Common Ground?

[ekg]

[QUOTE=ekg;8856056][QUOTE=Otter;8856021]

You mean by an expert in tidal activity? Versus Marlene? You brought up Dr. Cheng in comparison. That wasn't humorous to me, it was "dead" serious. He didn't need to have had experience with bodies. His expertise is how water in a bay moves and subsequently moves things in said water. So what are Marlene's credientials?

His CV was to show that he is an expert. The court accepted him as one based on his credentials. I like to provide a link to backup my opinion. :)

Anyone have Marlene's CV? Does she have one?

so let me get this straight? Others can make humorous posts and I cannot? ok, well I can't help you with that one so maybe you should put me on ignore so I don't offend you again. B/c I will no doubt make other humorous statements on any given subject during my time here.

Cheng said the bodies could have been dumped separately..... IMO that's dead serious also...

and I offer his own words where he says he isn't an expert on this issue...

112. Well, that explanation would mean that the body was not floating around, wouldn't it?

113. Well, I'm not -- I'm not the expert in that area here. I don't know how the body is behaving in water.

114. And, specifically, you have never done anything like this before, have you?

115. I have done some similar studies of particle tracking, but not body.

116. Not bodies. How big are particles that you track when you have done those similar studies, what are we talking about?

117. I mean just representative scientific particles, for example, you put a float in the water. But something weighted down, drifting like.

118. You have never done any study in San Francisco Bay that has anything to do with bodies or things of that size, correct?

119. That is correct.

[enlightenme]

[QUOTE=enlightenme;8856060][QUOTE=TopGunner;8856039]

if we all did believe as you did, who would you argue with?

and what are we doing here if we can't have our doubts?

if you are set in you surety of who killed Laci, why are you still here? (I'm not asking in any rude tone, since I'm typing you can't tell, but unless I use a mean smiley, My 'tone' is most always respectful but questioning..) I'm totally wondering what would keep someone here if there weren't anymore questions left for them. I know if I had all of them I'd be gone and on to something else...

and you're not saying t hat to question is a form of egotism? are you?:confused:

If I had a nickel for every time an NG posted "If you believe Scott is guilty, why are you still here?" from every forum to every G, I'd be rich.

Who cares? Is it anyone's business why someone chooses to post where they do?

For me, it's been a fascination with the logic of the NGs. Also to counter totally unfounded "facts" and to stick up for the victims and their family. That's important to me.

MOO

[ekg]

[QUOTE=ekg;8856058][QUOTE=enlightenme;8856028]My mother was a vain person. I don't mean that in a negative way toward her. But she was always concerned with her looks, looking good, etc. When she was murdered, I called the coroner and asked him to please not open her skull to examine or remove her brain. To do so causes sagging in the facial muscles. I knew my mom would hate that. She would have been insulted. My request was honored. Were it not, I would have been insulted.




This is a touchy area and I don't want to go to far...but was she murdered in a noticeable way? I ask b/c if there isn't any recognizable COD then wouldn't they have to look at the brain to rule out/in the COD?

and are you saying Sharon asked that noone use a pig,doll or anything else to experiment in this case? and since they did or wanted to that's why it was insulting? I'm just kinda lost on what this has to do with using pigs/props to investigate..

[enlightenme]

[QUOTE=accordn2me;8856066][QUOTE=ekg;8856058]




This is a touchy area and I don't want to go to far...but was she murdered in a noticeable way? I ask b/c if there isn't any recognizable COD then wouldn't they have to look at the brain to rule out/in the COD?

and are you saying Sharon asked that noone use a pig,doll or anything else to experiment in this case? and since they did or wanted to that's why it was insulting? I'm just kinda lost on what this has to do with using pigs/props to investigate..

I think the quoting feature is messed up again. I didn't write the post you responded to.

Weird!!

[ekg]

[QUOTE=ekg;8856067][QUOTE=enlightenme;8856060]

If I had a nickel for every time an NG posted "If you believe Scott is guilty, why are you still here?" from every forum to every G, I'd be rich.

Who cares? Is it anyone's business why someone chooses to post where they do?

For me, it's been a fascination with the logic of the NGs. Also to counter totally unfounded "facts" and to stick up for the victims and their family. That's important to me.

MOO


Cool..... I got ya.. This case is a part of you and you want to defend it... I'm good with that..In fact it's another reason that I'm here... but when you questioned whether it's egotism when the other side does the same thing I had to ask.

and you also said you couldn't understand why everyone didn't just believe in what you,SR,RG and many many many others believe in. So I have to use your own words against you here, is it any of your business why someone chooses to disagree with you and post where they post?and isn't it egotism to put them down for not believing the way you do?

:shrug:

[ekg]

[QUOTE=ekg;8856075][QUOTE=accordn2me;8856066]

I think the quoting feature is messed up again. I didn't write the post you responded to.

Weird!!

yeah, I've noticed that.... I'm even quoting myself there once... and as much as I like myself, I don't talk to myself............. well, in public anyway..:biggrin:

[accordn2me]

[QUOTE=accordn2me;8856066][QUOTE=ekg;8856058]

This is a touchy area and I don't want to go to far...but was she murdered in a noticeable way? I ask b/c if there isn't any recognizable COD then wouldn't they have to look at the brain to rule out/in the COD?

and are you saying Sharon asked that noone use a pig,doll or anything else to experiment in this case? and since they did or wanted to that's why it was insulting? I'm just kinda lost on what this has to do with using pigs/props to investigate..It's OK. I wouldn't have mentioned it were it too much for me to discuss. Thanks for being sensitive, though. I do appreciate your kindness. COD was obvious. She was shot 3 times, not in the head.

I was only addressing your question about an autopsy being insulting, not for religious reasons.

I doubt Sharon made a request about experimenting or not. You see why an experiment would be useless though, right? I mean...it's no way the conditions could be duplicated. An experiment would be futile.

[ekg]

[QUOTE=ekg;8856075][QUOTE=accordn2me;8856066]It's OK. I wouldn't have mentioned it were it too much for me to discuss. Thanks for being sensitive, though. I do appreciate your kindness. COD was obvious. She was shot 3 times, not in the head.

I was only addressing your question about an autopsy being insulting, not for religious reasons.

I doubt Sharon made a request about experimenting or not. You see why an experiment would be useless though, right? I mean...it's no way the conditions could be duplicated. An experiment would be futile.

useless maybe, but I can see where you'd want to try and re-create even part of it to see if it's possible. Remember the contention is Conner couldn't have made it over the rocks, Scott wouldn't have been able to lift the body to dump it without capsizing, and her body would have been noticed in 4ft of water among other things....So in order to find out whether any of that was possible you have to try and recreate it to the best of your ability. Whether you can do it or not, doesn't matter...you have to try.

Marlene doing it may be ridiculous, but I have to give her kudos for trying to answer her lingering questions.And it's more than I have done. All I have done is study the case as much as possible and learn whatever I can from books,websites or others.

I can't see where anyone should be insulted b/c someone wants to test a theory like this. As far as I would guess, they aren't doing it to be cruel. They are doing it for their own expert/layman opinion.


Also,Thank you for answering the question about your mother and for understanding that I wasn't trying to be disrespectful in anyway..... I am sorry for your loss and hope that tomorrow brings you only happy memories of your mother :rose:

[accordn2me]

[QUOTE=accordn2me;8856081][QUOTE=ekg;8856075]

useless maybe, but I can see where you'd want to try and re-create even part of it to see if it's possible. Remember the contention is Conner couldn't have made it over the rocks, Scott wouldn't have been able to lift the body to dump it without capsizing, and her body would have been noticed in 4ft of water among other things....So in order to find out whether any of that was possible you have to try and recreate it to the best of your ability. Whether you can do it or not, doesn't matter...you have to try.

Marlene doing it may be ridiculous, but I have to give her kudos for trying to answer her lingering questions.And it's more than I have done. All I have done is study the case as much as possible and learn whatever I can from books,websites or others.

I can't see where anyone should be insulted b/c someone wants to test a theory like this. As far as I would guess, they aren't doing it to be cruel. They are doing it for their own expert/layman opinion.


Also,Thank you for answering the question about your mother and for understanding that I wasn't trying to be disrespectful in anyway..... I am sorry for your loss and hope that tomorrow brings you only happy memories of your mother :rose:Tomorrow will bring many happy memories of my mother. Never a dull moment with her around...rest assured! :D

Hopefully, Sharon, and all mothers of murdered children, will have some happy memories and not just bitter, sad ones. We were all robbed, yes, but there is much to be thankful for as well.

You know...the thing about Marlene's experiment....I've seen so many NGs say how virtually impossible it would be for a fragile, decomposing body such as Conner's to make it over razor-sharp rocks during a violent storm. Then, Marlene did the "Kermit" experiment. Now, I don't know how violent the storm...or even if there was a storm...but it appears that she tried to find a time with similar high tide measurements. And in her experiments, she shows that Kermit (certainly not in a state of decomposition)... yet, the representative for Conner...can indeed make it over the jetty...the frog landed within four feet of where Conner's body did! That's incredible! That's practically on top of the exact spot Conner was found. Indeed, it's closer than where Laci and Conner washed up to where Scott was fishing! Yet, her conclusion "proves that Conner could not have washed up..." because of the way Distaso described the way debris is deposited? :confused:

Bottom line....no way the conditions can ever be duplicated.

[JustMyOpinion]

why wouldn't one?

I've never understood this issue.... was it the disrespect b/c he didn't cover it up that P'd everyone off? or that he did it to begin with?

It was disrespect for the Court, bordering on contempt of court, IMO.. and could have resulted in a mis-trial, IMO. That was the intention, IMO.. Judge Delucchi was too smart for Mark Geragos, IMO.

[JustMyOpinion]

[QUOTE=Otter;8856021][QUOTE=ekg;8856015]

no, you didn't understand... I said nothing about a battle of experts..

I was just using Tongue-in-cheek humor kinda like the post I was replying to was all about.... ya know, how funny those experiments were, so funny the op could barely type...I just added my own 'humorous' experiment..

and what does his CV have to do with anything? he even said he wasn't an expert in bodies in water...even said he'd never done an experiment with a body before

?? His expertise was the water. The ME's expertise was forensic pathology. Geragos did not call an expert to challenge or contradict the testimony of either witness.
What experiment with a body are you claiming Cheng performed? Where did he get a body and how did he re-create the storm?

[JustMyOpinion]

[QUOTE=ekg;8856056][QUOTE=Otter;8856021]

Anyone have Marlene's CV? Does she have one?

LOL, Otter.

[ekg]

[QUOTE=ekg;8856056][QUOTE=Otter;8856021]

?? His expertise was the water. The ME's expertise was forensic pathology. Geragos did not call an expert to challenge or contradict the testimony of either witness.
What experiment with a body are you claiming Cheng performed? Where did he get a body and how did he re-create the storm?

where did I claim he experimented with a body?

I'm pretty sure I claimed that he didn't experiment with a body at all...and since he didn't, imo he couldn't be sure of anything he said. Even tho I like the part of his testimony where he said that the bodies could have been dumped separately in order to get where they eventually washed up, but since he's never tested how a body works in the bay I don't know how much credence I can put in his opinion.....even tho it proves a "NG" point nicely, I would have put more credence in everything he said if he had used a body to experiment with.

[accordn2me]

[QUOTE=JustMyOpinion;8856183][QUOTE=ekg;8856056]

where did I claim he experimented with a body?

I'm pretty sure I claimed that he didn't experiment with a body at all...and since he didn't, imo he couldn't be sure of anything he said. Even tho I like the part of his testimony where he said that the bodies could have been dumped separately in order to get where they eventually washed up, but since he's never tested how a body works in the bay I don't know how much credence I can put in his opinion.....even tho it proves a "NG" point nicely, I would have put more credence in everything he said if he had used a body to experiment with.
If you have time, please post a snip of where Cheng said that. TIA

[attorneywan2be]

Snip

but even more insulting IMO is defending that murderer by victimizing the true victims.

snip



I defend Scott because I firmly believe that he is FACTUALLY innocent...so to me, justice for Scott is justice for Laci and Conner..

[cookiewench]

It would be completely impossible to duplicate the conditions in order to do this experiment.

How do you duplicate a storm?

[cookiewench]

I defend Scott because I firmly believe that he is FACTUALLY innocent...so to me, justice for Scott is justice for Laci and Conner..

You think that Conner would think of the guy who refused to even acknowledge that he was his sire (to his GIRLFRIEND while Conner was MISSING) as his dad?

Would you?

And would you think of the guy who was romancing a woman while you were "missing" as your husband?

[ekg]

[QUOTE=ekg;8856258][QUOTE=JustMyOpinion;8856183]
If you have time, please post a snip of where Cheng said that. TIA


sure.. I have a cpl seconds in between dinner and dessert :)


334. Separately, what Mr. Harris just asked you is, following your same -- the same exercise that you did up here, you were not able to produce the traveling trajectory of Laci's body?

335. Not without further assumptions.

336. Okay. And you had already, I believe, specifically said that the two bodies turn up in two different spots, and that you could give some explanations for that. One of the explanations for that is that they were placed in the water separately; isn't that correct? Isn't that a possible explanation?

337. That is a possibililty. But even, I think also stated in e-mail, for the two different objects placed in the water at the same location could possibly wind up in the different locations.

338. Correct. And you also stated in the e-mail that you couldn't, based on the assumptions that you made and the information you were given, you could not reproduce the trajectory, correct?

339. For Laci, right.

[deputydi]

<snip>For me, it's been a fascination with the logic of the NGs. Also to counter totally unfounded "facts" and to stick up for the victims and their family. That's important to me.

MOO
I tried to give you a reputation point for this post, but it said I've given you too many and I have to "pass them around". LOL. So I'm going to use up bandwidth to say I agree with you totally. That is exactly what draws me to any discussion of Scott Peterson.

[ekg]

Until this case I was unaware of how many women have such low self esteem that they would consider a cheating man a good husband.

I now know there are some out there. I still don't understand it, but I've seen it with my own eyes. It still disgusts me, of course.

I can only assume why Laci would stay with him after she found out about his affairs, but I don't think it was b/c of low self esteem. I think some women just see it differently than others. I've known many women who are ok with a semi open relationship..or if not OK with it, then willing to overlook the indiscretions. And since Laci did overlook the cpl he had, I tend to think she was the kind of person willing to overlook it as long as it wasn't flaunted to her. I have no way of knowing this.... it's only a guess since she knew about the others and stayed with him. :shrug: but either way, I don't think she had low self esteem issues..I like to think she was just truly in love with him and willing to forgive him b/c of that love.....

grrrrrr it breaks my heart that this happened to someone with so much love in them... She was such a beautiful person and didn't deserve any of this.....it's just so sad...:rose:

[TuscanDreams]

Could we all please not refer to Conner as a fetus? Scott was charged with 2 counts, one was Conner. That means he was a human being.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. :seeya:

[One2Snoop]

A2M, not only do ITA with you, but - big deal either way! So, let's say Amy comes over and has pizza. Is she supposed to move in, or does she go home afterwards, say, by 9? 10? Point is, she wouldn't have stayed overnight, so the opportunity for murder is still there.

That said, I believe he invited her over for appearance sake too, but regardless, MOOT point.

ITA. And JMO, I think he invited her over because he was still contemplating whether or not he was going to go thru with it. Unfortunately only Scott knows why he truly invited Amy over for pizza that night and were left to only speculate.

