negative way on the man that does it. The fact that some number of others do it does not matter to me.

Infidelity, to me, is a major indicator of defective character. It doesn't make him a killer, I'm not saying it does.


No, it doesn't make anyone a killer by itself. Neither does it make them a "wonderful husband and devoted family man", IMO!

[thinkaboutit]

But that does not make it right, honorable or defensible. And it reflects in a very negative way on the man that does it. The fact that some number of others do it does not matter to me.

Infidelity, to me, is a major indicator of defective character. It doesn't make him a killer, I'm not saying it does.


Adultery is wrong - no question about it. Lying is wrong - no question about it. I don't think I've ever heard anyone on any of the boards I've posted on say that either of these things - by themselves - are right, honorable or defensible. And if anyone interpreted my post as saying that - I certainly did not mean it that way.

I have only "heard" people defend these things when it has been said they are an indicator of someone capable of murder or an indicator of serious sociopathy/psychopathy.

I'm trying to decide on whether I agree it is a "major indicator of defective character". I guess it is - as imo infidelity is a sign of weakness and without a doubt - selfishness.

Adnoid, it's refreshing to hear a man have such a strong stance against infidelity.

[JustMyOpinion]

I have only "heard" people defend these things when it has been said they are an indicator of someone capable of murder or an indicator of serious sociopathy/psychopathy.

.

Deceitfulness is an indicator in diagnosis of sociopathy. I personally do not think there is "serious" or "less serious" sociopath. Some sociopaths will never commit murder, IMO.

[thinkaboutit]

Deceitfulness is an indicator in diagnosis of sociopathy. I personally do not think there is "serious" or "less serious" sociopath. Some sociopaths will never commit murder, IMO.

There are degrees of sociopathy/psychopathy. Do an internet search for "degrees of sociopathy" or "degrees of psychopathy" and you'll get plenty of hits with information on the subject.

Here is a link to one:

http://www.minddisorders.com/Flu-Inv/Hare-Psychopathy-Checklist.html

[cookiewench]

Donna Trapani.

Her married boyfriend had broken up with her to go back to his wife, and then she had the wife killed.


I don't think that anyone truly believes that Scott was suspicious of Amber, and that this is why he continued to talk to her, but then didn't bother to tell LE about her so they could investigate her.

[thinkaboutit]

In no particular order, here are my thoughts.

Snipped......


3) I have heard plenty of people dismiss Scott's infidelities as minor/meaningless/irrelevant, including his own close family members. This is what leads me, and many others, to conclude that he does not have the same moral compass that the majority of us do. Excusing destructive behavior does not do any good. What people start to think is that if some things that are clearly wrong he considers to be right, what OTHER things that are considered wrong might appear to him to be acceptable? Murder? This is not saying that adultery leads to murder, it's saying that I consider it more likely that the mind that can selfishly rationalize infidelity can rationalize murder more so than someone with better morals.

Snipped


5) There was a case (I can't find it right now, I'll try if anyone needs it) where a man that was having an affair found his wife shot. He immediately told the police about the affair, and it turns out the mistress had hired hit men to kill his wife. (The mistress lived in Florida where the man went for work often, but he lived in a different state). I cite this example to refute the claim that it was OK for Scott to lie to the police about his affair because it is a natural thing to do, and what else could you expect. If Scott had no idea what had happened to his wife, he would have had no trouble spilling his guts to the police, whom he had called to help him.

3) - I disagree that Scott's family's reaction to Scott's affair can be used as a valid indicator of this family's moral compass. If their reaction had been the same under normal circumstances - then yes maybe. But this was presented to them with the implication that Scott killed his wife.

5) - I disagree with the last sentence of #5. This is your opinion based on your life's experiences. I'd be interested in knowing if the mistress in Florida knew the man was married or not.

You imply in #3 that having affairs was okay with this family. Isn't it possible that Scott lied about the affair because he was ashamed? If Scott thought his family would be okay with having an affair - why didn't they know about it? No one knows what Scott's feelings were about the affair. He didn't talk about it - and I don't think he should have had to. How badly he felt or how guilty he felt was no one's business. The only person he owed an apology to was Laci and possibly her family - no one else. Certainly not the public. I have never heard Scott "rationalize" his infidelity.

Can you accept that because of your father's infidelity - that possibly your views on this are a little more extreme than the general public's?

When you say people say it was ok for Scott to lie to the police about Amber because it was a natural thing to do - are you summing up what they say fairly? Do they really say it was ok? Or are they simply saying - he may have done this because....? That's two different things.

[thinkaboutit]

That's the one. (http://www.courttv.com/trials/taped/trapani.html)

"Not surprisingly, the first person to draw the attention of police was George Fulton. The Fulton children told police that their father had been having an affair, and when confronted, Fulton immediately came clean about his relationship with Trapani."

Scott's actions told me he was hoping to continue with Amber when the Laci "thing" blew over. That's why he hid under that baseball cap and signed that note "Laci's Husband" instead of "Scott".

"Fulton was cleared as a suspect fairly early in the investigation, and even passed a lie detector test."

I'd love to see if HE lawyered up, was advised not to take the polygraph and took it anyway, or just took it because it was the right thing to do and he knew he was innocent. Either way, it disproves the statement that a polygraph will NEVER be good for you.

Trapani was psychotic - Fulton would have been a fool not to suspect she had something to do with his wife's murder. Amber was not.

[JustMyOpinion]

Trapani was psychotic - Fulton would have been a fool not to suspect she had something to do with his wife's murder. Amber was not.

I see no reference to evidence presented at trial that Trapani was a diagnosed psychotic, do you have a link to a medical report containing this diagnosis? And, how would Scott necessarily "know" whether or not Amber Frey had any kind of mental health diagnosis, or if she suffered from any symptoms of psychosis, IYO?

[thinkaboutit]

Hmmm...I never saw any medical diagnosis of her as being psychotic not did I read that such evidence was introduced at trial. But I could be wrong. In my opinion her cheese had definitely slid off her cracker, but as far as a medical diagnosis I couldn't make one.

However, my points were:

-He fessed up to the mistress right away.

-He took a polygraph and cooperated with the police, and they did not try to "frame" him for the murder of his wife.

And I made these points to counter these arguments:

-Scott lied about his affair because men always lie about affairs;

-Scott shouldn't take a polygraph because the police always use it againt you.

LOL! You are right - I am not qualified to make that medical diagnosis.....besides - I like your wording better anyway!

Well those points you made certainly counter those arguments. Personally, I TRY (not to say that I don't slip up sometimes) not to use absolutes like "always" when making my arguments. ;) :)

[JustMyOpinion]

3) - I disagree that Scott's family's reaction to Scott's affair can be used as a valid indicator of this family's moral compass. If their reaction had been the same under normal circumstances - then yes maybe. But this was presented to them with the implication that Scott killed his wife.

.


Police showed Lee photo of Scott & Amber, revealed to him some of what Amber had told police about her relationship with Scott on January 15. I think it is very indicative of Jackie's own "moral compass", that she told Dan Abrams on January 22 that : "Scott & Laci's relationship was wonderful. They were very much in love with each other. They dote on each other. They were very excited about their pregnancy. They were looking forward to this child. And they just treat each other with so much respect, love and care. He really adored her.
"http://www.lacipeterson.com/whatshappening/page04.html
JMO.

[cookiewench]

3)
He didn't talk about it - and I don't think he should have had to. How badly he felt or how guilty he felt was no one's business. The only person he owed an apology to was Laci and possibly her family - no one else. Certainly not the public. I have never heard Scott "rationalize" his infidelity.



He owes all of us a HUGE apology, IMO.

I remember when he looked into the camera and asked all of us out there to "look into your heart and ask yourself if you're doing all you can to help find Laci".

When he said that, total strangers were giving up their days to help find his wife, while he was spending his time reciting poetry to Amber & telling her stories of his travels.

And HE threw guilt on the PUBLIC?

Blech

[TuscanDreams]

Could you please quote my post in which I said that what Amber did was unacceptable or unexcusable? I would not even begin to judge Amber for the decisions that she made. I have only been defending Jackie against the judgements made against her by posters here.

Please don't misunderstand my post earlier in this thread, I completely respect the fact that Jackie gave her children up for adoption. It's much better for someone to give a child to a caring home- rather than try to raise it when they shouldn't.

[enlightenme]

He owes all of us a HUGE apology, IMO.

I remember when he looked into the camera and asked all of us out there to "look into your heart and ask yourself if you're doing all you can to help find Laci".

When he said that, total strangers were giving up their days to help find his wife, while he was spending his time reciting poetry to Amber & telling her stories of his travels.

And HE threw guilt on the PUBLIC?

Blech


I didn't see the TV interviews until well into the trial. I, like you, couldn't believe my ears when Scott said, "I want everyone to look in their hearts and know that they've done everything possible to find Laci." Paraphrasing here, but it was close to that. Look into our hearts?? How about Scott looking into his own? Argh!!

[thinkaboutit]

He owes all of us a HUGE apology, IMO.

I remember when he looked into the camera and asked all of us out there to "look into your heart and ask yourself if you're doing all you can to help find Laci".

When he said that, total strangers were giving up their days to help find his wife, while he was spending his time reciting poetry to Amber & telling her stories of his travels.

And HE threw guilt on the PUBLIC?

Blech

I didn't see the TV interviews until well into the trial. I, like you, couldn't believe my ears when Scott said, "I want everyone to look in their hearts and know that they've done everything possible to find Laci." Paraphrasing here, but it was close to that. Look into our hearts?? How about Scott looking into his own? Argh!!

I hope all of you will let me know the next time you're doing a television interview - so I can be sure and watch and point out all of the things you say that don't quite come out the way you meant it.

Now to all of you who are going to ask me - "how do you know what Scott meant?" - I don't. But I can put myself in his place and know that I would have said ALOT of stupid things out of nervousness.

And I can also look at what he said objectively and consider all possibilities. Such as maybe he wasn't talking to the public. Maybe it was meant for the MPD - or the Rocha's - who knows. Or maybe he was tired of the media in his face - camped out outside of his house - or the general consensus of the public by then that he had murdered his wife.

And I disagree - that what he said gives us the right to an apology about the affair.

[enlightenme]

I hope all of you will let me know the next time you're doing a television interview - so I can be sure and watch and point out all of the things you say that don't quite come out the way you meant it.

Now to all of you who are going to ask me - "how do you know what Scott meant?" - I don't. But I can put myself in his place and know that I would have said ALOT of stupid things out of nervousness.

And I can also look at what he said objectively and consider all possibilities. Such as maybe he wasn't talking to the public. Maybe it was meant for the MPD - or the Rocha's - who knows. Or maybe he was tired of the media in his face - camped out outside of his house - or the general consensus of the public by then that he had murdered his wife.

And I disagree - that what he said gives us the right to an apology about the affair.

If I'm ever interviewed on TV, I doubt I could ever be so nervous that I would tell an obvious lie.

I believe that Scott is 100% guilty. Watching those interviews again, after the trial, I get a whole different view of them than you probably do. They make me cringe and shake my head in disbelief!

[cookiewench]

He doesn't owe the public an apology for telling us to "do all we can" to find Laci, while he was playing golf, romancing Amber, drinking wine, and watching "Murder She Wrote" with Anne?

[thinkaboutit]

He doesn't owe the public an apology for telling us to "do all we can" to find Laci, while he was playing golf, romancing Amber, drinking wine, and watching "Murder She Wrote" with Anne?

Are you no longer allowed to drink wine when a loved one goes missing? Are you no longer allowed to watch television? There is no basis to the rumor that Scott was off playing golf while people searched for Laci - none. You are simply perpetuating one of the many misconceptions in this case. I believe what you refer to as the "romancing" of Amber was usually done during the late evening hours - should he have been searching the neighborhood, alone, through all hours of the night?

There was plenty of testimony at trial that Scott was a very active participant in the search for Laci. He was at the search center every day - he posted fliers - he searched with his friends - he followed up on tips that came into the search center. If you need me to post the testimony - I will.

[cookiewench]

Are you no longer allowed to drink wine when a loved one goes missing? Are you no longer allowed to watch television? There is no basis to the rumor that Scott was off playing golf while people searched for Laci - none. You are simply perpetuating one of the many misconceptions in this case. I believe what you refer to as the "romancing" of Amber was usually done during the late evening hours - should he have been searching the neighborhood, alone, through all hours of the night?

There was plenty of testimony at trial that Scott was a very active participant in the search for Laci. He was at the search center every day - he posted fliers - he searched with his friends - he followed up on tips that came into the search center. If you need me to post the testimony - I will.


Is it acceptable to ask the public to do for your loved one what you, as her husband, won't do? The evidence shows that Scott didn't "look into his heart and do everything he could", because he was too busy with the porn and the "club" and Amber.


About the golf - on the Feb. 18th search, Scott's clubs were in his new truck - the one he had gotten when he sold Laci's vehicle. He also was taped talking to his dad on the phone about working out at "the club". If you want to believe that he went to the club to work out but didn't play golf - okay. I don't.

I did not see any testimony that showed Scott as an active participant in the search. He made a nominal showing at the center, and then would leave. He posted a few flyers. Whoop-de-doo.

And as for him romancing Amber only at night - well, in my opinion he should have been respecting his wife by not chasing after his girlfriend during that time, but what do I know...........I would be sitting by the phone, frantic, unable to come up with any good stories to tell my newest conquest, and totally uninterested in pornography.

P.S. His wine & turkey dinner on Christmas was totally inappropriate and showed that, if nothing else, he was lacking in both human emotions and in respect for his wife.

[enlightenme]

Is it acceptable to ask the public to do for your loved one what you, as her husband, won't do? The evidence shows that Scott didn't "look into his heart and do everything he could", because he was too busy with the porn and the "club" and Amber.


About the golf - on the Feb. 18th search, Scott's clubs were in his new truck - the one he had gotten when he sold Laci's vehicle. He also was taped talking to his dad on the phone about working out at "the club". If you want to believe that he went to the club to work out but didn't play golf - okay. I don't.

I did not see any testimony that showed Scott as an active participant in the search. He made a nominal showing at the center, and then would leave. He posted a few flyers. Whoop-de-doo.

And as for him romancing Amber only at night - well, in my opinion he should have been respecting his wife by not chasing after his girlfriend during that time, but what do I know...........I would be sitting by the phone, frantic, unable to come up with any good stories to tell my newest conquest, and totally uninterested in pornography.

P.S. His wine & turkey dinner on Christmas was totally inappropriate and showed that, if nothing else, he was lacking in both human emotions and in respect for his wife.


There was plenty of testimony that he wasn't searching and doing all he could do. Those 5 trips to the bay .... that was at least 15 hours of daylight he could have been searching or posting flyers. He spent 40 minutes sitting in his car in a parking lot when he said he would be posting flyers.

His "4 days in grief counseling" when a volunteer center person was trying to get a hold of him, he could have spent searching and/or posting flyers.

Knowing that he's guilty, I call the times he did search and post flyers was for appearance sake only.

IMHO

[accordn2me]

And the "Washington tip..." the one he thought was funny before anyone checked it out...

or was he just giddy because they found an anchor in the bay and not Laci?

[Invrdv8]

Now you're saying that my referring to Amber as Scott's mistress has some deep meaning?

Have you noticed how you and JMO keep putting words into my mouth and changing the subject - implying I am saying things I am not saying. Maybe you should go back and read all the posts - and tell me specifically where I said that Scott's affair was Amber's fault? Please - don't read things into my posts that are simply not there. I don't play games - I say what I mean.
Amber was not Scott's mistress so why insinuate she was? You put the words out there and "mistress" was the incorrect word to use to describe Amber. You said it and now you're trying to worm your way out of it. No one is reading things into your post that aren't there. We know why you used the word "mistress" and we know that's what you meant to say. The problem is Amber was not a "mistress" to Scott so your use of the word where Amber is concerned is/was incorrect.

[thinkaboutit]

And the "Washington tip..." the one he thought was funny before anyone checked it out...

or was he just giddy because they found an anchor in the bay and not Laci?


No one checked it out. Scott was told by the Longview police dept that the MPD would have a copy of the tape - and no one allowed him to look at it.

IMO of course.

[thinkaboutit]

thinkaboutit

Trying to worm your way out, you fail. Do you think people here just fell off the turnip truck? You have a long history of making up lies about AF and anyone else you deem fit. Don't you know there are people here who have been to that board you had/have that is so far underground.

Thanks for the compliment Spanks (or should I call you SIG?) - but I'm not her.

[thinkaboutit]

Amber was not Scott's mistress so why insinuate she was? You put the words out there and "mistress" was the incorrect word to use to describe Amber. You said it and now you're trying to worm your way out of it. No one is reading things into your post that aren't there. We know why you used the word "mistress" and we know that's what you meant to say. The problem is Amber was not a "mistress" to Scott so your use of the word where Amber is concerned is/was incorrect.