[accordn2me]

[QUOTE=accordn2me;8834749]


A2M, not only do ITA with you, but - big deal either way! So, let's say Amy comes over and has pizza. Is she supposed to move in, or does she go home afterwards, say, by 9? 10? Point is, she wouldn't have stayed overnight, so the opportunity for murder is still there.

That said, I believe he invited her over for appearance sake too, but regardless, MOOT point.Personally, I believe Scott waited to kill Laci until just before he wanted to load her into the truck and take off. What if someone would have called or come by to see her? Also, rigor mortis doesn't become an issue for several hours after death. No need, indeed much more risk, to kill her before the morning. I think she was getting dressed (different pants from the night before) and hadn't put her shirt on yet (no blinds open).

I should work on that timeline....

[JustMyOpinion]

I can only assume why Laci would stay with him after she found out about his affairs, but I don't think it was b/c of low self esteem. I think some women just see it differently than others. I've known many women who are ok with a semi open relationship..or if not OK with it, then willing to overlook the indiscretions. And since Laci did overlook the cpl he had, I tend to think she was the kind of person willing to overlook it as long as it wasn't flaunted to her. I have no way of knowing this.... it's only a guess since she knew about the others and stayed with him. :shrug: but either way, I don't think she had low self esteem issues..I like to think she was just truly in love with him and willing to forgive him b/c of that love.....

grrrrrr it breaks my heart that this happened to someone with so much love in them... She was such a beautiful person and didn't deserve any of this.....it's just so sad...:rose:

There's no evidence Laci had knowlege of "affairs". There is evidence that Janet I walked in on them early in the marriage ( and made it clear she had been intimate with Scott) but it there's no information about what explanation Scott gave Laci or what she believed to be true about his relationship with this one woman. People who know Laci have said that IF she became aware of his affair with Amber Frey, she would not have been okay with it, at peace with it, fine with it. Even Amber appears to have had a problem believing Scott's assertion that she was fine with it. Not long before he murdered,Scott accompanied Laci to pawn her own jewelry for cash and late escorted Amber to a formal party, while leaving Laci to attend a holiday party alone ( friends testified she told them he was working). I don't think Laci knew he had rented a tux and was escorting another woman to her office party, or that he had told this woman he had lost his wife and would spend his first holiday alone.. JMO No, Laci didn't deserve to have her own life and that of her baby taken. She & Conner were very vulnerable victims, they didn't stand a chance against Scott's murderous acts while behind closed doors of their own home with the shades drawn. JMO

[ekg]

There's no evidence Laci had knowlege of "affairs".
snipped
JMO


477. Okay. The -- there were certain things that Laci would just keep to herself; isn't that a fair statement?



478. I wouldn't know that because she wouldn't be telling me that she was keeping it to herself, so I don't know how to answer that.



479. Did you ever find things out later on that she hadn't told you?



480. Mainly just about this affair, the first affair.



481. The first affair. And that was because clearly, based upon everything you were told, she knew about it?



482. Afterwards? After she was gone? Is that what you're asking me?



483. Yeah. No. The -- you -- after the 24th, you were informed about another affair that had happened in which Laci obviously had known about it because --



484. I was told she knew about it.



485. Yeah. And you didn't -- and Laci did not confide that in you?



486. No, she didn't tell me about it. But she wasn't living in Modesto at that time, either, so she was -- in San Luis Obispo

she knew about it,kept it to herself and stayed with him...:shrug:

the friends that say she would have left if she knew about Amber.... did they know about this other one where she stayed?

and just b/c you think you know what your friend would do doesn't mean your friend really will do it. Laci might not have even been sure... it's a very tough decision to leave your spouse for whatever reason...

[JustMyOpinion]

she knew about it,kept it to herself and stayed with him...:shrug:

the friends that say she would have left if she knew about Amber.... did they ..

?? She knew JI walked in on them and made a claim she had been intimate with Scott. ( I have no idea what Scott told Laci after that, or what she believed about his relationship with J I, or if she considered it "an affair". Agree it appears she kept it to herself, and clearly she was still married and pregnant five years later. What does this have to do with proving she knew about Amber and was okay/fine with it? Why do you discount the opinion of those who actually knew Laci Peterson?

[ekg]

?? She knew JI walked in on them and made a claim she had been intimate with Scott. ( I have no idea what Scott told Laci after that, or what she believed about his relationship with J I, or if she considered it "an affair". Agree it appears she kept it to herself, and clearly she was still married and pregnant five years later. What does this have to do with proving she knew about Amber and was okay/fine with it? Why do you discount the opinion of those who actually knew Laci Peterson?

I thought it was commonly accepted that he cheated and she knew...why are you trying to say she didn't know about the affair b/c you don't know what Scott told her..

[enlightenme]

There's no evidence Laci had knowlege of "affairs". There is evidence that Janet I walked in on them early in the marriage ( and made it clear she had been intimate with Scott) but it there's no information about what explanation Scott gave Laci or what she believed to be true about his relationship with this one woman. People who know Laci have said that IF she became aware of his affair with Amber Frey, she would not have been okay with it, at peace with it, fine with it. Even Amber appears to have had a problem believing Scott's assertion that she was fine with it. Not long before he murdered,Scott accompanied Laci to pawn her own jewelry for cash and late escorted Amber to a formal party, while leaving Laci to attend a holiday party alone ( friends testified she told them he was working). I don't think Laci knew he had rented a tux and was escorting another woman to her office party, or that he had told this woman he had lost his wife and would spend his first holiday alone.. JMO No, Laci didn't deserve to have her own life and that of her baby taken. She & Conner were very vulnerable victims, they didn't stand a chance against Scott's murderous acts while behind closed doors of their own home with the shades drawn. JMO

Bravo JMO! Who knows what Scott told Laci about Janet? No one but Scott and Laci and we can't ask Laci.

:rose:

[enlightenme]

I thought it was commonly accepted that he cheated and she knew...why are you trying to say she didn't know about the affair b/c you don't know what Scott told her..

Not that she didn't know but we don't know what Scott told her. Perhaps he cried his eyes out and said it would never happen again. Perhaps he told her that Janet was crazy and they really didn't have a sexual relationship (not that I think Laci would buy that). We just DO NOT know. I do know that Scott is an accomplished liar though.

IMO

[ekg]

Not that she didn't know but we don't know what Scott told her. Perhaps he cried his eyes out and said it would never happen again. Perhaps he told her that Janet was crazy and they really didn't have a sexual relationship (not that I think Laci would buy that). We just DO NOT know. I do know that Scott is an accomplished liar though.

IMO

so now you're changing the accepted fact that she knew b/c you don't really knew what she knew?


I'm actually kinda shocked right now...

[Otter]

so now you're changing the accepted fact that she knew b/c you don't really knew what she knew?


I'm actually kinda shocked right now...

So you buy that SP told Laci all about Amber and that she was "fine with that?"

And you think you're shocked. :rolleyes:

[accordn2me]

so now you're changing the accepted fact that she knew b/c you don't really knew what she knew?


I'm actually kinda shocked right now...We don't know what Scott told Laci about Janet. He could have said that he never slept with her and because he wouldn't she's trying to cause Laci to leave him by fabricating an intimate relationship.

A young woman who is in love, still on the honeymoon practically, would be more inclined, IMO, to give her husband the benefit of the doubt than the scorned, jealous woman who storms in the bedroom.

We also don't know....Scott's roommate, friends....whatever....could have backed up his story to Laci about Janet being nothing to him...or whatever he told her.

I have a friend that stayed with her husband through many affairs and then oneday she just left him. Said she couldn't take it any more. Why later, rather than sooner? We'll never know....I don't think she does either. I do know that the last woman she found out about was particularly disgusting to her....like, eewww! You'd risk our marriage to screw that? BE GONE!

[ekg]

So you buy that SP told Laci all about Amber and that she was "fine with that?"

And you think you're shocked. :rolleyes:

this isn't about Amber...This is about the other one...

I buy that Laci knew about the other affair and didn't say anything to anyone or leave him.

I buy that Sharon Rocha now knows about the other affair..

I buy that b/c Laci didn't leave him before we can't know that she would leave him this time

I buy that just b/c her mom or friends say she would have left if she knew, we can't know if she really would or not b/c she is not here, it's a tough decision to make in any marriage, and her history of staying when he did it in the past.

that's what I buy......I don't buy changing the commonly accepted facts b/c someone you like misspoke and said women who stay with a cheater have low self-esteem and that disgusts her. .Can I prove that's the intent of this new changing of commonly accepted facts? Nope... But it sure looks like it...IMO anyway...

G'night Otter, I'm going offline for now, Lost is on and it's too good to miss...so rip me apart all you want... I'll catch up with you tomorrow...:seeya:

[accordn2me]

this isn't about Amber...This is about the other one...

I buy that Laci knew about the other affair and didn't say anything to anyone or leave him.

I buy that Sharon Rocha now knows about the other affair..

I buy that b/c Laci didn't leave him before we can't know that she would leave him this time

I buy that just b/c her mom or friends say she would have left if she knew, we can't know if she really would or not b/c she is not here, it's a tough decision to make in any marriage, and her history of staying when he did it in the past.

that's what I buy......I don't buy changing the commonly accepted facts b/c someone you like misspoke and said women who stay with a cheater have low self-esteem and that disgusts her. .Can I prove that's the intent of this new changing of commonly accepted facts? Nope... But it sure looks like it...IMO anyway...

G'night Otter, I'm going offline for now, Lost is on and it's too good to miss...so rip me apart all you want... I'll catch up with you tomorrow...:seeya:
Enjoy your show! I wish you didn't have to leave, though! I'm not clear on this: "I don't buy changing the commonly accepted facts b/c someone you like misspoke and said women who stay with a cheater have low self-esteem and that disgusts her. .Can I prove that's the intent of this new changing of commonly accepted facts?" Are you talking about adnoid's comment on trying to understand why women stay with cheaters? We couldn't begin to touch on the myriad reasons - the least of which is: it's easier to make someone wish they were dead when you're around them.....

The only fact I can gather from Janet is Laci knew about her. We don't know what she knew, or what she thought Janet was to Scott. Did Laci think Janet was a stalker trying to break up Laci's and Scott's marriage? Did Laci think Janet was a one-night stand? It would make sense that Laci didn't think Janet was anything more than a pissed off woman who was after her husband. It seems she dismissed her and thought no more of it. So, Scott must have given her some reasonable explanation where she didn't have a need to share it with a friend or family.

[Otter]

that's what I buy......I don't buy changing the commonly accepted facts b/c someone you like misspoke and said women who stay with a cheater have low self-esteem and that disgusts her. .Can I prove that's the intent of this new changing of commonly accepted facts? Nope... But it sure looks like it...IMO anyway...

Who is this person the "I like"? Who misspoke?

I don't rip anyone apart. Its not in me. I'd just like a clarification. Otherwise, ITA with your post, we're speculating on what ifs and what we'd do in the same situation.

Night EKG! Sweet dreams! :seeya:

[enlightenme]

so now you're changing the accepted fact that she knew b/c you don't really knew what she knew?


I'm actually kinda shocked right now...

I did not. I said she knew Janet walked in on them but we don't know what Scott told her.

I think it's an accepted fact that the bodies washed ashore but you do not.

:shrug:

[JustMyOpinion]

I thought it was commonly accepted that he cheated and she knew...why are you trying to say she didn't know about the affair b/c you don't know what Scott told her..

She was confronted by JI ( while in her bed with Scott). According to Crier, JI made it clear by her own words that she had been intimate with Scott. I don't know what Scott told Laci afterwards, or what she believed to be true about Scott's relationship with JI. Laci "knew" JI existed, "knew" JI claimed she had slept with Scott, IMO. ( friend testified they overheard a fight between Laci & Scott after this, that Laci said Scott was acting like he wasn't married). Did Scott admit he slept with JI? Did Scott claim she was crazy and he'd only flirted with her? Did Scott claim it was a one-night stand, that he was drunk and lonely? I don't know how he explained it, or what Laci believed to be true, but I can't use this single incident as evidence that Laci tolerated multiple affairs or was aware of Amber Frey, OR, that five years later a pregnant Laci would be "fine" with Scott dating Amber Frey. JMO

[JustMyOpinion]

[QUOTE=ekg;8857723]
I buy that just b/c her mom or friends say she would have left if she knew, we can't know if she really would or not b/c she is not here, it's a tough decision to make in any marriage, and her history of staying when he did it in the past.

QUOTE]

Scott didn't give Laci the opportunity or choice to make a her own decision, IMO. According to the evidence, he told Amber he had lost his wife and would spend his first holiday alone, he disposed of Laci in the Bay, spent his first holiday alone, continued romancing Amber Frey.. JMO

[JustMyOpinion]

We don't know what Scott told Laci about Janet. He could have said that he never slept with her and because he wouldn't she's trying to cause Laci to leave him by fabricating an intimate relationship.

A young woman who is in love, still on the honeymoon practically, would be more inclined, IMO, to give her husband the benefit of the doubt than the scorned, jealous woman who storms in the bedroom.

We also don't know....Scott's roommate, friends....whatever....could have backed up his story to Laci about Janet being nothing to him...or whatever he told her.

I have a friend that stayed with her husband through many affairs and then oneday she just left him. Said she couldn't take it any more. Why later, rather than sooner? We'll never know....I don't think she does either. I do know that the last woman she found out about was particularly disgusting to her....like, eewww! You'd risk our marriage to screw that? BE GONE!

The more interesting questions for me to ponder: How did the relationship begin between Scott & Laci, and why did Scott stay in the relationship & marriage? ( until Laci became pregnant, was no longer useful, and he decided to kill her, IMO). How was Laci useful to Scott from the outset? What did he gain from using Laci over time.. what were his benefits?

[ekg]

just so I'm clear..... the choices on the 'cheating' are now...

Scott lied to Laci and said Janet was a stalker,insane, or a one-nighter and that's why she stayed with him and didn't tell anyone.

or..... Laci didn't even really know about Janet. We only have Janet's word in Criers book and Scott's word. Sharon's testimony doesn't count b/c we don't know who told her.

or...... Scott told Laci he cheated and she was mad, but it wasn't something that was going to break them up and her and Scott's sex-issues were not something she would want to share with her mother or friends...

or..... we just don't know what happened so it can't be 'common ground'



so this issue can't be added to the list?

[ekg]

The more interesting questions for me to ponder: How did the relationship begin between Scott & Laci, and why did Scott stay in the relationship & marriage? ( until Laci became pregnant, was no longer useful, and he decided to kill her, IMO). How was Laci useful to Scott from the outset? What did he gain from using Laci over time.. what were his benefits?

you don't think he ever loved her?

[JustMyOpinion]

just so I'm clear..... the choices on the 'cheating' are now...

Scott lied to Laci and said Janet was a stalker,insane, or a one-nighter and that's why she stayed with him and didn't tell anyone.

or..... Laci didn't even really know about Janet. We only have Janet's word in Criers book and Scott's word. Sharon's testimony doesn't count b/c we don't know who told her.

or...... Scott told Laci he cheated and she was mad, but it wasn't something that was going to break them up and her and Scott's sex-issues were not something she would want to share with her mother or friends...

or..... we just don't know what happened so it can't be 'common ground'



so this issue can't be added to the list?