I take offense to your wording "worm your way out of it". It's rude.

I used the term ONE TIME. There is no insinuation - by the definition I provided - Amber was Scott's mistress - and I'm not worming out of anything - as far as I'm concerned that's what she was. There is no stipulation under the definition that the mistress must know that the man is married.

However - obviously you chose to ignore the part of my post where I stated that if it bothered people I would not use the term. It is not against the rules to call Amber, Scott's mistress - but I was trying to be considerate of everyone's feelings. This subject was over as far as I was concerned.

What do you think that I'm insinuating? That Amber knew Scott was married? Believe me - if I thought that - I would say it. I don't play games.

[thinkaboutit]

Wasn't ISP recorded telling his mother that he already talked to the Longview Police, and they were really "nice", when if fact, he had not contacted them at that point?

Didn't he also say he was at or near the airport, "ready to go!", when in fact, he was no where near it?

Saying that no one "allowed" him to look at the tape is incorrect. It implies he asked and was told no. That did not happen.

No

I don't no

and
Yes - it did happen - he did ask to view the tape.

[thinkaboutit]

He did ask AND WAS TOLD NO? Link please.


Well he asked and never got to view the tape. Okay - he asked and was given the runaround - SAME THING. No - in fact it's worse. It's sneaky.

[attorneywan2be]

Well he asked and never got to view the tape. Okay - he asked and was given the runaround - SAME THING. No - in fact it's worse. It's sneaky.

Do you have a link for this? It sure isn't what I remember.

Well, thinkaboutit is correct:

CITY OF LONGVIEW: City of Longview. This is Maureen. May I help you?
Scott PETERSON: Hi, I’m calling for the police department. Did I get the right number?
CITY OF LONGVIEW: Um…actually I can transfer you over there. Hold on just a moment.
Scott PETERSON: Thanks very much.
CITY OF LONGVIEW: You’re welcome.
RECORDING: One moment please
(phone ringing)
LONGVIEW PD: Longview Police. This is Rendy.
Scott PETERSON: Hi, I’m sorry, I missed your name?
LONGVIEW PD: Rendy.
Scott PETERSON: Rendy? Hey Rendy, my name is Scott Peterson. Um… my wife Laci Peterson is missing and I think you’re the police department that’s looking at tapes of her in this grocery store, is that correct?
Rendy: They are looking at tapes, yes.
Scott PETERSON: May I speak with a detective or whoever is um…you know, helping or…?
Rendy: Okay. Um…and what was your name again?
Scott PETERSON: Scott Peterson. I’m her husband.
Rendy: Okay, just a moment.
HOLD RECORDING: Someone will be with you very soon. You may access information about the Longview Police Department on our website (bleep) at www.CI.Longview.WA.US/Police. (beep) The Longview Police Department would like to remind drivers to take the extra time to park legally and safely. Did you know it was against the law to park a vehicle against the flow of traffic even if parking is only allowed on one side of the street? This violation is also referred to as parking on the wrong side of the street…

-------------------

Rick Distaso: Other than getting the little traffic primer there at the end, did the wiretap lose the call at that point?
Steven Jacobson: Basically there was another call. You heard the beeping through the conversation? Another call came in from Mr. Ted Rowlands, and it disconnected me.
Rick Distaso: The wiretap left this call, and did it go to the other call? Or did it just disconnect?
Steven Jacobson: It disconnected this call to field the new incoming call, so I basically lost the remainder of this conversation.

-------------------------------

LONGVIEW PD: You have reached the Longview Police Department. If this is an emergency please hang up and dial 9-1-1. If you know the extension of the person you are trying to contact, please enter it now. For the company directory, please press pound (beep) Using the dial tab button, please dial the name of the person. For the letter Q, press 7, for Z press 9. To exit from the company directory press star. (beep, beep) No match is found. Using the dial tab button please spell the name of the person. For the letter…(beep, beep) Dan Jacobs. To accept this selection, press #. To select the next…(beep) One moment please. (phone ringing)
Detective JACOBS: Jacobs.
Scott PETERSON: Hi, Detective Jacobs.
Detective JACOBS: Yes.
Scott PETERSON: My name is Scott Peterson.
Detective JACOBS: Hey.
Scott PETERSON: I’ve called a few times, but um…I’m glad to finally get to speak with you. You reviewed the tapes looking for my wife, did you not?
Detective JACOBS: Right. I’m gonna have to refer you to the Modesto Police Department. Are you there?
Scott PETERSON: Yes, I am, yeah.
Detective JACOBS: Yeah. I’m gonna have to refer you to the Mo…, Modesto Police Department.
Scott PETERSON: Okay.
Detective JACOBS: Okay. They’re gonna have everything we have.
Scott PETERSON: All right. Did they…did they look at the tapes?
Detective JACOBS: They’re going to get a copy of ‘em.
Scott PETERSON: They’re going to get a copy?
Detective JACOBS: Uh-huh (affirmative).
Scott PETERSON: So they haven’t received one yet?
Detective JACOBS: Nope.
Scott PETERSON: Okay. Uh…I’ll certainly give them a call, but can you tell me…I mean unequivocally it was, it was not her or is there a chance?
Detective JACOBS: She’s not there. She’s not on the videotapes at all.
Scott PETERSON: Was there a pregnant woman there at all or was it just…?
Detective JACOBS: One that didn’t look like her.
Scott PETERSON: Really?
Detective JACOBS: That’s it. There’s no one…
Scott PETERSON: Not even close, huh?
Detective JACOBS: Not even close. But you’ll have to talk to the Modesto Police Department, okay?
Scott PETERSON: Certainly. I wanted to get it, you know, straight from you as well.
Detective JACOBS: Okay.
Scott PETERSON: Okay.
Detective JACOBS: Thanks.
Scott PETERSON: Thank you.

-----------------------------

Mark Geragos: The officer, last thing that Jacobs said, after Jacobs looks at the video, it is not your wife. She's not on the tape. It's not even close. I'm going to send the tapes down to Modesto PD. If you have got any other requests call Modesto PD?
Steven Jacobson: That's correct, yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: Very next call at 3:00 o'clock was a voicemail message where Scott, in the voicemail, starts off the call, the next call he makes is to Modesto PD?
Steven Jacobson: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: He talked to a woman by the name of Juliana?
Steven Jacobson: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: And asked to speak with Detective Aja?
Steven Jacobson: Yes, sir.

--------------------------

Mark Geragos: Now later in that day, about 20 minutes later, there were two calls made to Lieutenant Aja, A-j-a?
Steven Jacobson: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: First one got a busy signal, right?
Steven Jacobson: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: Second one it looks like no conversation?
Steven Jacobson: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Then it looks like a third call about nine minutes later, correct?
Steven Jacobson: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: This is where Scott is calling Aja and, once again, asking to look at the tapes for Longview Washington, correct?
Steven Jacobson: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: And he apologizes to Aja about saying he wouldn't trust anyone else but he says for his own peace of mind he basically wants to view him himself, correct?
Steven Jacobson: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: And there's also some talk where he's saying he's hoping that the Modesto Police Department is doing everything they could, but he thought in his mind that they have two critical leads, correct?

-----------------------------

Mark Geragos: Okay. And then he went into questioning you about the Longview, Washington sighting of Laci, correct?
Craig Grogan: That’s correct.
Mark Geragos: And he told you that he wanted to know if you had the tapes, "you" meaning the police department, right? That's what you understood?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. He wanted to know if Modesto PD had the tapes, and you told him they were either booked in evidence in Longview, Washington, or had been forwarded to the police, Modesto police, correct?
Craig Grogan: Correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And then you told him someone had viewed the tapes and the witness involved had failed a voice stress analysis and left the interview, correct?
Craig Grogan: That’s what I told him.
Mark Geragos: And you also told him that the Longview, Washington detectives had viewed the tapes and did not see Laci on them, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Scott told you that he believed he should have been allowed to view the tapes because he was a member of her family and he would be able to recognize her, right?
Craig Grogan: Yes. Yes.

[thinkaboutit]

Thanks AW!!!

[enlightenme]

Well, thinkaboutit is correct:

CITY OF LONGVIEW: City of Longview. This is Maureen. May I help you?
Scott PETERSON: Hi, I’m calling for the police department. Did I get the right number?
CITY OF LONGVIEW: Um…actually I can transfer you over there. Hold on just a moment.
Scott PETERSON: Thanks very much.
CITY OF LONGVIEW: You’re welcome.
RECORDING: One moment please
(phone ringing)
LONGVIEW PD: Longview Police. This is Rendy.
Scott PETERSON: Hi, I’m sorry, I missed your name?
LONGVIEW PD: Rendy.
Scott PETERSON: Rendy? Hey Rendy, my name is Scott Peterson. Um… my wife Laci Peterson is missing and I think you’re the police department that’s looking at tapes of her in this grocery store, is that correct?
Rendy: They are looking at tapes, yes.
Scott PETERSON: May I speak with a detective or whoever is um…you know, helping or…?
Rendy: Okay. Um…and what was your name again?
Scott PETERSON: Scott Peterson. I’m her husband.
Rendy: Okay, just a moment.
HOLD RECORDING: Someone will be with you very soon. You may access information about the Longview Police Department on our website (bleep) at www.CI.Longview.WA.US/Police. (beep) The Longview Police Department would like to remind drivers to take the extra time to park legally and safely. Did you know it was against the law to park a vehicle against the flow of traffic even if parking is only allowed on one side of the street? This violation is also referred to as parking on the wrong side of the street…

-------------------

Rick Distaso: Other than getting the little traffic primer there at the end, did the wiretap lose the call at that point?
Steven Jacobson: Basically there was another call. You heard the beeping through the conversation? Another call came in from Mr. Ted Rowlands, and it disconnected me.
Rick Distaso: The wiretap left this call, and did it go to the other call? Or did it just disconnect?
Steven Jacobson: It disconnected this call to field the new incoming call, so I basically lost the remainder of this conversation.

-------------------------------

LONGVIEW PD: You have reached the Longview Police Department. If this is an emergency please hang up and dial 9-1-1. If you know the extension of the person you are trying to contact, please enter it now. For the company directory, please press pound (beep) Using the dial tab button, please dial the name of the person. For the letter Q, press 7, for Z press 9. To exit from the company directory press star. (beep, beep) No match is found. Using the dial tab button please spell the name of the person. For the letter…(beep, beep) Dan Jacobs. To accept this selection, press #. To select the next…(beep) One moment please. (phone ringing)
Detective JACOBS: Jacobs.
Scott PETERSON: Hi, Detective Jacobs.
Detective JACOBS: Yes.
Scott PETERSON: My name is Scott Peterson.
Detective JACOBS: Hey.
Scott PETERSON: I’ve called a few times, but um…I’m glad to finally get to speak with you. You reviewed the tapes looking for my wife, did you not?
Detective JACOBS: Right. I’m gonna have to refer you to the Modesto Police Department. Are you there?
Scott PETERSON: Yes, I am, yeah.
Detective JACOBS: Yeah. I’m gonna have to refer you to the Mo…, Modesto Police Department.
Scott PETERSON: Okay.
Detective JACOBS: Okay. They’re gonna have everything we have.
Scott PETERSON: All right. Did they…did they look at the tapes?
Detective JACOBS: They’re going to get a copy of ‘em.
Scott PETERSON: They’re going to get a copy?
Detective JACOBS: Uh-huh (affirmative).
Scott PETERSON: So they haven’t received one yet?
Detective JACOBS: Nope.
Scott PETERSON: Okay. Uh…I’ll certainly give them a call, but can you tell me…I mean unequivocally it was, it was not her or is there a chance?
Detective JACOBS: She’s not there. She’s not on the videotapes at all.
Scott PETERSON: Was there a pregnant woman there at all or was it just…?
Detective JACOBS: One that didn’t look like her.
Scott PETERSON: Really?
Detective JACOBS: That’s it. There’s no one…
Scott PETERSON: Not even close, huh?
Detective JACOBS: Not even close. But you’ll have to talk to the Modesto Police Department, okay?
Scott PETERSON: Certainly. I wanted to get it, you know, straight from you as well.
Detective JACOBS: Okay.
Scott PETERSON: Okay.
Detective JACOBS: Thanks.
Scott PETERSON: Thank you.

-----------------------------

Mark Geragos: The officer, last thing that Jacobs said, after Jacobs looks at the video, it is not your wife. She's not on the tape. It's not even close. I'm going to send the tapes down to Modesto PD. If you have got any other requests call Modesto PD?
Steven Jacobson: That's correct, yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: Very next call at 3:00 o'clock was a voicemail message where Scott, in the voicemail, starts off the call, the next call he makes is to Modesto PD?
Steven Jacobson: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: He talked to a woman by the name of Juliana?
Steven Jacobson: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: And asked to speak with Detective Aja?
Steven Jacobson: Yes, sir.

--------------------------

Mark Geragos: Now later in that day, about 20 minutes later, there were two calls made to Lieutenant Aja, A-j-a?
Steven Jacobson: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: First one got a busy signal, right?
Steven Jacobson: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: Second one it looks like no conversation?
Steven Jacobson: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Then it looks like a third call about nine minutes later, correct?
Steven Jacobson: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: This is where Scott is calling Aja and, once again, asking to look at the tapes for Longview Washington, correct?
Steven Jacobson: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: And he apologizes to Aja about saying he wouldn't trust anyone else but he says for his own peace of mind he basically wants to view him himself, correct?
Steven Jacobson: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: And there's also some talk where he's saying he's hoping that the Modesto Police Department is doing everything they could, but he thought in his mind that they have two critical leads, correct?

-----------------------------

Mark Geragos: Okay. And then he went into questioning you about the Longview, Washington sighting of Laci, correct?
Craig Grogan: That’s correct.
Mark Geragos: And he told you that he wanted to know if you had the tapes, "you" meaning the police department, right? That's what you understood?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. He wanted to know if Modesto PD had the tapes, and you told him they were either booked in evidence in Longview, Washington, or had been forwarded to the police, Modesto police, correct?
Craig Grogan: Correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And then you told him someone had viewed the tapes and the witness involved had failed a voice stress analysis and left the interview, correct?
Craig Grogan: That’s what I told him.
Mark Geragos: And you also told him that the Longview, Washington detectives had viewed the tapes and did not see Laci on them, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Scott told you that he believed he should have been allowed to view the tapes because he was a member of her family and he would be able to recognize her, right?
Craig Grogan: Yes. Yes.

Where exactly was he told "no", he couldn't see the tapes? If it was me, I would be down at the MPD office demanding to see them. Heck, I would have flown to Washington and demanded to see them.

This is supposed to be an example of the MPD being "sneaky"?

I don't see it. JMO

[Invrdv8]

I take offense to your wording "worm your way out of it". It's rude.

I used the term ONE TIME. There is no insinuation - by the definition I provided - Amber was Scott's mistress - and I'm not worming out of anything - as far as I'm concerned that's what she was. There is no stipulation under the definition that the mistress must know that the man is married.

However - obviously you chose to ignore the part of my post where I stated that if it bothered people I would not use the term. It is not against the rules to call Amber, Scott's mistress - but I was trying to be considerate of everyone's feelings. This subject was over as far as I was concerned.

What do you think that I'm insinuating? That Amber knew Scott was married? Believe me - if I thought that - I would say it. I don't play games.
"Worm your way out of it" was MY OPINION of what you were doing. Had Amber known Scott was married and went out with him anyhow I would have had no problem with you describing her as "Scott's mistress". However, that was NOT the case. I did not see the post where you said if the term "bothered people you wouldn't use it". IMO, that's too little, too late. The damage has already been done. If you were trully considering others feelings you would not have used that word in regards to Amber in the first place. I didn't think you were insinuating anything. I think you were deliberatly painting Amber in a negative light. I believe you when you say you say what you think and you don't play games.:)

[thinkaboutit]

Where exactly was he told "no", he couldn't see the tapes? If it was me, I would be down at the MPD office demanding to see them. Heck, I would have flown to Washington and demanded to see them.

This is supposed to be an example of the MPD being "sneaky"?

I don't see it. JMO


So because Scott didn't go down to MPD demanding to see them - which by the way we would not know if he did or not - because there would be no transcript - he didn't do enough?

If you don't consider it sneaky - what is your opinion on why Scott's NUMEROUS requests to view the tapes were not granted?

It doesn't really matter whether you agree it was sneaky or not. That wasn't the point. It was inferred that Scott thought the Longview sighting was a big joke - we've provided proof that he pursued it. IMO it was the MPD that didn't pursue it - because Scott Peterson wasn't seen with Laci on the tape.