Are you back to making the common ground list? I think everyone might agree something like this: Early in the marriage, Janet Isle said she had a relationship with Scott,, she said he never told her he was married. She entered his bedroom one night and found he & Laci in bed, confronted Scott and made it clear to Laci that they had been intimate, Scott said nothing at the time except "I'm sorry". Janet said one of Scott's roommates told her after this confrontation that Laci was Scott's wife.

[JustMyOpinion]

you don't think he ever loved her?

I don't think Scott is capable of feeling healthy, "normal" attachment or love.
JMO

[enlightenme]

you don't think he ever loved her?


How can anyone answer this?

[ekg]

Are you back to making the common ground list? I think everyone might agree something like this: Early in the marriage, Janet Isle said she had a relationship with Scott,, she said he never told her he was married. She entered his bedroom one night and found he & Laci in bed, confronted Scott and made it clear to Laci that they had been intimate, Scott said nothing at the time except "I'm sorry". Janet said one of Scott's roommates told her after this confrontation that Laci was Scott's wife.


no, I don't agree with that all.... I think, going by what Sharon testified to, that the only thing that can be said for sure is that Scott cheated, Laci knew, kept it to herself and stayed with him.

what he said or how he coerced Laci into staying with him doesn't matter... the facts as they were testified to are he did it, she knew, her mom and friends didn't know about it and she stayed with him....

[ekg]

How can anyone answer this?

is it any harder to answer than this?

The more interesting questions for me to ponder: How did the relationship begin between Scott & Laci, and why did Scott stay in the relationship & marriage? ( until Laci became pregnant, was no longer useful, and he decided to kill her, IMO). How was Laci useful to Scott from the outset? What did he gain from using Laci over time.. what were his benefits?

[enlightenme]

just so I'm clear..... the choices on the 'cheating' are now...

Scott lied to Laci and said Janet was a stalker,insane, or a one-nighter and that's why she stayed with him and didn't tell anyone.

or..... Laci didn't even really know about Janet. We only have Janet's word in Criers book and Scott's word. Sharon's testimony doesn't count b/c we don't know who told her.

or...... Scott told Laci he cheated and she was mad, but it wasn't something that was going to break them up and her and Scott's sex-issues were not something she would want to share with her mother or friends...

or..... we just don't know what happened so it can't be 'common ground'



so this issue can't be added to the list?

I don't think I've seen anyone claiming your second sentence.

I get very tired of people posting that Laci knew of "affairs". This is the only one that we have evidence of and, yes, we DON'T KNOW what Scott told Laci. We will never know.

[enlightenme]

is it any harder to answer than this?

Well, I agree with you there. We cannot read people's minds.

He wouldn't be the first husband to love his wife and then later kill her.

[JustMyOpinion]

is it any harder to answer than this?

Why is this hard to answer?
The beginning:
Lauren Putnam told Keith Ablow ( pages 109-114) she broke off a relationship with Scott, that Scott was tearful, begging, pleading with her to stay with him. Scott began dating Laci a few weeks after Lauren broke up with him. ( Laci had left her phone number on a piece of paper, IIRC) Lauren says while Scott was dating Laci, Scott was still coming over,that he would cry and be very upset. Lauren says Scott would "bring Laci to the section of the Pacific Cafe where she waitressed, trying to get her interested in him again." Lauren said "She ( Laci) would cry and have to be pulled out of the restroom."

[thinkaboutit]

Why is this hard to answer?
The beginning:
Lauren Putnam told Keith Ablow ( pages 109-114) she broke off a relationship with Scott, that Scott was tearful, begging, pleading with her to stay with him. Scott began dating Laci a few weeks after Lauren broke up with him. ( Laci had left her phone number on a piece of paper, IIRC) Lauren says while Scott was dating Laci, Scott was still coming over,that he would cry and be very upset. Lauren says Scott would "bring Laci to the section of the Pacific Cafe where she waitressed, trying to get her interested in him again." Lauren said "She ( Laci) would cry and have to be pulled out of the restroom."

JMO - I'm not sure what your point is. If this is true - it tells me that Scott had a hard time getting over Laura - which contradicts your belief that he is incapable if these types of feelings. Do you know Laura Putnam? How do you know Laura Putnam is telling the truth? How do you know that she is not some "person" who dated Scott who was looking for her 15 minutes of fame?

[JustMyOpinion]

JMO - I'm not sure what your point is. If this is true - it tells me that Scott had a hard time getting over Laura - which contradicts your belief that he is incapable if these types of feelings. Do you know Laura Putnam? How do you know Laura Putnam is telling the truth? How do you know that she is not some "person" who dated Scott who was looking for her 15 minutes of fame?


Nope, I don't know Laura Putnam. I see no reason why she would lie, what fame do you think she sought by speaking with Crier or Ablow about her college- relationship with Scott Peterson? ( Had she appeared on numerous programs or sold her story to the tabloids.. I would consider this fame-seeking behavior)..
I don't know whether Scott had authentic/genuine feelings for Laura Putnam, but it appears to me that Laci made the first move by leaving the note with her phone number, and that he began dating her before he got over the prior relationship, and may have been trying to use Laci to try to win back the woman who had rejected him. There's nothing indicating Scott was attracted to Laci, or that Scott pursued Laci from the start. However, Laci told her mother early on that she had found the man she wanted to marry, IIRC.

[accordn2me]

JMO - I'm not sure what your point is. If this is true - it tells me that Scott had a hard time getting over Laura - which contradicts your belief that he is incapable if these types of feelings. Do you know Laura Putnam? How do you know Laura Putnam is telling the truth? How do you know that she is not some "person" who dated Scott who was looking for her 15 minutes of fame?The point is....Scott didn't deal with rejection very well. It was about winning/losing to him...not a loving feeling.

Sounds like a 'how dare you diss me' move on Scott's part. Like he paraded Laci in front of this girl saying, "see, other girls want me....you better take me back..." and not caring one bit that he was hurting Laci in the process.

[JustMyOpinion]

The point is....Scott didn't deal with rejection very well. It was about winning/losing to him...not a loving feeling.

Sounds like a 'how dare you diss me' move on Scott's part. Like he paraded Laci in front of this girl saying, "see, other girls want me....you better take me back..." and not caring one bit that he was hurting Laci in the process.

I agree, he used her, objectified her, IMO.

[accordn2me]

I would re-phrase #3:

3. Scott Peterson had an affair with Amber Frey while Laci was pregnant with Conner. Scott represented himself to Shawn Sibley and Amber Frey as single, never married.

Suggestion for #4:
4. Shawn Sibley & Amber Frey testified that Scott told them ( Dec 6 & Dec 9)
He had been married, but had lost his wife. Scott confirms he told Amber this in taped conversation on January 6.

#5. Scott had a fish finder on his boat. A fish finder can tell the depth of the water.

[deputydi]

JMO - I'm not sure what your point is. If this is true - it tells me that Scott had a hard time getting over Laura - which contradicts your belief that he is incapable if these types of feelings. Do you know Laura Putnam? How do you know Laura Putnam is telling the truth? How do you know that she is not some "person" who dated Scott who was looking for her 15 minutes of fame?
Scott had a hard time being dumped. Period. MOO, of course.

[deputydi]

I thought it was commonly accepted that he cheated and she knew...why are you trying to say she didn't know about the affair b/c you don't know what Scott told her..
Just because she may have known about one affair doesn't mean Laci knew about any others. Whether she knew or didn't know about Janet is totally moot. I think the only important issue is whether she knew about Amber and if she was truly "fine with it". I don't believe for a nano second that any woman 8 mths pregnant would be "fine" knowing her husband had a girlfriend.

[enlightenme]

Scott had a hard time being dumped. Period. MOO, of course.


But he didn't have a hard time dumping others. Even his beautiful, amazing wife in the bay.

MOO juice

[enlightenme]

I've yet to find a single person in real life that bought that line.


How can anyone really believe this?

Scott obviously lied on national TV without a problem (I told LE about Amber from the very first night). So why would they believe him about this? I just don't get it!

[ekg]

He wanted the control, IMO. Much like his father. IMO.


Not calling you out or anything.... but I see this alot...... comparing Scott to his parents.... saying his parents shouldn't have done this or that.... Lee blah-blah-blah, Jackie blah-blah-blah..

why can Scott's parents be dissed but for a NG to even mention the name Ron or Sharon means they are calling them murderers?

I get that everyone hates Scott... and everyone thinks his parents tried to help him get away with murder.. but they have never been tried.... in fact as far as I know, no charges were even threatened towards them... I get that the hate spills over from Scott but It's not fair to attack them at all for what you think their grown son did.

can't we agree that if you can't dis one you can't dis the other...... or at the very least they are all fair game?

[ekg]

I've yet to find a single person in real life that bought that line.


:seeya: we haven't met yet..... My nic is ekg and I would have been mad, but wouldn't have left my hubby either...But I'd also been married for 5 yrs at the time I was 1st pregnant and wouldn't have taken throwing it all away over sex lightly...it woulda hurt like crazy...but I woulda gotten over it and moved on...

just saying....:tongue:

[enlightenme]

:seeya: we haven't met yet..... My nic is ekg and I would have been mad, but wouldn't have left my hubby either...But I'd also been married for 5 yrs at the time I was 1st pregnant and wouldn't have taken throwing it all away over sex lightly...it woulda hurt like crazy...but I woulda gotten over it and moved on...

just saying....:tongue:

Huh? Okay, you're talking in the hypothetical, right? Do you know that cheaters can bring back AIDS these days? Scott and Amber apparently had sex at least once without protection. But that would be okay with you?

I've been married almost 27 years. As far as I know, no infedility has occured. Would I leave my husband if I found out he had an affair 20 years ago? No. Would I leave him if I found out he was having an affair NOW? Yes. I love him, but I won't put up with that! Not with all the lies, deceit, AND diseases he could bring back to me.

That won't happen though. My husband is no Scott Peterson.

JMO

[enlightenme]

:seeya: we haven't met yet..... My nic is ekg and I would have been mad, but wouldn't have left my hubby either...But I'd also been married for 5 yrs at the time I was 1st pregnant and wouldn't have taken throwing it all away over sex lightly...it woulda hurt like crazy...but I woulda gotten over it and moved on...

just saying....:tongue:

I was married 7 years before I got pregnant. What's that got to do with anything?

[attorneywan2be]

Not calling you out or anything.... but I see this alot...... comparing Scott to his parents.... saying his parents shouldn't have done this or that.... Lee blah-blah-blah, Jackie blah-blah-blah..

why can Scott's parents be dissed but for a NG to even mention the name Ron or Sharon means they are calling them murderers?

I get that everyone hates Scott... and everyone thinks his parents tried to help him get away with murder.. but they have never been tried.... in fact as far as I know, no charges were even threatened towards them... I get that the hate spills over from Scott but It's not fair to attack them at all for what you think their grown son did.

can't we agree that if you can't dis one you can't dis the other...... or at the very least they are all fair game?


Laci's parents and Scott's parents both suffered a horrible tragedy and are still suffering ....we should treat both of them with respect and compassion..

[enlightenme]

Laci's parents and Scott's parents both suffered a horrible tragedy and are still suffering ....we should treat both of them with respect and compassion..


Okie dokie. Except Scott's parents can still visit him at least twice a week. They can talk to him and hug or touch him.

Sharon has a grave to go to.

Scott's parents lied and covered for him, IMO. I have NO compassion for them, sorry.

[Hey Paula]

Not calling you out or anything.... but I see this alot...... comparing Scott to his parents.... saying his parents shouldn't have done this or that.... Lee blah-blah-blah, Jackie blah-blah-blah..

why can Scott's parents be dissed but for a NG to even mention the name Ron or Sharon means they are calling them murderers?

I get that everyone hates Scott... and everyone thinks his parents tried to help him get away with murder.. but they have never been tried.... in fact as far as I know, no charges were even threatened towards them... I get that the hate spills over from Scott but It's not fair to attack them at all for what you think their grown son did.

can't we agree that if you can't dis one you can't dis the other...... or at the very least they are all fair game?

I have always believed some of the things JP did and said were an indication she believed Scott killed Laci/Laci and Conner were never going to return, most of which the jury never heard about.

1) The advice she gave Scott to "deny, deny deny" when talking to the investigators.

2) Within weeks of Laci's disappearance, asking Scott to give Conner's furniture to relatives.

3) Telling Scott "Nobdoy would be that stupid as to put a body where they were fishing - not even you Scott". (Might be paraprased).

4) Within weeks of Laci's disappearance, telling Anne Bird's babysitter she wished Scott would find a girl like her.

5) Speaking to Scott twice on 12/24 while he was at the Berkeley Marina, (disposing of Laci's body), then being in Modesto , a 7 hour drive from San Diego, in time for Christmas dinner. In Anne Bird's book she stated Jackie asked her to pick up some clothes at the house. When Anne arrived with her mother, JP's house was in disarray, containing dishes with half eaten food lying on the table. I have always believed Scott summoned his parents to Modesto while he was still out on the Bay.

6) I believe JP bought the Mercedes Scott was driving, loaded with camping equipment clothing, nearly $15,000 (also supplied by JP, IMO) some Mexican pesos.

7) A couple of days after Laci went missing, JP asked Anne Bird to go to the Berkeley Marina to see if there were witnesses who saw Scott at the Marina on 12/24 to help establish his alibi

IMO.

[thinkaboutit]

Huh? Okay, you're talking in the hypothetical, right? Do you know that cheaters can bring back AIDS these days? Scott and Amber apparently had sex at least once without protection. But that would be okay with you?

I've been married almost 27 years. As far as I know, no infedility has occured. Would I leave my husband if I found out he had an affair 20 years ago? No. Would I leave him if I found out he was having an affair NOW? Yes. I love him, but I won't put up with that! Not with all the lies, deceit, AND diseases he could bring back to me.

That won't happen though. My husband is no Scott Peterson.

JMO

If it had actually happened, you might have thought differently. You don't just get over it and move on. Trust has been shattered and you've been lied to by the person you love. And, how do you know he would never do it again? I know I certainly deserve a better person than that. How could you ever believe anything he said, now that he has proven himself to be so dishonest?

I think the point is though - that some women will stay with cheating husbands. Enlightenme - you say Huh? to EKG like you don't believe her - or as if you just can't comprehend what she said.

Some women stay with men who cheat. It's a fact. And they stay for different reasons. Ask Hillary Clinton. I saw a woman on Oprah recently - she was the wife of the senator that came out and admitted that he had had a homosexual affair - and that he was gay. (Can't remember her name). She told Oprah that the first person she called was Hillary Clinton - and asked her for advice - and Hillary told her that she had to do what was best for her and her daughter.

Before my youngest son was born - I would have said - my husband cheated on me - I could never trust him again - and he'd be out the door. But now that my youngest is 7 years old - and being a child of divorce and knowing how devastating it can be to a child - I would stay. I would make it VERY clear - that I would not allow the affair to continue. And yes - things between us would never be the same but I would do everything in my power to prevent my children from noticing the difference. But I would make that sacrifice for my child.

People make mistakes. Cheating on your spouse is selfish and it's weak. But forgiveable to some - unforgiveable to others.

[thinkaboutit]

Okie dokie. Except Scott's parents can still visit him at least twice a week. They can talk to him and hug or touch him.

Sharon has a grave to go to.

Scott's parents lied and covered for him, IMO. I have NO compassion for them, sorry.

They lied and covered up for him? When? Really Enlightenme - I'd really appreciate an answer to this one.