[thinkaboutit]

"Worm your way out of it" was MY OPINION of what you were doing. Had Amber known Scott was married and went out with him anyhow I would have had no problem with you describing her as "Scott's mistress". However, that was NOT the case. I did not see the post where you said if the term "bothered people you wouldn't use it". IMO, that's too little, too late. The damage has already been done. If you were trully considering others feelings you would not have used that word in regards to Amber in the first place. I didn't think you were insinuating anything. I think you were deliberatly painting Amber in a negative light. I believe you when you say you say what you think and you don't play games.:)

And for the last time - there is no stipulation in the definition of mistress that the mistress must know she is a mistress.

Your opinion was stated in a rude manner - imo.

If stating that I won't use the term is too little too late - then I'll continue to use it - thanks.

[cookiewench]

And for the last time - there is no stipulation in the definition of mistress that the mistress must know she is a mistress.

Your opinion was stated in a rude manner - imo.

If stating that I won't use the term is too little too late - then I'll continue to use it - thanks.
Implicit in the description is the idea that she knows he's married. "Unknowing mistress" might accurately describe Amber, but simply "mistress" implies that she knowlingly involved herself with a married man.

If you allow people to define THEMSELVES rather than make them be defined by YOU, Amber was Scott's GIRLFRIEND.

But then, if you define Amber by what SCOTT told her to introduce him as, she was Scott's "LOVE".

[JustMyOpinion]

It doesn't really matter whether you agree it was sneaky or not. That wasn't the point. It was inferred that Scott thought the Longview sighting was a big joke - we've provided proof that he pursued it. IMO it was the MPD that didn't pursue it - because Scott Peterson wasn't seen with Laci on the tape.

Who is "WE"? Are you speaking for a group?
IMO, Scott did think the "Longview Sighting" was a big joke, which is why he laughed at one of his mother's phone message about following up:
http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/082504_ctv.html
SNIP:"I just talked to the Longview police again and they're still they said they have 50 hours of [surveillance] tape to look at," Peterson told his mother, Jackie, the day after he learned of the details of the sighting from a reporter.

"The detective seems real nice up there," he added.

In reality, Peterson had never talked to the investigating officer. When he finally contacted a detective three days later, the officer had already determined the woman was not the vanished mother-to-be.

About the same time, his mother left him a voice mail in which she said, "Are you wanting to hop on a plane and go to Longview, Washington? I am." Jackie Peterson then recommended he stay with a friend in the area.

The wiretap picked up Peterson's response — a low, but clearly audible laugh that the transcriber of the wire tap wrote as, "Ha Ha Ha."
http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/082504_ctv.html

[enlightenme]

So because Scott didn't go down to MPD demanding to see them - which by the way we would not know if he did or not - because there would be no transcript - he didn't do enough?

If you don't consider it sneaky - what is your opinion on why Scott's NUMEROUS requests to view the tapes were not granted?

It doesn't really matter whether you agree it was sneaky or not. That wasn't the point. It was inferred that Scott thought the Longview sighting was a big joke - we've provided proof that he pursued it. IMO it was the MPD that didn't pursue it - because Scott Peterson wasn't seen with Laci on the tape.


:confused:

[Invrdv8]

And for the last time - there is no stipulation in the definition of mistress that the mistress must know she is a mistress.

Your opinion was stated in a rude manner - imo.

If stating that I won't use the term is too little too late - then I'll continue to use it - thanks.
IMO YOUR comments here were stated in a rude manner. It doesn't matter whether there is or is not a stipulation in the definition it's obvious why you used that term to describe Amber. FTR, if you continue to use the term mistress where Amber is concerned then be prepared to receive more negative comments. "Too little, too late" gives you permission to continue? Would the same apply if you apologized for insulting someone and they chose not to accept your apology? Would you assume that meant it was OK for you to continue to insult them? Who are you kidding? You DO play games. :D

[Rachel Cory]

Thanks AW!!!
The G's will ignore these transcripts. If Scott knew she was in the Bay, why would he go to the trouble and bother with the Longview sighting? He wouldn't, of course.

Thanks, ladies. :D

[enlightenme]

The G's will ignore these transcripts. If Scott knew she was in the Bay, why would he go to the trouble and bother with the Longview sighting? He wouldn't, of course.

Thanks, ladies. :D


It's called "trying to act interested and innocent". He didn't try too hard, if you ask me.

If he ignored it completely, he knew it would make him look more guilty than he already did.

It's not too hard to figure out, once you realize Scott did it and lies like a rug with ease.

[JustMyOpinion]

The G's will ignore these transcripts. If Scott knew she was in the Bay, why would he go to the trouble and bother with the Longview sighting? He wouldn't, of course.

Thanks, ladies. :D

I think Scott wanted to give the appearance of being interested in the Longview Sighting. ( to friends, family, police). He really didn't bother, IMO and lied ( & laughed at his mother) per evidence at trial. JMO

[Toggie]

I think Scott wanted to give the appearance of being interested in the Longview Sighting. ( to friends, family, police). He really didn't bother, IMO and lied ( & laughed at his mother) per evidence at trial. JMO


I may be wrong but I don't recall Scott taking a trip to Washington to find the clerk that may have spotted his missing wife...Scott found the time to speak to Amber about nonsense IMO but he couldn't take the trip to the PD in Wash. to try and view the tape or speak with the witness....What a caring guy.:rolleyes:

[enlightenme]

Who is "WE"? Are you speaking for a group?
IMO, Scott did think the "Longview Sighting" was a big joke, which is why he laughed at one of his mother's phone message about following up:
http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/082504_ctv.html
SNIP:"I just talked to the Longview police again and they're still they said they have 50 hours of [surveillance] tape to look at," Peterson told his mother, Jackie, the day after he learned of the details of the sighting from a reporter.

"The detective seems real nice up there," he added.

In reality, Peterson had never talked to the investigating officer. When he finally contacted a detective three days later, the officer had already determined the woman was not the vanished mother-to-be.

About the same time, his mother left him a voice mail in which she said, "Are you wanting to hop on a plane and go to Longview, Washington? I am." Jackie Peterson then recommended he stay with a friend in the area.

The wiretap picked up Peterson's response — a low, but clearly audible laugh that the transcriber of the wire tap wrote as, "Ha Ha Ha."
http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/082504_ctv.html

Jackie had proposed that perhaps the kidnappers were heading to the Canadian border. She even consulted a map on the mileage from Longview to Canada. Much more than Scott ever did or thought about. IOW, Jackie seemed to care a heck of a lot more than Scott did about finding his missing, amazing wife.

JMO

[accordn2me]

Jackie had proposed that perhaps the kidnappers were heading to the Canadian border. She even consulted a map on the mileage from Longview to Canada. Much more than Scott ever did or thought about. IOW, Jackie seemed to care a heck of a lot more than Scott did about finding his missing, amazing wife.

JMOHave you ever seen those shows where the only defense is to clear the accused by finding the real culprit? Jackie, IMO, was trying to get the heat off her son, like most mothers would do.

[thinkaboutit]

Implicit in the description is the idea that she knows he's married. "Unknowing mistress" might accurately describe Amber, but simply "mistress" implies that she knowlingly involved herself with a married man.

If you allow people to define THEMSELVES rather than make them be defined by YOU, Amber was Scott's GIRLFRIEND.

But then, if you define Amber by what SCOTT told her to introduce him as, she was Scott's "LOVE".

Hmmm...interesting - I don't recall Scott ever calling Amber his love - mind providing the quote or the link?

[thinkaboutit]

IMO YOUR comments here were stated in a rude manner. It doesn't matter whether there is or is not a stipulation in the definition it's obvious why you used that term to describe Amber. FTR, if you continue to use the term mistress where Amber is concerned then be prepared to receive more negative comments. "Too little, too late" gives you permission to continue? Would the same apply if you apologized for insulting someone and they chose not to accept your apology? Would you assume that meant it was OK for you to continue to insult them? Who are you kidding? You DO play games. :D

LOL! You thought THAT was rude? And accusing me of "worming my way out" of something isn't? And BTW - no one asked me to stop referring to Amber as Scott's mistress - it was an offer - by me. And since you insulted my offer as being too little too late - I've thought twice about my offer. I don't need your "permission" to call Amber Scott's mistress.

It's obvious to you that I have some ulterior motive in using the term mistress? :lol: How do YOU know what I "meant"?

[thinkaboutit]

It's called "trying to act interested and innocent". He didn't try too hard, if you ask me.

If he ignored it completely, he knew it would make him look more guilty than he already did.

It's not too hard to figure out, once you realize Scott did it and lies like a rug with ease.


So once again - we're back to - he was faking?

Scott didn't grieve - when he showed grief he was faking.

Scott didn't search for Laci - when testimony is provided to counter this statement - we hear - when he did it was just for appearances.

Scott thought the Longview sighting was a joke - when testimony is provided to counter this argument - we hear - any attempt he made to view the tapes - wasn't good enough and was just for appearances.

[thinkaboutit]

I may be wrong but I don't recall Scott taking a trip to Washington to find the clerk that may have spotted his missing wife...Scott found the time to speak to Amber about nonsense IMO but he couldn't take the trip to the PD in Wash. to try and view the tape or speak with the witness....What a caring guy.:rolleyes:


So now - not only were his NUMEROUS phone calls to look at the tapes not enough (it was suggested by Enlightenme that he should have gone to the MPD and demanded to see the tapes) - but now you are actually suggesting that he should have driven 700 miles to try and find the clerk that spotted her?

You expect Scott Peterson to drive 700 miles when the MPD didn't even take this sighting serious enough to let him view the tapes? :confused:

[JustMyOpinion]

So now - not only were his NUMEROUS phone calls to look at the tapes not enough (it was suggested by Enlightenme that he should have gone to the MPD and demanded to see the tapes) - but now you are actually suggesting that he should have driven 700 miles to try and find the clerk that spotted her?

You expect Scott Peterson to drive 700 miles when the MPD didn't even take this sighting serious enough to let him view the tapes? :confused:

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?

[Otter]

I've done that drive both ways. It'd take at least 4 days there and back more if you don't drive like a maniac. A flight is easier, but exactly how could he do better than the police at interrogating this guy? Isn't it their job? Aren't they trained for this?

Do you drive at around 30 mph on backroads? He could've made it in a short day easy. Straight shot up I-5. According to Mapquest, its 707.96 miles, 11 hours, 6 minutes.

Just as I thought, you live in Fantasyland. That's my opinion.

[Otter]

No, I am reality based. San Diego to Seattle is 1,255 mi (about 19 hours 19 mins). That's some day. I did LA to Eugene OR in one push - nearly killed myself.


He was in Modesto. Try Mapquest from there. Longview is around 2 hours south of Seattle. I know, I live there.

That aside, it takes you 4 days to drive 1,255? You DO drive slow. Don't want to alert LE I guess.

[Otter]

No, he was living in San Diego when arrested. But it's all moot - if she was there the cops would find her. Scott couldn't help worth a damn.

Last post to you. He wasn't living in SD when that "tip" came in. And as I mentioned, Seattle is 2 hours south of Longview.

Your premise is flawed. And IMO, that's sure not the only one.

[thinkaboutit]

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, Scott was taped telling someone that he was the best person to determine/recognize Laci in the videotape - if it was in fact her - I agree.

Not only did MPD NOT ask Scott to come in and view the tapes - they ignored his repeated requests to view the tapes. What would it have hurt to allow him to view the tapes? I don't think I ever said anything about this being a reflection of the seriousness of MPD's investigation of the tip - did I? LOL - it's been a while since we were discussing this. I think the discussion/argument was whether or not Scott pursued the Longview tip. IMO, he did.

I don't think anyone took the Longview tip very seriously - except Jackie - and IMO, Scott. Sharon Rocha doesn't even mention it in her book.

[lilmiss1960]

Do you drive at around 30 mph on backroads? He could've made it in a short day easy. Straight shot up I-5. According to Mapquest, its 707.96 miles, 11 hours, 6 minutes.

Just as I thought, you live in Fantasyland. That's my opinion.

Really? Mapquest is wrong then because we would drive the I-5 corridor from our home in Oregon to the San Fran area and it took us 12 hours from point A to point B. Mapquest shows only how long it would take if you don't stop to use the rest area, don't stop to eat and don't stop for gas, but it would still take longer than that. Map quest better add more hours to it. To drive from my area in Oregon to Camp Pen. it took 24 hours.
Mapquest has never been all that reliable.

[Anne2719]

Really? Mapquest is wrong then because we would drive the I-5 corridor from our home in Oregon to the San Fran area and it took us 12 hours from point A to point B. Mapquest shows only how long it would take if you don't stop to use the rest area, don't stop to eat and don't stop for gas, but it would still take longer than that. Map quest better add more hours to it. To drive from my area in Oregon to Camp Pen. it took 24 hours.
Mapquest has never been all that reliable.
It's an 11-hour drive from Modesto to Longview, Washington . . . though it should be noted that at that time of year (end of January), there's a good chance that the mountain pass on that route would be impossible to drive through.

[thinkaboutit]

You mean you got caught lying once again.

What is a two day drive in the scheme of things to quite possibly identify your missing pregnant wife? Most of us here have done that and more for a turkey dinner with the family.


A little clarification here. Jim Jones was under the impression that Scott would have been driving from San Diego to Longview WA and back. He said San Diego to Longview was 1255 miles - and this trip would take 4 days there and back. 2500 miles in 4 days sounds reasonable to me. I think the use of the word lie in this situation is a bit strong. He was mistaken about SP being in San Diego at the time.

Scott was told that the MPD had the tapes. There should have been no reason for him to drive to Longview WA when the tapes should have been made available to him in Modesto. The Longview police dept told Scott he would have to contact the MPD. Scott thought enough of the sighting to do what he had been told to do - he pursued it through the MPD more than once. Obviously - the MPD didn't think enough of it - to allow him to do that.

[JustMyOpinion]

Yeah. That's like people saying he should have viewed the bodies the public found by the Albany Bulb. He never saw Conner before, and Laci was unrecognizable. So how does that make him guilty?

??? I have no expectation that Scott would have viewed the remains prior to autopsy. ( although I wouldn't expect him to drive 100's of miles away from the Bay area, load a car with camping gear & cash) and I do think the State brought evidence proving flight which shows consciousness of guilt, IMO. What does this have to do with his laughing at his mother's voice mail? ( which goes to his character, his state of mind, IMO)

[JustMyOpinion]

Can a man have no junk in his car after murdering his wife?
Can a man have junk in his car even if he didn't murder his wife?

Can a man murder his wife and not laugh at a voice mail?
Can a man laugh at a voice mail even if he didn't murder his wife? Explain why these principles don't apply here.

Your "man principles" have nothing to do with all of the evidence presented at trial which is the basis for my own opinion that Scott was attempting to flee which shows consciousness of guilt.

[JustMyOpinion]

Where could he flee to? Exactly what was the evidence of this? Why does this show consciousness of guilt and not a desire to avoid the press?

Since Scott chose not to testify, I have no explanation from him as to why he packed the car with camping gear, cash, brother's ID, clothing, etc, or why he was driving erratically ( or made obscene gesture to under-cover police). THere were unlimited locations were he could hide, before trying to cross the border into Mexico, IMO. Scott has never said he did all of this out of a desire to avoid the press.

[JustMyOpinion]

If he wanted to go to Mexico, why didn't he stay there?
Why did he return to the USA?
Why didn't he head south into Central or South America?
Why take camping gear?
How would it help?
Why no tent?
No sleeping bag?
No food?

Scott would need to answer these questions ( I would only be speculating) I am satisfied beyond my own doubt by all of the evidence presented that he was attempting to flee, it appears you are not.

[Anne2719]

Pretty damning, in my opinion. Who cares what he DIDN'T take -- an inexperienced camper (was he inexperienced?) might forget essentials.

Did he offer an explanation for all this stuff?

[One2Snoop]

Right. Exactly what all adventurers take to go camping! Don't leave home without clothes to go to the mall in!

:lol::no::lol:

Oh I thought those clothes were for when he hit the Takillya bars at night.

[Anne2719]

Then why not answer my previous post:

Is it possible for a man to have all of this junk in the trunk and NOT murder his wife?
Is it possible for a man to have no junk in the trunk and murder his wife?Show me, step by step, how this implicates Scott when it would not implicate anyone else.
Is that an order?

[Anne2719]

You said:


And I said "Then why not answer my previous post:"

I still haven't seen anyone try. Are those two situations possible? If so, why is Scott 'special' and the same rules don't apply to him?
Yes, those two situations are possible. Doesn't mean a thing in this case. And I did answer your previous post when I said "an inexperienced camper might forget essentials." Besides that, I don't think Scott was the brightest bulb in the chandelier.

[Anne2719]

Heh, they said that? And you actually think they meant it? You believe that, but you disbelieve everything else they say. That makes a lot of sense.

[One2Snoop]

How is that possible when the prosecution claimed he was the greatest criminal genius in the history of mankind? Greater even than fictional criminals like Sherlock Holmes' Professor Moriarty? How can he be both a genius and a fool?