You really think that visiting your son on death row - believing in his innocence and believing he will some day die for a crime he did not commit - is easier than what Sharon has gone through? I am not diminishing at all - what Sharon has gone through - but to diminish what Jackie and Lee are going through - the helplessness they must feel - the hours they spend fighting to free their son - is wrong imo.

Accusing Jackie and Lee of lying and covering up for Scott IS bashing - without a doubt.

Man how the fir would fly if I started posting that Sharon Rocha is a liar, IMO.

So really - I'm asking for some proof that Jackie and Lee lied and covered up for their son - or a retraction would be appreciated.

[JustMyOpinion]

You really think that visiting your son on death row - believing in his innocence and believing he will some day die for a crime he did not commit - is easier than what Sharon has gone through? I am not diminishing at all - what Sharon has gone through - but to diminish what Jackie and Lee are going through - the helplessness they must feel - the hours they spend fighting to free their son - is wrong imo.

.

I have no doubt Jackie & Lee could be experiencing feelings of powerlessness.
That they CAN still fight for their son, that they still have HOPE..makes their situation far different than that of Sharon & Dennis and all those who loved Laci Peterson, IMO. It is not diminishing the Petersons, nor is it wrong..to express an opinion that what Sharon/Dennis have endured is unimaginable, horrible, and painful beyond comprehension. They have no hope, and they couldn't be there to "FIGHT FOR" Laci, to protect her, to save her life.. because nobody knew of Scott's murderous intent. JMO

[enlightenme]

They lied and covered up for him? When? Really Enlightenme - I'd really appreciate an answer to this one.

You really think that visiting your son on death row - believing in his innocence and believing he will some day die for a crime he did not commit - is easier than what Sharon has gone through? I am not diminishing at all - what Sharon has gone through - but to diminish what Jackie and Lee are going through - the helplessness they must feel - the hours they spend fighting to free their son - is wrong imo.

Accusing Jackie and Lee of lying and covering up for Scott IS bashing - without a doubt.

Man how the fir would fly if I started posting that Sharon Rocha is a liar, IMO.

So really - I'm asking for some proof that Jackie and Lee lied and covered up for their son - or a retraction would be appreciated.


Oh Please! Their excuses on the stand are laughable to me. I'll let someone else elucidate, because I have some where to go right now.

:rolleyes:

[enlightenme]

They lied and covered up for him? When? Really Enlightenme - I'd really appreciate an answer to this one.

You really think that visiting your son on death row - believing in his innocence and believing he will some day die for a crime he did not commit - is easier than what Sharon has gone through? I am not diminishing at all - what Sharon has gone through - but to diminish what Jackie and Lee are going through - the helplessness they must feel - the hours they spend fighting to free their son - is wrong imo.

Accusing Jackie and Lee of lying and covering up for Scott IS bashing - without a doubt.

Man how the fir would fly if I started posting that Sharon Rocha is a liar, IMO.

So really - I'm asking for some proof that Jackie and Lee lied and covered up for their son - or a retraction would be appreciated.


OMG! Yes!!! They still have their son, he's alive.

Good god, there IS a difference!

[Otter]

OMG! Yes!!! They still have their son, he's alive.

Good god, there IS a difference!

I really wanted to stay out of this. TAI, you know I respect you and enjoy your posts so much. They make me think, which is why I'm here. That being said, if you came from Mars and compared the behavior of the two families, there's no way you wouldn't feel compassion for one family and not the other.

I had a lot of compassion for the P's, for too long in all honesty. I felt their desperation for their son no matter how convinced I was about his guilt. As their bad behavior towards Laci and Conner and Laci's family escalated my compassion eroded. WT*-list. Did JP perjure herself? I think so, MOO and should she have been charged? No, she was trying to save her son, MOO.

IMO, Laci was objectified in their eyes too -- someone to make their son look good and fit in.

I don't need to tick off examples, we all know what was said and done. One I will point out is "We want those". Tipping my hat to you know who.

Yes, they have hope that he'll be back with them one day. Sharon knows where Laci and Conner are. She can't hug them or talk to them on visiting days. There are no visiting days. They're dead with a stone marking where they're buried. JP can buy a vending machine burrito for SP. The P's will never comprehend the acts of their son, they can't, IMO, it would reflect badly on them.

I didn't want to say this but I will. Comparing the two mothers as you did ... one has a dead daughter. Nuff said.

[deputydi]

8 months pregnant or not, I can't imagine any woman being "fine" knowing her husband had/has a girlfriend.
LOL -- I stand corrected. "Fine with it", my butt.

[JustMyOpinion]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6706900/
SNIP:
All mothers’ pain is not created equal (Dan Abrams)


On the witness stand, Scott Peterson's mother, Jackie, repeatedly compared her anguish to that of Laci's mother, Sharon. But the comparison doesn’t quite work.

Yes, both are angry: Sharon’s beautiful daughter was brutally murdered and Jackie’s son has been convicted of that murder.

If Scott Peterson gets the death penalty, both will have lost a cherished child, through no fault of their own. But Jackie suggests both will have also lost a loved in-law as well.

Jackie Peterson testified that she loved Laci as much as Sharon Rocha loved Scott. That may have been true. In fact, Sharon initially defended Scott. But while Jackie still loves Laci, Sharon does not share those sentiments about Scott anymore.

Jackie's statement ignores that reality.

Jackie's pain is based in helplessness; Sharon's in sadness and fury. Sharon's rational is supported by love and facts; Jackie's is just based on love alone.

Jackie has directed her anger towards the media and, ultimately, the jurors.

Sharon's anger is directed straight at Jackie's son. Jackie's effort to deflect blame from Scott is ultimately an insult to the Rochas.

If Scott were innocent, it would be fair to talk about everyone's pain. But when everyone else, the Rochas and the jurors, are convinced otherwise, it just adds insult to injury to lump them together. Talking about all of them as one family is only fair when she speaks for the family.

But no matter what anyone says, I feel for Jackie Peterson— she is a sweet loving mother. But that should also lead her to better understand that her pain is not Sharon's. She has not lost her son yet. Even if he gets the death penalty, it would take at least ten years on death row before he is executed. That is not anything for her to celebrate but she and Sharon are just not battling the same demons.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6706900/

[deputydi]

Not calling you out or anything.... but I see this alot...... comparing Scott to his parents.... saying his parents shouldn't have done this or that.... Lee blah-blah-blah, Jackie blah-blah-blah..

why can Scott's parents be dissed but for a NG to even mention the name Ron or Sharon means they are calling them murderers?

I get that everyone hates Scott... and everyone thinks his parents tried to help him get away with murder.. but they have never been tried.... in fact as far as I know, no charges were even threatened towards them... I get that the hate spills over from Scott but It's not fair to attack them at all for what you think their grown son did.

can't we agree that if you can't dis one you can't dis the other...... or at the very least they are all fair game?
I agree with you. Jackie said and did a lot of things that I found offensive but, what mother or father wants to believe their child could have done something so horrible? If faced with the same situation, I don't know how mean-spirited I might come across. The one thing I never understood was her lack of compassion toward another mother who just wanted her daughter's belongings. Can we agree that was just plain inexcusable?

[thinkaboutit]

I really wanted to stay out of this. TAI, you know I respect you and enjoy your posts so much. They make me think, which is why I'm here. That being said, if you came from Mars and compared the behavior of the two families, there's no way you wouldn't feel compassion for one family and not the other.

I had a lot of compassion for the P's, for too long in all honesty. I felt their desperation for their son no matter how convinced I was about his guilt. As their bad behavior towards Laci and Conner and Laci's family escalated my compassion eroded. WT*-list. Did JP perjure herself? I think so, MOO and should she have been charged? No, she was trying to save her son, MOO.

IMO, Laci was objectified in their eyes too -- someone to make their son look good and fit in.

I don't need to tick off examples, we all know what was said and done. One I will point out is "We want those". Tipping my hat to you know who.

Yes, they have hope that he'll be back with them one day. Sharon knows where Laci and Conner are. She can't hug them or talk to them on visiting days. There are no visiting days. They're dead with a stone marking where they're buried. JP can buy a vending machine burrito for SP. The P's will never comprehend the acts of their son, they can't, IMO, it would reflect badly on them.

I didn't want to say this but I will. Comparing the two mothers as you did ... one has a dead daughter. Nuff said.

Hi Otter! Okay - I got a little hot under the collar - I apologize. But I'd like to point out - that I did not start the comparison - someone else did.

If people want to express their opinion that Jackie's testimony regarding the bank transfers sounded bogus to them - that's fine with me - or if you want to say that Laci was objectified in Jackie and Lee's eyes - that's your opinion based on your many years of following this case. But if that's the case, then everyone needs to understand that it goes both ways - and everyone needs to toughen up their hide - when an SII says they question why Laci never told Sharon about the adjusted EDC date. Many people had a cow when caphill made those statements - and posted how the Sharon bashing gets old - yeah - well - so does the Jackie and Lee bashing. So that's fine - I understand.....the parents play a key part in this case - and it's really not possible to take them out of the discussion. But everyone needs to be careful how they word their criticisms - the more gently the better. Like you did just now Otter - you did a fine job! ;)

[ekg]

Huh? Okay, you're talking in the hypothetical, right? Do you know that cheaters can bring back AIDS these days? Scott and Amber apparently had sex at least once without protection. But that would be okay with you?

I've been married almost 27 years. As far as I know, no infedility has occured. Would I leave my husband if I found out he had an affair 20 years ago? No. Would I leave him if I found out he was having an affair NOW? Yes. I love him, but I won't put up with that! Not with all the lies, deceit, AND diseases he could bring back to me.

That won't happen though. My husband is no Scott Peterson.

JMO

I'm fully aware of what cheaters can bring back to their spouses..and I would be well aware of it if my hubby cheated on me.... If it happened I would have him down to see my boss for a complete check up with blood work and again in 3 months and again in 3 months and again in 6 months and once more in 6 months.... then and only then would I have unprotected sex with him again.

the op said she'd never met anyone who said they would.... I intro'd myself so she wouldn't have to say that anymore..

My whole point is you cannot use what you would do to know what SOMEONE else would do... You do not know the boundaries hubby and I set up for each other when became serious. You do not know what boundaries we set after a few yrs of marriage.. you do not and cannot know what I would do in any situation....and that is my point. Because you wouldn't stay doesn't mean she wouldn't stay.

Abused women stay with their husbands every day dont they? Do I understand it? Nope! But that doesn't change the fact that they do. And just like they stay with their husbands, women also stay with the ones that cheat.

The commonly accepted topic was that he cheated,Laci knew and she stayed... someone made an asinine comment that only ppl with low self esteem stay with a cheater... when that was brought into light the argument changed to 'well maybe she didn't know he cheated b/c if she did she would have left him'

why can't she have just loved him enough to overlook it? Why does anyone who does this have to have low self esteem. I don't think a Presidential candidate would be running for the highest office in the world if they had self esteem problems... but who am I to know?

there is no basis for the 'she wouldn't put up with it' except personal feelings on the matter..Just like one cannot know why he went after to begin with. Was it love or b/c he used her? who knows but if he didn't love her then he sure fooled the entire world of ppl who knew them. B/c not one person said otherwise, her own family said he doted on her too much and made them look bad b/c of it.

This has got to stop. I know there is a hatred for Scott... but we have to stop using our own personal beliefs as the reason why an 'unknown' just has to be.

~~We don't know why he went after her so it just had to be to use her.

~~We don't know why Laci stayed so it must have been b/c he lied to her.

~~We know she was going to leave him b/c we would in the same situation.

there is no basis for any of that if you want a real debate.... if the goal is to just win at any cost then fine, state that in the rules... but make the rules equal for all players... Going to slam one family? Fine, then allow questions about the other.

the point is we need to stop assuming our opinions are whats written in gold for the rest of the entire population... Just b/c we don't,won't or can't doesn't mean noone else did,will, or could.

:shrug:


g'night :seeya: em.... the oldest needs the computer so I offline for the rest of the night..:seeya:

[deputydi]

The OP was me. I'm a "he". Normally I wouldn't bother to correct you, because most of the time the poster's internal plumbing is irrelevant to the position they take. But in this case it makes a difference, and I'll explain why. But to your point, I was talking about people I have met in the 3D world, not on message boards. Face to face I can see if someone will look me in the eye when they say something. I've seen plenty of Scott supporters say they would ignore his cheating and stay with him in their posts, I have not met a woman in my real life who said anything close to that.



You may consider it asinine. We can go down that road. I'd have fun there.

But what are we talking about here?

(Donning asbestos underwear, I begin to discuss women to a predominantly female audience.)

I've said this before, but not here so I'll repeat myself. I have found (not from things I've done but from things I've been around) that most women will forgive an act of infidelity. What they will not forgive is the creation of another relationship - they consider the latter much more of an offense against the marriage than the former.

Now, let's look at Scott and his nonsense. He tells us that he has a romantic relationship with Amber, he has told Laci about it, and while she is less than happy she accepts it. At the time he tells us this his wife is missing and he is CONTINUING THE RELATIONSHIP by contacting Amber and wanting to get together with her. It matters not one bit that there's no "hide the salami" going on - he is clearly emotionally invested in her. When we men don't want a relationship we just don't call. I'm surprised the buttons on Scott's phone weren't completely worn off. Looking at it as a man I see Scott was deeply taken with Amber.

And we are to believe Laci knows about this and would be OK with it - even if she was alive somewhere and Scott was pursuing Amber instead of looking for her and Conner. Because otherwise why would Scott - if he loved Laci - continue his pursuit of Amber unless Laci knew and had no problem with it? Sorry, no. Sell crazy somewhere else.

Now - as a man, married to my wife for almost 20 years, and NEVER unfaithful, I would have no expectation that she would stay with me if I did screw around - especially if she was carrying our child at the time. And believe me - if that's what I wanted to do I'd have no lack of opportunity with single women who know full well that I am married and are just looking for a little slap & tickle. And I'm no prize. I don't condemn these gals, and there are plenty of guys for them. But if all Scott wanted was a little on the side I'm sure he could get it, without BS about "losing his wife", without the BS about "looking for a soulmate".

In all honesty, if I woke up one day and found I'd treated a woman the way Scott treated Laci and Amber, I'd step in front of a truck. I couldn't live with myself. But that's just me.

No, Scott was after something else - a life that did not so closely resemble his own.
This "rep" thing is fun ---------- UNTIL you really want to use it for an outstanding post and can't because you have to pass the accolades around. Or, whatever that dumb message is.

This post is awesome and I envy Mrs Adnoid. You're right, it's not the actual cheating that is unforgivable -- it's when a real relationship has formed that wives feel violated and betrayed. How can a man be so perceptive? LOL.

[Otter]

Hi Otter! Okay - I got a little hot under the collar - I apologize.

Hey TAI! Me too. For the same reason. I'll drop it right after this post.

EKG said:

I know there is a hatred for Scott.

I don't hate SP, I won't type his first name, but I don't hate him. I hate what he did, but I don't know him except for this one act.

Going to slam one family? Fine, then allow questions about the other.

I'm truly curious ... what behavior of Laci's family would you question?

Please review TG's post, I stand in agreement. And please review Adnoid's post if for nothing else, noting etiquette that I for one have come to expect in this forum. The rest of his post stands for itself. I ask that most respectfully.

Post and run. Enjoy your evening.

[frydaddy]

Anyone remember Stephanie Smith? What about Dawn Hood? How about a waitress named Michelle? Janet Ilse? Katy Hansen? A history of two-timing, lying, and sobbing, all reminiscent of his deal with Amber and Laci. Now, I know the advocates are intelligent thinkers. But for the love, can we get real here?