Who said Scott was a genius? Link please.

[Anne2719]

Assumption 23.
Assumption 29.
Assumption 39.
Assumption 40.
Assumption 41.
Assumption 80.
Assumption 81.
Assumption 82.
Assumption 93.
Assumption 95.
Assumption 96.
Assumption 97.
Assumption 98.
Assumption 100.
just for starters.
I don't believe he is a genius. I also don't believe he is stupid (except about women). So the assumptions don't hold and thus he is innocent.
Sez YOU . . .

[Anne2719]

So the assumptions don't hold and thus he is innocent.

That is your opinion. NOT a fact.

[accordn2me]

Yes, I do say. Forensic technicians have committed murder and been caught. Coroners have committed murder and been caught. Cops have committed murder and been caught. Judges have committed murder and been caught. Doctors have committed murder and been caught. How could Scott leave NO evidence?You wouldn't understand.

[JustMyOpinion]

How is that possible when the prosecution claimed he was the greatest criminal genius in the history of mankind? Greater even than fictional criminals like Sherlock Holmes' Professor Moriarty? How can he be both a genius and a fool?

Do you have a link to this claim you allege the Prosecution made? TIA
( you appear to be projecting your own words onto others, IMO)

[JustMyOpinion]

The prosecution claimed he committed the crime without leaving any CE or DE anywhere at any time, and that even though he has never committed a crime - never even gotten a traffic ticket. What else would you call him but a genius? Even serial killers aren't that good AFAIK.

IMO he had no involvement with the crime and THAT is the explanation for the complete lack of evidence against him.

No, the prosecution didn't claim this. They presented a great deal of circumstantial evidence during the nineteen weeks of their case-in-chief. No, I wouldn't call Scott a genius, he's a convicted murderer. How is it that he's "that good"? He's sitting on death row!

[accordn2me]

No, the prosecution didn't claim this. They presented a great deal of circumstantial evidence during the nineteen weeks of their case-in-chief. No, I wouldn't call Scott a genius, he's a convicted murderer. How is it that he's "that good"? He's sitting on death row!

Maybe the prosecutor is a genius...or collectively the jury is a genius...:cool:

[deputydi]

Hi TD!

I think Catherine Crier's "A Deadly Game" was the most infomative, and the one I would advise reading for those who wish to read only one book.

Sharon Rocha's, "For Laci" was wonderful, albeit a difficult, emotional read.

Anne Bird's, "Blood Brother" offers the reader an interesting Bird's-eye :D view of the Peterson family dynamics.

By choice, I didn't read Amber Frey's "Witness For the Prosecution of Scott Peterson".
Your reading material and opinion of each of them exactly duplicates mine. Great minds and all that. LOL.

[accordn2me]

We all thanked our lucky stars we're not toe-sucking Canadians, and began looking forward to the next 1,000. And the next.

Yeah. But what's wrong with California? :shrug: They need to get on the ball!

[enlightenme]

IIRC, Scott was taped telling someone that he was the best person to determine/recognize Laci in the videotape - if it was in fact her - I agree.

Not only did MPD NOT ask Scott to come in and view the tapes - they ignored his repeated requests to view the tapes. What would it have hurt to allow him to view the tapes? I don't think I ever said anything about this being a reflection of the seriousness of MPD's investigation of the tip - did I? LOL - it's been a while since we were discussing this. I think the discussion/argument was whether or not Scott pursued the Longview tip. IMO, he did.

I don't think anyone took the Longview tip very seriously - except Jackie - and IMO, Scott. Sharon Rocha doesn't even mention it in her book.

Why would Sharon mention it in her book? It was called "For Laci". It was about Laci, not bogus tips that came in that went no where.

MOO

[One2Snoop]

Yeah. But what's wrong with California? :shrug: They need to get on the ball!

I think this explains it all....

Christopher Bigsby and Malcolm Bradbury:
You know what they say: if God had been a Liberal, we wouldn't have had the ten commandments. We'd have had the ten suggestions.

[enlightenme]

We all thanked our lucky stars we're not toe-sucking Canadians, and began looking forward to the next 1,000. And the next.


Hey there Adnoid! Quite a few of my relatives live in Canada. As far as I know, none of them are toe suckers nor are they suckers for good looking murderers. I know none of them believe Scott is innocent.

I come from good stock! IMO

[accordn2me]

Canada almost hanged a 14 year old boy - who many are now convinced was innocent. That's when they realized that men are too fallible to make judgments like this.

And it's (Karla) Homolka and she is free thanks to the cops screwing up. Perhaps they were trained in Modesto?Blow me down!

Do you think (Karla) Homolka is guilty?

What about the person that committed the crimes with her?

Why, in your opinion, is (Karla) free, but he's not?

What happened to the 14 year old boy? Was he really innocent, or were many just "convinced" he was? Were they convinced he was innocent due to his age?

[Maybaby59]

Hi,

I have a copy of "We, the Jury". If anyone would like to have it, please PM me...and I'd be happy to send it to you.

Trish :)

[Maybaby59]

Hi,

I have a copy of "We, the Jury". If anyone would like to have it, please PM me...and I'd be happy to send it to you.

Trish :)

It's been spoken for...Thanks...

[One2Snoop]

It's been spoken for...Thanks...

Oh schucks, I missed your initial invitation.
If your book happens to become available again, I'd like to read it. Thank you for sharing Maybaby59. :seeya: :rose:

[Miss Bootsie]

Oh schucks, I missed your initial invitation.
If your book happens to become available again, I'd like to read it. Thank you for sharing Maybaby59. :seeya: :rose:

Snoop, I will send you the book when I finish reading.

[thinkaboutit]

Why would Sharon mention it in her book? It was called "For Laci". It was about Laci, not bogus tips that came in that went no where.

MOO

The book was also about Sharon's emotional roller coaster. I would think that if this was a sighting that was taken seriously and had given her hope - she would have mentioned it. So if it was such a bogus tip - can we please stop mentioning how Scott not viewing the Longview tapes (even though he made a huge attempt - imo - to look at the tapes) is a sign of his guilt?

[Hey Paula]

The book was also about Sharon's emotional roller coaster. I would think that if this was a sighting that was taken seriously and had given her hope - she would have mentioned it. So if it was such a bogus tip - can we please stop mentioning how Scott not viewing the Longview tapes (even though he made a huge attempt - imo - to look at the tapes) is a sign of his guilt?

Jackie called Scott and left a message for him to go to Longview to view the tape, and he was caught on tape laughing at her suggestion. (as if mocking his mother, knowing it wouldn't be Laci on the tape, because he already knew where Laci was)

IMO

[thinkaboutit]

Jackie called Scott and left a message for him to go to Longview to view the tape, and he was caught on tape laughing at her suggestion. (as if mocking his mother, knowing it wouldn't be Laci on the tape, because he already knew where Laci was)

IMO

But we don't know what Scott was laughing at. Was he laughing at something he had heard on the radio? Was he laughing at a stupid billboard he was passing?

And Scott's actions indicate he did take the Longview tip seriously. Maybe he didn't at first - like everyone else - but then decided it was worth a shot. Scott did make attempts to view those tapes.

[deputydi]

But we don't know what Scott was laughing at. Was he laughing at something he had heard on the radio? Was he laughing at a stupid billboard he was passing?<snip>
IIRC, the message was left on his land phone - not his cell. The laugh on the tape was not a HOHOHO gleeful laugh, it was rather sardonic.

[Otter]

IIRC, the message was left on his land phone - not his cell. The laugh on the tape was not a HOHOHO gleeful laugh, it was rather sardonic.

You can hear it (kind of) here:

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/docs/wiretaps2.html

Its definitely not a HOHOHO.

[thinkaboutit]

You can hear it (kind of) here:

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/docs/wiretaps2.html

Its definitely not a HOHOHO.

Thanks for the link Otter.....question - why does that message seem so chopped? You don't hear the "I don't know if it's near" portion - and why do we hear a phone ringing on the recording just after the laugh? Seems very odd to me??

[thinkaboutit]

IIRC, the message was left on his land phone - not his cell. The laugh on the tape was not a HOHOHO gleeful laugh, it was rather sardonic.


I don't see how it could have been his land phone - if it was his land phone - how would they have a recording of him listening to the message?

[deputydi]

I don't see how it could have been his land phone - if it was his land phone - how would they have a recording of him listening to the message?
Maybe because his phone was tapped and the message recorder is attached to the phone??? I don't know that it was a land line, that's just the way I remember it (IIRC).