When did Scott ever fess up to his "roaming"? Don't some think the reason he didn't tell LE about Amber is due to wanting to keep it going quietly? If his wife knew, what was the need for that? She was both pregnant and fine with it? I'm sorry, I've met some women who might stay, but fine with it? I'm laffin' at that!

Think he'd get to travel when Laci had a party to attend if she knew he was cheatin'? Think he'd get to go fishin' on Christmas Eve if she knew? Either everything I know about basic human behavior is dead wrong, or people make light of an awful lot of bad stuff to support Scott. :shrug:

[deputydi]

<snip>I'm truly curious ... what behavior of Laci's family would you question?
<snip>
Laci's family showed nothing but dignity throughout this entire ordeal.

[Otter]

Laci's family showed nothing but dignity throughout this entire ordeal.

And how. As her family continues to do. I doubt my question will be addressed.

[frydaddy]

The OP was me. I'm a "he". Normally I wouldn't bother to correct you, because most of the time the poster's internal plumbing is irrelevant to the position they take. But in this case it makes a difference, and I'll explain why. But to your point, I was talking about people I have met in the 3D world, not on message boards. Face to face I can see if someone will look me in the eye when they say something. I've seen plenty of Scott supporters say they would ignore his cheating and stay with him in their posts, I have not met a woman in my real life who said anything close to that.



You may consider it asinine. We can go down that road. I'd have fun there.

But what are we talking about here?

(Donning asbestos underwear, I begin to discuss women to a predominantly female audience.)

I've said this before, but not here so I'll repeat myself. I have found (not from things I've done but from things I've been around) that most women will forgive an act of infidelity. What they will not forgive is the creation of another relationship - they consider the latter much more of an offense against the marriage than the former.

Now, let's look at Scott and his nonsense. He tells us that he has a romantic relationship with Amber, he has told Laci about it, and while she is less than happy she accepts it. At the time he tells us this his wife is missing and he is CONTINUING THE RELATIONSHIP by contacting Amber and wanting to get together with her. It matters not one bit that there's no "hide the salami" going on - he is clearly emotionally invested in her. When we men don't want a relationship we just don't call. I'm surprised the buttons on Scott's phone weren't completely worn off. Looking at it as a man I see Scott was deeply taken with Amber.

And we are to believe Laci knows about this and would be OK with it - even if she was alive somewhere and Scott was pursuing Amber instead of looking for her and Conner. Because otherwise why would Scott - if he loved Laci - continue his pursuit of Amber unless Laci knew and had no problem with it? Sorry, no. Sell crazy somewhere else.

Now - as a man, married to my wife for almost 20 years, and NEVER unfaithful, I would have no expectation that she would stay with me if I did screw around - especially if she was carrying our child at the time. And believe me - if that's what I wanted to do I'd have no lack of opportunity with single women who know full well that I am married and are just looking for a little slap & tickle. And I'm no prize. I don't condemn these gals, and there are plenty of guys for them. But if all Scott wanted was a little on the side I'm sure he could get it, without BS about "losing his wife", without the BS about "looking for a soulmate".

In all honesty, if I woke up one day and found I'd treated a woman the way Scott treated Laci and Amber, I'd step in front of a truck. I couldn't live with myself. But that's just me.

No, Scott was after something else - a life that did not so closely resemble his own.


:beer: Excellent, excellent post! You've done the faithful men of the world proud! Of course, some will see such a thing in a negative light. Some simply like bad boys...for whatever reason! Well done!

[Hey Paula]

Anyone remember Stephanie Smith? What about Dawn Hood? How about a waitress named Michelle? Janet Ilse? Katy Hansen? A history of two-timing, lying, and sobbing, all reminiscent of his deal with Amber and Laci. Now, I know the advocates are intelligent thinkers. But for the love, can we get real here?

When did Scott ever fess up to his "roaming"? Don't some think the reason he didn't tell LE about Amber is due to wanting to keep it going quietly? If his wife knew, what was the need for that? She was both pregnant and fine with it? I'm sorry, I've met some women who might stay, but fine with it? I'm laffin' at that!

Think he'd get to travel when Laci had a party to attend if she knew he was cheatin'? Think he'd get to go fishin' on Christmas Eve if she knew? Either everything I know about basic human behavior is dead wrong, or people make light of an awful lot of bad stuff to support Scott. :shrug:

Hi FD!

I've always felt the move to Modesto might have been because Laci perhaps noticed Scott's roving eye when they owned "The Shack", which was frequented by the college students. Scott was a serial cheater, and I believe he selected his fertilizer salesman's job, not only because it was his "line" of work, but because it allowed him lots of free, unsupervised time, and the opportunity to stay away overnight, out of Laci's sight.

I wonder if Laci suspected Scott was fooling around when she told her friend Scott wasn't acting like a married man? She might have read him the riot act, especially with Conner's birth approaching.

I think some make light of Scott's cheating to emphasize what was stated throughout the trial i.e., "Just because Scott was a cheater, that doesn't mean he's a murderer". Geragos used the "cad" euphemism when describing his convicted double-murderer client, along with the 24K...remark.

IMO

[One2Snoop]

The more interesting questions for me to ponder: How did the relationship begin between Scott & Laci, and why did Scott stay in the relationship & marriage? ( until Laci became pregnant, was no longer useful, and he decided to kill her, IMO). How was Laci useful to Scott from the outset? What did he gain from using Laci over time.. what were his benefits?

This is what I think Scott saw in Laci... he saw a go getter - type A personality - Laci was driven and I believe he needed that to appear successful, maybe in his own mind? I personally know a couple who were alot like a Scott and Laci - she was the driven one and he only drove because she made him - if that makes any sense. The only difference in their situation vs. Scott and Laci is they're divorced now and she's still alive, she had her baby and went on without him. Scott could've made the same choice, IMO.

JMO

[accordn2me]

How about this theory: It's a self-protection mechanism.

There are women who blame the female victims for being raped for the same reason - it makes them feel safe. By ascribing qualities to the victim that they themselves do not posses, they convince themselves that they will never be raped because they "don't dress that way" or "don't stay out late like that", etc.

With infidelity, it's safer to take the position that all men do it because it means that the woman cheated on did nothing wrong and could not have stopped it:

--If they think that THEIR man cheated because he found another woman attractive, that means she's not attractive enough. But if ALL men cheat and it means nothing, it has nothing to do with her!

--If they think that THEIR man cheated because he is a real jerk, that means she's got poor judgment in men. But if ALL men cheat and it means nothing, it has nothing to do with her!

So, if there's nothing wrong with THEM and nothing wrong with THEIR MAN, the logical conclusion is that THE REST OF THE WORLD IS WRONG to say they shouldn't have to take that crap. Hence, they defend the cheating men of the world and lash out at those that say "You deserve better". Do you have any idea how surreal it is to tell someone they deserve better and have them argue with you? I do.

As a son to my mother, brother to my sister, father to my daughter and uncle to my nieces I make it clear that women do NOT have to take such crap. And I give a complimentary message to the men in my life.

Love is a course of action, not words on some "I'm Sorry" Hallmark card. No matter what Scott SAID, his ACTIONS showed he didn't love Laci, which in my eyes makes it believable that he killed her.This is an excellent post, adnoid! Most excellent.

I started to highlight the last paragraph and comment....but the whole post is spot-on! Nothing extra needed as you do have a way with words...whether you use a lot, or a little. :rose:

[JustMyOpinion]

Love is a course of action, not words on some "I'm Sorry" Hallmark card. No matter what Scott SAID, his ACTIONS showed he didn't love Laci, which in my eyes makes it believable that he killed her.

Absolutely!

[JustMyOpinion]

This is what I think Scott saw in Laci... he saw a go getter - type A personality - Laci was driven and I believe he needed that to appear successful, maybe in his own mind? I personally know a couple who were alot like a Scott and Laci - she was the driven one and he only drove because she made him - if that makes any sense. The only difference in their situation vs. Scott and Laci is they're divorced now and she's still alive, she had her baby and went on without him. Scott could've made the same choice, IMO.

JMO

I agree, One2Snoop. Laci provided "cover" for Scott, she made him appear successful, "normal", even. He could hide behind the facade of the marriage, IMO. Once the facade was going to crumble, he had no more use for her, IMO.

[JustMyOpinion]

Hiya TG! I think he not only wanted to be in control, he also wanted/needed to be the center of attraction - in his world, it was all about Scott. Remember when he was disappointed that nobody in the gay bar hit on him?

Agree that Scott wanted power & control, and needed to feel "golden". He could give easily play the "role" and give the "appearance" of perfect husband to Laci while in Modesto, while living his real life away from there during "business trips", although evidence shows he was failing to meet his sales quota and the Tradecorp job might not last, IMO. The new baby would soon take center stage ( with Laci, with her friends & family, even his own family)and he wasn't willing to play the role of father & provider over the next 18 years, IMO. Becoming the "victim" of a stranger who abducted his pregnant wife would assure he received sympathy and support for his "terrible loss", he wouldn't have to share any financial assets with Laci or a baby, he would once again be the center of attention ( especially attention from his own parents).. but entirely free to lead his own life,, IMO.

[JustMyOpinion]

Not calling you out or anything.... but I see this alot...... comparing Scott to his parents.... saying his parents shouldn't have done this or that.... Lee blah-blah-blah, Jackie blah-blah-blah..

why can Scott's parents be dissed but for a NG to even mention the name Ron or Sharon means they are calling them murderers?

I get that everyone hates Scott... and everyone thinks his parents tried to help him get away with murder.. but they have never been tried.... in fact as far as I know, no charges were even threatened towards them... I get that the hate spills over from Scott but It's not fair to attack them at all for what you think their grown son did.

can't we agree that if you can't dis one you can't dis the other...... or at the very least they are all fair game?


Nobody is "game", IMO. These are human beings.

[Beebee]

Love is a course of action, not words on some "I'm Sorry" Hallmark card. No matter what Scott SAID, his ACTIONS showed he didn't love Laci, which in my eyes makes it believable that he killed her.


Hi, in my opinion you are not taking reality into consideration.

Cheating spouse statistics confirm that 50 and 70 percent of married men (between 38 and 53 million men) have cheated or will cheat on their wives.

Conservative infidelity statistics estimate that “60 percent of men and 40 percent of women will have an extramarital affair. These figures are even more significant when we consider the total number of marriages involved, since it's unlikely that all the men and women having affairs happen to be married to each other. If even half of the women having affairs (or 20 percent) are married to men not included in the 60 percent having affairs, then at least one partner will have an affair in approximately 80 percent of all marriages. With this many marriages affected, it's unreasonable to think affairs are due only to the failures and shortcomings of individual husbands or wives."
http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/infidelitystats.html


When the G's can stop hating Scott for the Amber fling, maybe they will start to think about actual evidence and remember this is a murder case, not a "would you marry him" contest. :shrug:

JUST MY OPINION

[JustMyOpinion]

Hi, in my opinion you are not taking reality into consideration.

Cheating spouse statistics confirm that 50 and 70 percent of married men (between 38 and 53 million men) have cheated or will cheat on their wives.

Conservative infidelity statistics estimate that “60 percent of men and 40 percent of women will have an extramarital affair. These figures are even more significant when we consider the total number of marriages involved, since it's unlikely that all the men and women having affairs happen to be married to each other. If even half of the women having affairs (or 20 percent) are married to men not included in the 60 percent having affairs, then at least one partner will have an affair in approximately 80 percent of all marriages. With this many marriages affected, it's unreasonable to think affairs are due only to the failures and shortcomings of individual husbands or wives."
http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/infidelitystats.html


When the G's can stop hating Scott for the Amber fling, maybe they will start to think about actual evidence and remember this is a murder case, not a "would you marry him" contest. :shrug:

JUST MY OPINION


His conduct with Amber ( before and after) proves he didn't love or respect Laci Peterson, shows that he wanted his wife "lost"/"gone" before the fact, and there was ample evidence presented proving that he disposed of Laci & Conner in the Bay, IMO.

[Beebee]

His conduct with Amber ( before and after) proves he didn't love or respect Laci Peterson, shows that he wanted his wife "lost"/"gone" before the fact, and there was ample evidence presented proving that he disposed of Laci & Conner in the Bay, IMO.

I don't agree with you. I think his conduct was that of a man having a fling. Most men who cheat do not leave their wives (see link I already posted for stats on that).... so most cheaters do in fact love their spouse.

I think Scott loved Laci very much, and she loved him.

[Hey Paula]

Hi, in my opinion you are not taking reality into consideration.

Cheating spouse statistics confirm that 50 and 70 percent of married men (between 38 and 53 million men) have cheated or will cheat on their wives.

Conservative infidelity statistics estimate that “60 percent of men and 40 percent of women will have an extramarital affair. These figures are even more significant when we consider the total number of marriages involved, since it's unlikely that all the men and women having affairs happen to be married to each other. If even half of the women having affairs (or 20 percent) are married to men not included in the 60 percent having affairs, then at least one partner will have an affair in approximately 80 percent of all marriages. With this many marriages affected, it's unreasonable to think affairs are due only to the failures and shortcomings of individual husbands or wives."
http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/infidelitystats.html


When the G's can stop hating Scott for the Amber fling, maybe they will start to think about actual evidence and remember this is a murder case, not a "would you marry him" contest. :shrug:

JUST MY OPINION

Hi BB!

Scott's infidelities never formed part of my opinion of him having murdered Laci and Conner. Sadly, lots of spouses, of both sexes, are unfaithful.

I based my judgment of his guilt, of the captial crimes, on the incredible amount of CE in this case. Although people may lie, CE doesn't. The number of coincidences in this case also served to absolutely confirm my opinion, beyond all doubt.

IMO

[JustMyOpinion]

I don't agree with you. I think his conduct was that of a man having a fling. Most men who cheat do not leave their wives (see link I already posted for stats on that).... so most cheaters do in fact love their spouse.

.

I disagree that it was a "fling". He continued to contact Amber after Laci went missing, she had to ask him to stop. Scott didn't "leave" Laci, he murdered her, IMO. According to profiler Turvey,there are four common triggers found in cases of domestic homicide, the Peterson marriage contained two of the four ( a pregnancy, an affair).

[Beebee]

Hi BB!

Scott's infidelities never formed part of my opinion of him having murdered Laci and Conner. Sadly, lots of spouses, of both sexes, are unfaithful.

I based my judgment of his guilt, of the captial crimes, on the incredible amount of CE in this case. Although people may lie, CE doesn't. The number of coincidences in this case also served to absolutely confirm my opinion, beyond all doubt.

IMO

Hi Paula,

So let's put the cheating aside. We agree. Many, many people cheat.

What incredible amount of CE are you talking about? Actually, can you list one at a time so we can take each piece you see one at a time?

[Beebee]

I disagree that it was a "fling". He continued to contact Amber after Laci went missing, she had to ask him to stop. Scott didn't "leave" Laci, he murdered her, IMO. According to profiler Turvey,there are four common triggers found in cases of domestic homicide, the Peterson marriage contained two of the four ( a pregnancy, an affair).

Well, I think it was a fling. Nothing more, nothing less. I know people like Scott. I've dated people like Scott. Did you expect him to treat Amber like dirt because Laci was missing? Don't know about the profiler you mention, but I do know that pregnancy is a common time for a man to cheat.

[frydaddy]

Hi FD!

I've always felt the move to Modesto might have been because Laci perhaps noticed Scott's roving eye when they owned "The Shack", which was frequented by the college students. Scott was a serial cheater, and I believe he selected his fertilizer salesman's job, not only because it was his "line" of work, but because it allowed him lots of free, unsupervised time, and the opportunity to stay away overnight, out of Laci's sight.

I wonder if Laci suspected Scott was fooling around when she told her friend Scott wasn't acting like a married man? She might have read him the riot act, especially with Conner's birth approaching.

I think some make light of Scott's cheating to emphasize what was stated throughout the trial i.e., "Just because Scott was a cheater, that doesn't mean he's a murderer". Geragos used the "cad" euphemism when describing his convicted double-murderer client, along with the 24K...remark.

IMO

Could be Sweet P, wouldn't be the first time the advocates to their cue from MG. Seemed at times that if MG said it, asked it, or hinted at it - it became gospel. To bad the only people buying it were Scott's family...both his nuclear one and his extended one in cyberspace! :)

[JustMyOpinion]

Well, I think it was a fling. Nothing more, nothing less. I know people like Scott. I've dated people like Scott. Did you expect him to treat Amber like dirt because Laci was missing? Don't know about the profiler you mention, but I do know that pregnancy is a common time for a man to cheat.

LOL, Scott DID treat Amber badly, IMO. He deceived her from the outset of their first meeting, continued deceiving her after he disposed of Laci in the Bay, then attempted to manipulate her to see him, she had to ASK him to stop contacting her ( he responded "Goodbye for now", had a downloaded map to her place of employment upon his arrest, wrote her from jail). Are you saying that if Scott had told Amber right away that his wife had never been "lost", that she was in fact a pregnant wife, that she had now "gone missing" in Modesto, and then stopped contacting Amber after this admission.. this would have been "treating Amber like dirt"..? IYO?

[frydaddy]

How about this theory: It's a self-protection mechanism.

There are women who blame the female victims for being raped for the same reason - it makes them feel safe. By ascribing qualities to the victim that they themselves do not posses, they convince themselves that they will never be raped because they "don't dress that way" or "don't stay out late like that", etc.

With infidelity, it's safer to take the position that all men do it because it means that the woman cheated on did nothing wrong and could not have stopped it:

--If they think that THEIR man cheated because he found another woman attractive, that means she's not attractive enough. But if ALL men cheat and it means nothing, it has nothing to do with her!

--If they think that THEIR man cheated because he is a real jerk, that means she's got poor judgment in men. But if ALL men cheat and it means nothing, it has nothing to do with her!

So, if there's nothing wrong with THEM and nothing wrong with THEIR MAN, the logical conclusion is that THE REST OF THE WORLD IS WRONG to say they shouldn't have to take that crap. Hence, they defend the cheating men of the world and lash out at those that say "You deserve better". Do you have any idea how surreal it is to tell someone they deserve better and have them argue with you? I do.

As a son to my mother, brother to my sister, father to my daughter and uncle to my nieces I make it clear that women do NOT have to take such crap. And I give a complimentary message to the men in my life.

Love is a course of action, not words on some "I'm Sorry" Hallmark card. No matter what Scott SAID, his ACTIONS showed he didn't love Laci, which in my eyes makes it believable that he killed her.

Sounds like a credible analysis to me. Though, I'd imagine that you will have some who simply defend the affair as an extension of the defense of Scott on the whole. As has been stated in the past, some are unwilling to conceed even the slightest of details if they are unfavorable to Scott. We've already seen folks making mole hills out of mountains, who think because lying and cheating are common, it's acceptible and doesn't make someone a bad person. I don't think I've ever read that the affair on it's own proved murder, but I guess the cliche never loses it's appeal to some. :shrug:

[Beebee]

LOL, Scott DID treat Amber badly, IMO. He deceived her from the outset of their first meeting, continued deceiving her after he disposed of Laci in the Bay, then attempted to manipulate her to see him, she had to ASK him to stop contacting her ( he responded "Goodbye for now", had a downloaded map to her place of employment upon his arrest, wrote her from jail). Are you saying that if Scott had told Amber right away that his wife had never been "lost", that she was in fact a pregnant wife, that she had now "gone missing" in Modesto, and then stopped contacting Amber after this admission.. this would have been "treating Amber like dirt"..? IYO?

Well, I think he did tell her fairly quickly, all things considered.

I think Scott expected that after he admitted he was married that Amber would dump him. That would be the expected outcome. In this case though, Amber decided to really stick it to him by becoming an agent for police, so she persued him-- for police purposes-- that is how I see it. Scott had no idea this was happening so he kind of fell into the trap-- and then acted according.

The thing is-- it still had nothing to do with murder.

IN MY OPINION

[frydaddy]

*snip*

I think Scott loved Laci very much, and she loved him.

Not sure what you base this on, but I'd imagine you got the second part right.

[Beebee]

. We've already seen folks making mole hills out of mountains, who think because lying and cheating are common, it's acceptible and doesn't make someone a bad person.

It doesn't make someone a "bad person", imo.

But if you see it differently, then that is your right.

[JustMyOpinion]

It doesn't make someone a "bad person", imo.

.

Seriously, you don't see lying and serial infidelity as evidence of bad character?

[Beebee]

Not sure what you base this on, but I'd imagine you got the second part right.

I base it on knowing Scott and his family.

Take a look:

http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/Tribute.html

[Beebee]

Seriously, you don't see lying and serial infidelity as evidence of bad character?

Honestly, I don't have NEAR the judgement on that issue as some people who hate Scott for it do..... I've known serial cheaters. One of my best girlfriends was married to one-- and he is a nice guy! She eventually divorced him, but never considered him a "bad" person. I guess I just think it's a personal issue and between the couples involved. I know that many people do it..... so am I to go around thinking every one of them is "bad"??
The only relationship I analyze is my own. My husband and I prefer monogamy, but that's us. Different strokes, ya know? Hey there are big groups of people out there who have OPEN marriages. I know some of them too. Swingers.... its all out there.

[JustMyOpinion]

Honestly, I don't have NEAR the judgement on that issue as some people who hate Scott for it do..... I've known serial cheaters. One of my best girlfriends was married to one-- and he is a nice guy! She eventually divorced him, but never considered him a "bad" person. I guess I just think it's a personal issue and between the couples involved. I know that many people do it..... so am I to go around thinking every one of them is "bad"??
The only relationship I analyze is my own. My husband and I prefer monogamy, but that's us. Different strokes, ya know? Hey there are big groups of people out there who have OPEN marriages. I know some of them too. Swingers.... its all out there.

I think there are many people who hate what Scott did ( murdering Laci & Conner). There is no evidence at all that Scott & Laci had an "open marriage", and those who knew Laci say she would not have been "fine" with Scott's relationship with Amber. And, how convenient for Scott that he could claim this was a "personal issue" between he & Laci ( as he told Diane Sawyer, full-well knowing Laci wasn't available to speak her own truth) .. IMO he SILENCED Laci's voice forever by disposing of her in the Bay.

[frydaddy]

I base it on knowing Scott and his family.

Take a look:

http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/Tribute.html

You know Scott and his family? They are friendly to you? Their words hold a lot of weight in your mind? They put up a tribute to Laci on his appeal site and that proves he loved her, in your mind? None of his actions or words, or theirs, give you the slightest hint that he had little respect for Laci, which to some, is a requirement of real love?

[Beebee]

I think there are many people who hate what Scott did ( murdering Laci & Conner). There is no evidence at all that Scott & Laci had an "open marriage", and those who knew Laci say she would not have been "fine" with Scott's relationship with Amber. And, how convenient for Scott that he could claim this was a "personal issue" between he & Laci ( as he told Diane Sawyer, full-well knowing Laci wasn't available to speak her own truth) .. IMO he SILENCED Laci's voice forever by disposing of her in the Bay.

Really, do you know anything about their marriage? No. You dont. It IS a personal issue, even though the public latched on to it and felt Scott owed the public an explaination. He did not. It had nothing to do with Laci's disappearance, IMO.

Well, I need to tend to my new puppy. Nice chatting.

:seeya:

[Beebee]

You know Scott and his family? They are friendly to you? Their words hold a lot of weight in your mind? They put up a tribute to Laci on his appeal site and that proves he loved her, in your mind? None of his actions or words, or theirs, give you the slightest hint that he had little respect for Laci, which to some, is a requirement of real love?


Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
No.



gotta go.... bye

[JustMyOpinion]

Really, do you know anything about their marriage? No. You dont. It IS a personal issue, even though the public latched on to it and felt Scott owed the public an explaination. He did not. It had nothing to do with Laci's disappearance, IMO.

Well, I need to tend to my new puppy. Nice chatting.

:seeya:
I can only form an opinion about their marriage based on information shared by those who actually knew Laci & Scott , and what I've gleaned from Scott's own words & conduct.
Did you live with Scott & Laci? Do you have personal knowledge of what went on behind closed doors, between them? Or, is your opinion about their marriage formed by what Scott and his family have told you?
Scott Peterson CHOSE to do three televised interviews in an attempt to manipulate public perception in his favor, IMO. I agree he didn't "owe" the public an explanation, and it seems apparent to me that he ignored advice of his attorney because his "image" mattered greatly to him, IMO.

[Hey Paula]

Hi Paula,

So let's put the cheating aside. We agree. Many, many people cheat.

What incredible amount of CE are you talking about? Actually, can you list one at a time so we can take each piece you see one at a time?

The following might not be in chronological order, as I am preparing the list as thoughts enter my mind:

1) Two weeks prior to Laci disappearing, Scott told Shawn Sibley and Amber that he'd lost his wife and the upcoming holidays would be his first without her. Since the last time Laci was known to be alive was around 8:30PM on 12/23, Christmas was Scott's first holdiay without his wife.

2) After having claimed he lost his wife, before she disappeared, Scott bought a boat, and kept it secret, even from his father.

3) He bought the boat from one who bore his surname (Bruce Peterson).

4) He never registered the boat (I know he had 30 days in which to do it. Nevertheless, he didn't register it, which is further evidence of his secrecy.)

5) He purchased a 2-day fishing license good for the days during his wife's disappearance.

6) He used his computer to search the areas (including the shipping channel) of the SF Bay, and tidal info, in the vicinity of where the bodies of Laci and Conner washed up.

7) He purchased a large bag of cement. During LE's immediate search of the warehouse, cement residue in the form of 5 circles, the shape of his one remaining homemade anchor.

8) The lifejacket which came with the boat was missing.

9) A rusty pliers was found on the floor of the boat with a strand of hair enmeshed in its teeth which, when tested for MtDNA, was consistent with Laci's.

10) Although, the night before, offering to pick up a fruit basket for Amy, Scott went fishing leaving very late in the morning, claiming it was too cold to golf, but not having called Amy advising her of the change in plans.

11) Despite having made phone calls while out on the SF Bay on 12/24, he neither answered Amy's call, nor returned it.

12) He gave inconsistent accounts of his whereabouts that day, telling some he was golfing, and others he was fishing.

13) On the first day of Laci having disappeared, he asked LE if they would be using cadaver dogs and requested grief counselors because they would be needed.

14) When being inverviewed by Gloria Gomez, during Laci's disappearance, his cell phone rang and he didn't answer it. (Knowing it wouldn't be about Laci having reappeared because he knew where she was having put her there himself)

15) While others cried during Laci's vigil, held within a week of her dsappearance, Scott chatted gayly with Amber, claiming he was in France at the Eiffel Tower.

16) When told about a siting of Laci at an out of state convenience store, Scott didn't go to view the videotape.

17) Scott made several covert trips to the SF Bay, a 180 miles roundtrip, in rented vehicles, gazing out into the water briefy, then leaving, never once asking LE about the searches.

18) Within weeks of Laci's disappearance he sold her car, attemped to sell the house, and ordered porn channels, cancelling them when LE was about to search the house again.

19) Although there were a number of local fishing spots, including lakes, Scott chose to fish 90 miles away, on Christmas Eve, leaving for a 3 hour roundtrip at nearly the noon hour, despite having dinner plans for early that evening.

20) The bodies of Laci and Conner washed up within 2 miles of where Scott had been fishing, 90 miles from home, on the day Laci disappeared.

21) During a TV interview with Diane Sawyer, Scott lied when he said he immediately told LE about his affair with Amber.

22) When LE confronted Scott with the photo of himself and Amber, taken at the Christmas party he attended with her, (while Laci went alone to the party she and Scott were to have attended) he denied it was him in the photo.

23) Not telling LE about his affair with Amber. An innocent man would have thought that perhaps his lover was responsible for his wife's disappearance after perhaps learning he was married.

24) Never calling LE to inquire about the investigation's progress.

25) Never calling LE to inquire if the bodies of the baby and woman's torso, which had washed ashore, were that of his son and wife.

26) Heading in the opposite direction when the bodies were identified, driving a Mercedes loaded with camping gear, his brother's driver's license, nearly $15,000 and Mexican pesos.

27) Changing his appearance by growing a goatee and dying it, along with his hair.


There might be more, but the above immediately came to mind. I invite other posters to add to the list.

[frydaddy]

The following might not be in chronological order, as I am preparing the list as thoughts enter my mind:

1) Two weeks prior to Laci disappearing, Scott told Shawn Sibley and Amber that he'd lost his wife and the upcoming holidays would be his first without her. Since the last time Laci was known to be alive was around 8:30PM on 12/23, Christmas was Scott's first holdiay without his wife.

2) After having claimed he lost his wife, before she disappeared, Scott bought a boat, and kept it secret, even from his father.

3) He bought the boat from one who bore his surname (Bruce Peterson).

4) He never registered the boat (I know he had 30 days in which to do it. Nevertheless, he didn't register it, which is further evidence of his secrecy.)

5) He purchased a 2-day fishing license good for the days during his wife's disappearance.

6) He used his computer to search the areas (including the shipping channel) of the SF Bay, and tidal info, in the vicinity of where the bodies of Laci and Conner washed up.

7) He purchased a large bag of cement. During LE's immediate search of the warehouse, cement residue in the form of 5 circles, the shape of his one remaining homemade anchor.

8) The lifejacket which came with the boat was missing.

9) A rusty pliers was found on the floor of the boat with a strand of hair enmeshed in its teeth which, when tested for MtDNA, was consistent with Laci's.

10) Although, the night before, offering to pick up a fruit basket for Amy, Scott went fishing leaving very late in the morning, claiming it was too cold to golf, but not having called Amy advising her of the change in plans.

11) Despite having made phone calls while out on the SF Bay on 12/24, he neither answered Amy's call, nor returned it.

12) He gave inconsistent accounts of his whereabouts that day, telling some he was golfing, and others he was fishing.

13) On the first day of Laci having disappeared, he asked LE if they would be using cadaver dogs and requested grief counselors because they would be needed.

14) When being inverviewed by Gloria Gomez, during Laci's disappearance, his cell phone rang and he didn't answer it. (Knowing it wouldn't be about Laci having reappeared because he knew where she was having put her there himself)

15) While others cried during Laci's vigil, held within a week of her dsappearance, Scott chatted gayly with Amber, claiming he was in France at the Eiffel Tower.

16) When told about a siting of Laci at an out of state convenience store, Scott didn't go to view the videotape.

17) Scott made several covert trips to the SF Bay, a 180 miles roundtrip, in rented vehicles, gazing out into the water briefy, then leaving, never once asking LE about the searches.