[thinkaboutit]

Hi DD - Hope this helps:

On Jan 30, Rita Cosby called and told Scott about the sighting. Then his friends Heidi and Arron Fritz called about the sighting - at this point he was telling everyone that he was just waiting to hear back from the Longview Police. The next day his friend Mike Reed called about the sighting, and while the two of them were on the phone, Jackie was leaving a message on Scott's phone. She asked him if he wanted to jump on a plane to Washington, and that they could stay with her friend Rachel. Listening to the message, Scott laughed when he heard his mother say Rachel was hanging up flyers. HE DID NOT RETURN THE CALL. 30 minutes later Jackie called again, this time Scott picked up. He wanted to know how they [Longview Police] could identify her. Jackie suggested he hop on a plane and he said he'd definitly go. He said he called up there and talked to one of them (at this point, 2 days into it, he had no contact with the Longview Police Department). Before Scott hung up he asked about McKenzie, stating that when he got down there (SD) he was going to give the dog a bath. He hung up AND THEN called the LPD. He identified himself and was put on hold, while on hold, the call was lost when Jackie's call came in. Scott told her he spoke to the LPD "again", that they had fifty to sixty hours of tape to review. "They seem really nice up there" he said. Jackie told him that he was the only one that could really identify her, and Scott said "Yeah I know, that's what I told them, that I'd be up there in a minute if there was even a possibility." Scott then started talking about brining peanut butter treats to McKenzie and Rita Cosby phoned leaving a message that it was important to get word of the sighting out there. Scott deleted the call before it was finished. Olson, Scott's boss called, and Scott told him he had to hang around the airport in case he had to go up there.

At noon Jackie called and asked where he was, he said he was in San Juan Bauista - not waiting at the airport as he had told Olson. Jackie called again at 4:00 PM and left a message saying that she had just heard on The Abrams Report that Laci wasn't the one on the video and that she was sorry.

Scott erased her call.

Now - hopefully this clears up the idea that Scott tired "many times" to view the video, when in fact, he never even spoke with anyone at the Longview Police department about it, per his actions.


Well - that would be one version. :)

Scott's call to the LPD on the 31st was not lost - the wiretap was disconnected.

DISTASO: The wiretap left this call, and did it go to the other call? Or did it just disconnect?

JACOBSON: It disconnected this call to field the new incoming call, so I basically lost the remainder of this conversation.


Jacobson also testified that the first call they were "able to intercept" regarding the Longview sighting was the Cosby call on the 31st. They did not have wiretap audio for every call SP made. Jacobson also testified that they intercepted a call of SP saying he had heard about the Longview sighting at 3:00 PM on the 30th. So at 4:47 PM on the 30th of January - Scott called 411 and was directly connected to the number he asked for - Jacobson doesn't know what the number was he was connected to - nor does he have audio for that call. Just before that call - SP had been talking to his lawyer, Kirk McAllister. I believe it is the Peterson family's position that the call made at 4:47 PM on the 30th was to the LPD:

JACOBSON: Did you say that was two

? I believe that's an AT&T Direct Connect. That's one call.

GERAGOS: Now, where was that, what was that call right there?

JACOBSON: That was a 4-1-1 call where Mr. Peterson called Information, and then there was a Direct Connect to information.

GERAGOS: To where?

JACOBSON: Doesn't list the "Where".

GERAGOS: Okay. Do you have,

JACOBSON: It's a three-minute duration call.

GERAGOS: Right. So do you know where that call, when somebody calls a Directory Assistance, you say it's a Direct Connect. Is that reflected in this? What they have got in here to Direct Connect, is that a Direct Connect charge? This is one of those things?

JACOBSON: Similar to that.

GERAGOS: When you make the call, if you press "1", they will connect it for a buck, or something like that?

JACOBSON: I don't know what their terminology is; but I would assume it's something similar to that.



GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, specifically this one, which is, looks like a 4:47, which is a Directory Assistance, and then a charge for three minutes. You have the audio for that?

JACOBSON: No, sir, I don't.




Jacobson also testified that the call they DID have partial audio for - on the 31st - of SP calling the Longview police dept was done in the same manner - he called 411 and was directly connected to LPD via 411. Then by the time he called the LPD on Feb. 3rd - SP knew that a detective Jacobs was the man he needed to call. So somehow - between the call they had partial audio for (on Jan 31st) and Feb 3rd - Scott had learned the name of the detective in Longview WA that he needed to contact.

GERAGOS: Okay. And that call was the one to Detective Jacobs, correct?

JACOBSON: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: You had no information that you intercepted between January 31st and February 3rd that allowed you to at least piece together from the wiretap how Scott Peterson got Detective Jacobs' number, correct?

JACOBSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Or name.

JACOBSON: That's correct.




In addition to the calls he made to the LPD after the LPD directed him to the MPD - because a copy of the tape was being sent there, Scott made numerous calls to the MPD attempting to view the tapes. That testimony has been posted somewhere on this board - if someone doesn't believe me - I'll find it and post again here.

[Hey Paula]

Here's a new one I haven't seen mentioned:

Secrets Can Be Murder (http://www.secretscanbemurder.com/the_book.html)

Hi Adnoid!

Thanks for the link. I'm surprised NG hasn't promoted JVM's book more, as she filled in for NG regularly. I don't watch NG much, so I might have missed the promo.

Just what we crime junkies need - another book on crime, LOL!

[accordn2me]

Here's a new one I haven't seen mentioned:

Secrets Can Be Murder (http://www.secretscanbemurder.com/the_book.html)
Have you read it? Give us your review if you have.

[enlightenme]

Not a book per se, but a sort of publication: Notorious Scott apologist Marlene Newell, originator of the Scott is Innocent site, (http://www.scottisinnocent.com/)who has formed a company (PWC Consulting (http://www.preventwrongfulconvictions.org/)) based on her professed experience and knowledge with proving Scott innocent, has started a blog. As yet it contains nothing about Scott, but such content has been threatened:

http://pwc-consulting.blogspot.com/

For those who do not remember: The SII site originally offered posters "karma points" for digging up "dirt" on Laci's family members. This site is also where Scott's lies are are considered "admirable", and they have a private message board where only people that agree with them are allowed to participate. So take it with as many salt grains (or bags) as you feel appropriate.

"based on her professed experience and knowledge with proving Scott innocent"

She did? She'd better call Scott's appellate attorneys and tell them she's already done all the work for them then.

She apparently believes she is more intelligent and has more judicial acumen than the Supreme Court, based on her article re: Fry v Pliler.

No wonder she identifies with SLP so well, they both are narcissists with humongous egos!

JMO

[thinkaboutit]

Not a book per se, but a sort of publication: Notorious Scott apologist Marlene Newell, originator of the Scott is Innocent site, (http://www.scottisinnocent.com/)who has formed a company (PWC Consulting (http://www.preventwrongfulconvictions.org/)) based on her professed experience and knowledge with proving Scott innocent, has started a blog. As yet it contains nothing about Scott, but such content has been threatened:

http://pwc-consulting.blogspot.com/

For those who do not remember: The SII site originally offered posters "karma points" for digging up "dirt" on Laci's family members. This site is also where Scott's lies are are considered "admirable", and they have a private message board where only people that agree with them are allowed to participate. So take it with as many salt grains (or bags) as you feel appropriate.

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?

[accordn2me]

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?Where is the SIG private message board? They didn't invite me! :flamemad:

[thinkaboutit]

Beats me. I was never invited, either. Marlene made a very public announcement when she made her board private and SII only, that's why I know about it.

I have screen captures somewhere of Marlene's original board (I sent them to Sharon's attorneys as well), and there was quite the discussion on WS about the "karma points" bonuses. Plenty of us saw it, no matter how hard it may be for some people to believe.

Sigh.... I guess I'm one of those people Adnoid has on his ignore list now.

Discussions about "karma points" on WS doesn't make it real. Were they actually called "karma points"? - somehow I think this may be the G's on WS interpretation of something, or possibly an exaggeration - kind of like the altered transcripts thing.

[Miss Bootsie]

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?

I believe you are misinformed.

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

[Miss Bootsie]

Sigh.... I guess I'm one of those people Adnoid has on his ignore list now.

Discussions about "karma points" on WS doesn't make it real. Were they actually called "karma points"? - somehow I think this may be the G's on WS interpretation of something, or possibly an exaggeration - kind of like the altered transcripts thing.

I didn't know that anyone ever exaggerated the issue of the transcripts being altered.