18) Within weeks of Laci's disappearance he sold her car, attemped to sell the house, and ordered porn channels, cancelling them when LE was about to search the house again.

19) Although there were a number of local fishing spots, including lakes, Scott chose to fish 90 miles away, on Christmas Eve, leaving for a 3 hour roundtrip at nearly the noon hour, despite having dinner plans for early that evening.

20) The bodies of Laci and Conner washed up within 2 miles of where Scott had been fishing, 90 miles from home, on the day Laci disappeared.

21) During a TV interview with Diane Sawyer, Scott lied when he said he immediately told LE about his affair with Amber.

22) When LE confronted Scott with the photo of himself and Amber, taken at the Christmas party he attended with her, (while Laci went alone to the party she and Scott were to have attended) he denied it was him in the photo.

23) Not telling LE about his affair with Amber. An innocent man would have thought that perhaps his lover was responsible for his wife's disappearance after perhaps learning he was married.

24) Never calling LE to inquire about the investigation's progress.

25) Never calling LE to inquire if the bodies of the baby and woman's torso, which had washed ashore, were that of his son and wife.

26) Heading in the opposite direction when the bodies were identified, driving a Mercedes loaded with camping gear, his brother's driver's license, nearly $15,000 and Mexican pesos.

27) Changing his appearance by growing a goatee and dying it, along with his hair.


There might be more, but the above immediately came to mind. I invite other posters to add to the list.


Good start Sweet P! Brace yourself for the potential response though. If it resembles the current last post on the Changing Sides thread, it's gonna make you shake your head in disbelief. ;)

[Hey Paula]

:beer: Excellent, excellent post! You've done the faithful men of the world proud! Of course, some will see such a thing in a negative light. Some simply like bad boys...for whatever reason! Well done!

ITA! Adnoid's post was excellent, and it won a postive rep rating from me!

I'm one of those lucky women who is married to a faithful man!

[JustMyOpinion]

The following might not be in chronological order, as I am preparing the list as thoughts enter my mind:

1) Two weeks prior to Laci disappearing, Scott told Shawn Sibley and Amber that he'd lost his wife and the upcoming holidays would be his first without her. Since the last time Laci was known to be alive was around 8:30PM on 12/23, Christmas was Scott's first holdiay without his wife.

2) After having claimed he lost his wife, before she disappeared, Scott bought a boat, and kept it secret, even from his father.

3) He bought the boat from one who bore his surname (Bruce Peterson).

4) He never registered the boat (I know he had 30 days in which to do it. Nevertheless, he didn't register it, which is further evidence of his secrecy.)

5) He purchased a 2-day fishing license good for the days during his wife's disappearance.

6) He used his computer to search the areas (including the shipping channel) of the SF Bay, and tidal info, in the vicinity of where the bodies of Laci and Conner washed up.

7) He purchased a large bag of cement. During LE's immediate search of the warehouse, cement residue in the form of 5 circles, the shape of his one remaining homemade anchor.

8) The lifejacket which came with the boat was missing.

9) A rusty pliers was found on the floor of the boat with a strand of hair enmeshed in its teeth which, when tested for MtDNA, was consistent with Laci's.

10) Although, the night before, offering to pick up a fruit basket for Amy, Scott went fishing leaving very late in the morning, claiming it was too cold to golf, but not having called Amy advising her of the change in plans.

11) Despite having made phone calls while out on the SF Bay on 12/24, he neither answered Amy's call, nor returned it.

12) He gave inconsistent accounts of his whereabouts that day, telling some he was golfing, and others he was fishing.

13) On the first day of Laci having disappeared, he asked LE if they would be using cadaver dogs and requested grief counselors because they would be needed.

14) When being inverviewed by Gloria Gomez, during Laci's disappearance, his cell phone rang and he didn't answer it. (Knowing it wouldn't be about Laci having reappeared because he knew where she was having put her there himself)

15) While others cried during Laci's vigil, held within a week of her dsappearance, Scott chatted gayly with Amber, claiming he was in France at the Eiffel Tower.

16) When told about a siting of Laci at an out of state convenience store, Scott didn't go to view the videotape.

17) Scott made several covert trips to the SF Bay, a 180 miles roundtrip, in rented vehicles, gazing out into the water briefy, then leaving, never once asking LE about the searches.

18) Within weeks of Laci's disappearance he sold her car, attemped to sell the house, and ordered porn channels, cancelling them when LE was about to search the house again.

19) Although there were a number of local fishing spots, including lakes, Scott chose to fish 90 miles away, on Christmas Eve, leaving for a 3 hour roundtrip at nearly the noon hour, despite having dinner plans for early that evening.

20) The bodies of Laci and Conner washed up within 2 miles of where Scott had been fishing, 90 miles from home, on the day Laci disappeared.

21) During a TV interview with Diane Sawyer, Scott lied when he said he immediately told LE about his affair with Amber.

22) When LE confronted Scott with the photo of himself and Amber, taken at the Christmas party he attended with her, (while Laci went alone to the party she and Scott were to have attended) he denied it was him in the photo.

23) Not telling LE about his affair with Amber. An innocent man would have thought that perhaps his lover was responsible for his wife's disappearance after perhaps learning he was married.

24) Never calling LE to inquire about the investigation's progress.

25) Never calling LE to inquire if the bodies of the baby and woman's torso, which had washed ashore, were that of his son and wife.

26) Heading in the opposite direction when the bodies were identified, driving a Mercedes loaded with camping gear, his brother's driver's license, nearly $15,000 and Mexican pesos.

27) Changing his appearance by growing a goatee and dying it, along with his hair.


There might be more, but the above immediately came to mind. I invite other posters to add to the list.

Great job, Hey Paula! Thanks for having the patience to compile a list and the effort/time it took to post it ( you have more patience this morning, than I do). I'll ponder and add some of my own that come to my mind, as you have suggested/invited. Thanks again!

[JustMyOpinion]

28) Scott choosing to live Anne Bird's home early-on, until she asked him to leave ( her home was located in Berkeley, upper window had view of the Bay)

29) Photo of five, circular concrete residue imprints found on trailer in Scott's warehouse.

30) Pitcher found in warehouse where an object other than the anchor had been formed/molded.

31) Nobody tried to claim a 500,000 dollar reward for information leading to Laci's location/whereabouts.

32) Scott's shifting, changing statements about what he did with remainder of the bag of concrete.

33) Scott's shifting, changing statements about cuts on his hands.

34) Scott's shifting/changing statements about "fishing", "taking boat out".

35) Scott's detailed statements about mop & bucket and his claim that Laci told him she was planning to walk the dog.

36) Scott's claim that he wrapped umbrellas in tarp to load into the truck because it was raining.

37) Scott's claim that the "fishing trip" was a morning decision because it was too cold to golf, when he had purchased the fishing license with marine stamp on 12/20 and the dates 12/23 & 12/24 were filled in.

38) Scott's complete inability to give a description of the actual person Laci was,when asked to do so by Gloria Gomez.

39) Conner's nursery being used as a storage room, despite his claim that he awaited the little guy's return.

40) The description of what Laci was wearing the morning of 12/24 given by Scott did not match the remnants of clothing found on her remains.

42) The blouse Laci was wearing when last seen alive photographed in the clothes hamper on 12/24, her remains were clad in remnants of a bra.

43) Laci's diamond pendant being found on her dresser.

[thinkaboutit]

Anyone remember Stephanie Smith? What about Dawn Hood? How about a waitress named Michelle? Janet Ilse? Katy Hansen? A history of two-timing, lying, and sobbing, all reminiscent of his deal with Amber and Laci. Now, I know the advocates are intelligent thinkers. But for the love, can we get real here?

When did Scott ever fess up to his "roaming"? Don't some think the reason he didn't tell LE about Amber is due to wanting to keep it going quietly? If his wife knew, what was the need for that? She was both pregnant and fine with it? I'm sorry, I've met some women who might stay, but fine with it? I'm laffin' at that!

Think he'd get to travel when Laci had a party to attend if she knew he was cheatin'? Think he'd get to go fishin' on Christmas Eve if she knew? Either everything I know about basic human behavior is dead wrong, or people make light of an awful lot of bad stuff to support Scott. :shrug:

I need a little education.....:)

Who are Stephanie Smith, Dawn Hood and the waitress named Michelle?

And could someone fill me in on the "We want those" thing?

Thanks!

[Hey Paula]

28) Scott choosing to live Anne Bird's home early-on, until she asked him to leave ( her home was located in Berkeley, upper window had view of the Bay)

29) Photo of five, circular concrete residue imprints found on trailer in Scott's warehouse.

30) Pitcher found in warehouse where an object other than the anchor had been formed/molded.

31) Nobody tried to claim a 500,000 dollar reward for information leading to Laci's location/whereabouts.

32) Scott's shifting, changing statements about what he did with remainder of the bag of concrete.

33) Scott's shifting, changing statements about cuts on his hands.

34) Scott's shifting/changing statements about "fishing", "taking boat out".

35) Scott's detailed statements about mop & bucket and his claim that Laci told him she was planning to walk the dog.

36) Scott's claim that he wrapped umbrellas in tarp to load into the truck because it was raining.

37) Scott's claim that the "fishing trip" was a morning decision because it was too cold to golf, when he had purchased the fishing license with marine stamp on 12/20 and the dates 12/23 & 12/24 were filled in.

38) Scott's complete inability to give a description of the actual person Laci was,when asked to do so by Gloria Gomez.

39) Conner's nursery being used as a storage room, despite his claim that he awaited the little guy's return.

40) The description of what Laci was wearing the morning of 12/24 given by Scott did not match the remnants of clothing found on her remains.

42) The blouse Laci was wearing when last seen alive photographed in the clothes hamper on 12/24, her remains were clad in remnants of a bra.

43) Laci's diamond pendant being found on her dresser.

Hi JMO!!

Great additions; thanks for contributing!

The evidence against Scott Peterson is overwhelming and proof BARD of his guilt. As Vincent Bugliosi recently stated on Fox & Friends, (when discussing another case) although there might be a couple of things pointing to an innocent person, scores of things can NEVER (emphasis only) point to someone unless they are guilty. I wholeheartedly agree with him, as the amount of evidence in the aggregate, is what convinced me that Scott was guilty beyond ALL (emphasis only) doubt.

When the CE is listed and presented in its entirety, it is easy to see why this jury was unanimous in its verdict. I have no doubt the combeined amount of CE is what convinced them BARD of Scott's guilt.

IMO

[Hey Paula]

I need a little education.....:)

Who are Stephanie Smith, Dawn Hood and the waitress named Michelle?

And could someone fill me in on the "We want those" thing?

Thanks!

Hi TAI!

"We want those" is what Jackie Peterson said of Laci's wedding ring and stones Laci inherited from her paternal grandmother.

IMO

[thinkaboutit]

Hi TAI!

"We want those" is what Jackie Peterson said of Laci's wedding ring and stones Laci inherited from her paternal grandmother.

IMO


Hi Paula!! Thanks for the info! Can you or someone else tell me where this info comes from? Was it a recorded phone conversation? A book?

[JustMyOpinion]

I need a little education.....:)

Who are Stephanie Smith, Dawn Hood and the waitress named Michelle?



Stephanie & Dawn are former highschool girlfriends of Scott Peterson who spoke with police. "Michelle" appears to be the name Lauren Putnat used when speaking with Crier. See "A Deadly Game" by Catherine Crier.
pages 53-56
Lauren Putnat also spoke with Keith Ablow "Inside the Mind of Scott Peterson", pages 105-114.

[Otter]

Hi Paula!! Thanks for the info! Can you or someone else tell me where this info comes from? Was it a recorded phone conversation? A book?

Hi TAI!

Like a lot of links, that one is gone too. IIRC, it was in the Mod Bee, and I found the article on FindLaci.

http://www.findlaci2003.us/jackie-house.html

Peterson said her son has a request, too: He wants his wife's wedding ring, another
diamond ring that he bought her, and a few diamonds given to Laci by her grandmother.
Peterson said the rings and gems had been taken to a jeweler for crafting into one ring.

"We want those," Peterson said. She said the Rochas picked them up from the jeweler.

Sorry I don't have a "real" link. :seeya:

[thinkaboutit]

Hi TAI!

Like a lot of links, that one is gone too. IIRC, it was in the Mod Bee, and I found the article on FindLaci.

http://www.findlaci2003.us/jackie-house.html

Peterson said her son has a request, too: He wants his wife's wedding ring, another
diamond ring that he bought her, and a few diamonds given to Laci by her grandmother.
Peterson said the rings and gems had been taken to a jeweler for crafting into one ring.

"We want those," Peterson said. She said the Rochas picked them up from the jeweler.

Sorry I don't have a "real" link. :seeya:

Aaaah! No that's fine - I was just totally clueless! Thanks! :seeya:

[thinkaboutit]

Stephanie & Dawn are former highschool girlfriends of Scott Peterson who spoke with police. "Michelle" appears to be the name Lauren Putnat used when speaking with Crier. See "A Deadly Game" by Catherine Crier.
pages 53-56
Lauren Putnat also spoke with Keith Ablow "Inside the Mind of Scott Peterson", pages 105-114.


Thanks JMO....so did the Stephanie and Dawn info come from Crier's book also?

[JustMyOpinion]

Thanks JMO....so did the Stephanie and Dawn info come from Crier's book also?

Y/W & Yes, Crier's book pp 53-54

[Hey Paula]

Hi TAI!

Like a lot of links, that one is gone too. IIRC, it was in the Mod Bee, and I found the article on FindLaci.

http://www.findlaci2003.us/jackie-house.html

Peterson said her son has a request, too: He wants his wife's wedding ring, another
diamond ring that he bought her, and a few diamonds given to Laci by her grandmother.
Peterson said the rings and gems had been taken to a jeweler for crafting into one ring.

"We want those," Peterson said. She said the Rochas picked them up from the jeweler.

Sorry I don't have a "real" link. :seeya:

Hi Otter!

I was about to post the same link, after having searched for the original article JP's statement appeared in. It was a famous line in this case, and like so many others, the links once easily found via Google are no longer included in the search results.

I did find this ModBee page when searching their site. JP's quote might appear in one of the numerous links provided, but I neither have the time, nor the inclination, to click and read each article. However, the posters here might want to bookmark this link for future reference:

ModBee Peterson Case Link:

http://www.modbee.com/reports/peterson/trial/

[Otter]

Hi Otter!

I was about to post the same link, after having searched for the original article JP's statement appeared in. It was a famous line in this case, and like so many others, the links once easily found via Google are no longer included in the search results.

I did find this ModBee page when searching their site. JP's quote might appear in one of the numerous links provided, but I neither have the time, nor the inclination, to click and read each article. However, the posters here might want to bookmark this link for future reference:

ModBee Peterson Case Link:

http://www.modbee.com/reports/peterson/trial/

Hi Paula! Thanks for the link. :patriot:

It doesn't go back far enough for that particular quote, and that's assuming it was the ModBee. If the link to the story still exists, its normally on the top of the FindLaci page which is why I believe its gone.

[ekg]

If it had actually happened, you might have thought differently. You don't just get over it and move on. Trust has been shattered and you've been lied to by the person you love. And, how do you know he would never do it again? I know I certainly deserve a better person than that. How could you ever believe anything he said, now that he has proven himself to be so dishonest?

again, you're assuming you know me....

I've been cheated on before.... I was young,in love and stupid....so I stayed.. and he did it again and again and again.. each time was to be his last but I finally knew it never would be and I had to decide right then and there if he was worthy of me. If he was then I would learn 'don't ask/don't tell'... in the end tho he wasn't worthy of me and I dumped him...

Now, knowing what it's like... and knowing the pain of the betrayal.... I can say with all honesty that yes, I would be pissed at my husband...Our trust would be destroyed, I would always have the memory of what he did, the fear of him doing each time he wasn't with me, the fear of finding out if he did do it again, the wondering if during quiet times was he thinking of her etc etc etc.... but I still wouldn't have left him...

you may ask yourself why? It's simple.....it's not about self esteem, I'm Irish-lol can we have low self esteem?-lol but you see,b/c of my past with the butthole, I already have those fears. They are ingrained in me. Hubby has never given me one shred of a reason to distrust him, his views on the subject are inline with Mr. Adnoid(who I will address separately)...I know with 99% certainty(I would never claim 100% on what anyone else would do) that I can drop hubby in into a room with 50 strippers and he will walk away with his pants still on and his money still in his wallet.... but b/c of the butthole, I still wonder....I'm already living that life and he hasn't done anything....

I could get into the sexual boundaries I decided to share with the man I married...but I think that might be TMI or I will address it when addressing adniod...:shrug:


The point is.....we don't know what Laci would have done.... we'd like to think we would..... but since we don't know anything about her other relationships we don't know what she was feeling or living with or could live with....

[ekg]

I have always believed some of the things JP did and said were an indication she believed Scott killed Laci/Laci and Conner were never going to return, most of which the jury never heard about.

1) The advice she gave Scott to "deny, deny deny" when talking to the investigators.

your child is strongly suspected in the disappearance of his wife. Every radio,tv and paper news is spewing hatred of him over the airways.. some are even coming to his house with a bullhorn and shouting at him day and night. Even LE won't listen to you or him anymore...do you finally tell him to stfu and just deny everything? does it make you an accomplise if you do? does it make you evil b/c you want to do whatever you can to protect your child when everyone else in the world thinks he's the devils spawn?



2) Within weeks of Laci's disappearance, asking Scott to give Conner's furniture to relatives.

there is another reason for this besides the evil reason... maybe it was too mcuh for Scott to keep looking at the stuff.. at the time this happened hadn't LE already declaired it a murder investigation? sure for this to be the reason you would have to assume Scott did care about Laci, and I know you can't do that..... but it's just as valid as reason as yours...


3) Telling Scott "Nobdoy would be that stupid as to put a body where they were fishing - not even you Scott". (Might be paraprased).

I don't know what that has to do with why JP deserves the disrespect she gets.. but ok...


4) Within weeks of Laci's disappearance, telling Anne Bird's babysitter she wished Scott would find a girl like her.

who said this? Anne? Sorry, she sold her story to the highest bidder who happened to Judith Regan and IMO 'the more sensational the better' should be her motto. IOW Anne is no longer worthy of belief IMO.

now do you have something from the babysitter herself saying this? Something besides her words to the Enquirer?


5) Speaking to Scott twice on 12/24 while he was at the Berkeley Marina, (disposing of Laci's body), then being in Modesto , a 7 hour drive from San Diego, in time for Christmas dinner. In Anne Bird's book she stated Jackie asked her to pick up some clothes at the house. When Anne arrived with her mother, JP's house was in disarray, containing dishes with half eaten food lying on the table. I have always believed Scott summoned his parents to Modesto while he was still out on the Bay.

hmmmmm, or when he called they droppped everything to be with him...but ok, finally a reason I can understand for the disrespect



6) I believe JP bought the Mercedes Scott was driving, loaded with camping equipment clothing, nearly $15,000 (also supplied by JP, IMO) some Mexican pesos.

she may have... but again, at this point what would you do if the child you loved more than anything in the world was living Scott Petersons nightmare..And if she did do this, what does it say about Scott for NOT taking her up on the offer/implication she was trying to convey?
(and please, if you choose to answer this, please don't answer with 'well my child would never do this'...the question is to put yourself in the place of the other mother who thought/thinks the same thing).


7) A couple of days after Laci went missing, JP asked Anne Bird to go to the Berkeley Marina to see if there were witnesses who saw Scott at the Marina on 12/24 to help establish his alibi

a cpl of days after it all happened LE was still trying to prove it themselves.. they didn't believe his cc and parking receipts... So I can't see why it would be listed as a reason that she deserves anything.....

IMO.[/QUOTE]

thank you for your list Hp...

[JustMyOpinion]

The point is.....we don't know what Laci would have done.... we'd like to think we would..... but since we don't know anything about her other relationships we don't know what she was feeling or living with or could live with....

I agree we cannot claim to "know" what Laci would have done, I can only form an opinion based on what those who actually knew her have said. ( that she would not have been "fine" or "okay" or "at peace" with Scott having an affair with Amber Frey). I do believe Laci was at some increased risk for becoming a victim of domestic homicide ( based on the fact that prior to meeting Scott, she had lived with a man who was abusive toward her, who is now imprisioned for shooting his girlfriend). I also believe Laci was well-aware that Scott flirted with other women, Lauren Putnat said Laci would be in tears in the restroom at Pacific Cafe, and it's written that he was flirting with a woman at the bar right before his wedding.

[ekg]

I agree with you. Jackie said and did a lot of things that I found offensive but, what mother or father wants to believe their child could have done something so horrible? If faced with the same situation, I don't know how mean-spirited I might come across. The one thing I never understood was her lack of compassion toward another mother who just wanted her daughter's belongings. Can we agree that was just plain inexcusable?

but you are not taking into account the lack of compassion Jackie may have felt Sharon was showing the son she completely believes is innocent. Of course in our eyes Sharon deserves the most compassion b/c her daughter is dead.... but I cannot say with all honesty if I would be able to give any compassion to the person I thought was leading the crusade to have my child convicted of a crime I know he didn't commit.

and thats' what gets forgotten in all the Jackie hate.... all she did was protect her child. Everything was tainted in her mind b/c she totally believes he did not commit this crime. The duke Lacrosse player's mothers fought just as hard for their children when it looked to the world that they had done the unforgivable.. Would you or anyone be saying the same things about them had they acted like Jackie in every instance? Their nightmare ended.. Jackie's hasn't.. I know Sharon's hasn't either.. but it's not a game to see who has the most pain.. in their own way, in their own minds they are each suffering unimaginable pain..

The hatred of Jackie is unprecedented.... I don't know who said that, but one of the TH's did... and it's the truth.... Dalmer,Bundy,Gacy, Hitler...OJ.... we don't even know their parents name...but b/c Scott was so very hated anyone or anything in the way of him being punished was going to be hated also...

[ekg]

I agree we cannot claim to "know" what Laci would have done, I can only form an opinion based on what those who actually knew her have said. ( that she would not have been "fine" or "okay" or "at peace" with Scott having an affair with Amber Frey). snipped


no... you missed the point again...... we, her friends, her family.. none of us can know what she would do.... we just can't... I can think I know what my brother or my mother or my daughter would do.... but I can't really know can I?

[JustMyOpinion]

but you are not taking into account the lack of compassion Jackie may have felt Sharon was showing the son she completely believes is innocent. Of course in our eyes Sharon deserves the most compassion b/c her daughter is dead.... but I cannot say with all honesty if I would be able to give any compassion to the person I thought was leading the crusade to have my child convicted of a crime I know he didn't commit.

and thats' what gets forgotten in all the Jackie hate.... all she did was protect her child. Everything was tainted in her mind b/c she totally believes he did not commit this crime. The duke Lacrosse player's mothers fought just as hard for their children when it looked to the world that they had done the unforgivable.. Would you or anyone be saying the same things about them had they acted like Jackie in every instance? Their nightmare ended.. Jackie's hasn't.. I know Sharon's hasn't either.. but it's not a game to see who has the most pain.. in their own way, in their own minds they are each suffering unimaginable pain..

The hatred of Jackie is unprecedented.... I don't know who said that, but one of the TH's did... and it's the truth.... Dalmer,Bundy,Gacy, Hitler...OJ.... we don't even know their parents name...but b/c Scott was so very hated anyone or anything in the way of him being punished was going to be hated also...

?? I feel no hatred for Jackie Peterson, ( or Scott Peterson) What Scott DID was very evil, but I feel satisfied that justice was served and hope he will never, ever be set free, I think he's a dangerous man. I disagree with some of what Jackie and Lee did/said... they don't seem healthy to me. JMO

[JustMyOpinion]

no... you missed the point again...... we, her friends, her family.. none of us can know what she would do.... we just can't... I can think I know what my brother or my mother or my daughter would do.... but I can't really know can I?

I didn't miss your point, I agreed nobody can "know", I said I think we can only form an opinion. Re-read my post, ekg.

[accordn2me]

<snip>The hatred of Jackie is unprecedented.... I don't know who said that, but one of the TH's did... and it's the truth.... Dalmer,Bundy,Gacy, Hitler...OJ.... we don't even know their parents name...but b/c Scott was so very hated anyone or anything in the way of him being punished was going to be hated also...Did those other murders' mothers put themselves out in public like Mrs. Peterson did?

If your Dalmer is Jeffery Dahmer....however it's supposed to be spelled...:confused: I believe I saw his parents on a show and they were so very sad and just trying to understand what went wrong to turn JD into the monster that he was.

Mrs. Peterson said and did things that were so very ugly. ...one was just brought up...maybe by a NG.....about telling Scott to give Conner's things to a relative...it's obvious that Scott didn't want Laci and Conner's things....I don't think the Peterson's did either....but it's very obvious that Laci's momma wanted them and she should never be denied anything that was her daughter's. To do that is so mean-spirited.

[JustMyOpinion]

The only references to hatred I have seen are the accusations of the NGs leveled against the Gs in this case. Which I find interesting. It's so much easier to accuse someone of "hate" than to address their points, isn't it?

Yes, it is very easy to accuse, I agree.

[Heyes]

The hatred of Jackie is unprecedented.... I don't know who said that, but one of the TH's did... and it's the truth.... Dalmer,Bundy,Gacy, Hitler...OJ.... we don't even know their parents name...but b/c Scott was so very hated anyone or anything in the way of him being punished was going to be hated also...

No, Jackie isn't liked or respected because of her own actions. Including but not limited to hiring Geragos and standing behind all the absolute BS that geragos put out there. She is not respected or liked because of her attitude. It came through loud and clear that she is a vengeful woman that feels she is deserving of special treatment. Her words and actions are why we all feel such disgust towards her. Her greed was despicable, (the jewelry, cleaning out the house while scott was in jail). Remember the picture of her carrying out the ironing board? Not letting the Rochas in the house to retrieve some of Laci's family mementos or any of Laci's things. The way she treated Anne Bird, used her own daughter IMO to help scott. Not to mention opening up her own tip line and then not reporting tips to police. Then.... trying to bill the CS foundation for the phone line, that one just got my hide. I probably could go on and on just on her actions alone. Mr. Peterson fairs no better imo.
There is a reason that some parents of murderers are not hated. They are the honest ones and as much as they hate the thought of their son or daughter doing time for a crime they always encourage the truth and are kind to the victims family. Not the petersons, nope!
If they cared about being respected and liked they should have played their cards a bit better. But it's who they are. One lesson jackie has never learned IMO is that you have to earn respect.

[ekg]

The OP was me. I'm a "he". Normally I wouldn't bother to correct you, because most of the time the poster's internal plumbing is irrelevant to the position they take. But in this case it makes a difference, and I'll explain why. But to your point, I was talking about people I have met in the 3D world, not on message boards. Face to face I can see if someone will look me in the eye when they say something. I've seen plenty of Scott supporters say they would ignore his cheating and stay with him in their posts, I have not met a woman in my real life who said anything close to that.

I apologize for calling you a she...99.9% of the time I say he/she...otter was an example of that... but this time I assumed wrong. :tongue:

and hhhhhhhooooooooooooooo boy are you going to get the mother of all posts(so far) from me right now......so please, bear with me:tongue:



You may consider it asinine. We can go down that road. I'd have fun there.

But what are we talking about here?

(Donning asbestos underwear, I begin to discuss women to a predominantly female audience.)

I've said this before, but not here so I'll repeat myself. I have found (not from things I've done but from things I've been around) that most women will forgive an act of infidelity. What they will not forgive is the creation of another relationship - they consider the latter much more of an offense against the marriage than the former.

ITA agree with you.... I have hinted in other posts about the relationship boundaries I set when I got married..... in a nut shell they were

~I'm willing to overlook an accidental stupid mistake but don't lie, that makes it worse.. tell me..
~Sex is sex... one-nighters are only physical... if you do it, do it once and only once... doing it with the same person twice is a relationship..and I will not tolerate that..

But as I have said.... hubby thinks like you... and doesn't believe in cheating.. semi-open marriages? well, that's another story and I don't know you well enough to share that just yet....:tongue:

Now of course you don't know me from Adam. I could be FOS and lying to you about everything.... All I can say is that I live my life in a very open way. I do not waste efforts lying to make myself look good or bad. I'm happy with my life and don't feel the need to make anything up. I'm open and honest in all aspects of my life.. if you want to know,as along as it not endangering anyone I'll tell you..

B/c of my experiences,personalities, and beliefs.... sex is only sex to me.. want to have an open-relationship if the occasion presents itself and all participants are in agreement? Sure, why not... we only get one life to live and love... Why waste an opportunity for an experience?

on the flip side I am a contributing member of society.. besides one or 2 juvenile screw up I've walked the line of the law in the eyes of the courts and in the eyes of my God. I have 2 well-rounded,well-liked,good in school students. I am known by most of the teachers in each of my childrens schools. I am a OCD-type hard worker that cannot stand to see ppl sitting around farting off when stuff needs to get done... I talk too much, type way too much, smoke too much and can't get enough of heavy metal/death metal/80's hoorer-band metal..... I've lived my life the way I want to... what ppl think I will do, have done or am capable of doing has never been right yet. and b/c of that, I cannot expect to know what anyone else would or wouldn't do, even if their family and friends think they would..

a great example is my own mother... She remodeled her house to a old-western-cottage like theme... I'm a lover of antique pre-civil war stuff.. I could live in the old-timey Cracker Barrell gift store.(it would be cheaper on me if I did anyway-lol)... so when talking to my own mother about the new 'old' look to her condo and how much I loved that look.. she just stared and said "you never cease to amaze me... you were always 'punk' as a kid but you still love this kind of stuff..it doesn't fit with the image I will always have of you"

if my mom can get it wrong...... anyone's can..


Now, let's look at Scott and his nonsense. He tells us that he has a romantic relationship with Amber, he has told Laci about it, and while she is less than happy she accepts it. At the time he tells us this his wife is missing and he is CONTINUING THE RELATIONSHIP by contacting Amber and wanting to get together with her. It matters not one bit that there's no "hide the salami" going on - he is clearly emotionally invested in her. When we men don't want a relationship we just don't call. I'm surprised the buttons on Scott's phone weren't completely worn off. Looking at it as a man I see Scott was deeply taken with Amber.

And we are to believe Laci knows about this and would be OK with it - even if she was alive somewhere and Scott was pursuing Amber instead of looking for her and Conner. Because otherwise why would Scott - if he loved Laci - continue his pursuit of Amber unless Laci knew and had no problem with it? Sorry, no. Sell crazy somewhere else.

snipped b/c I talk too much..

No, Scott was after something else - a life that did not so closely resemble his own.

there is a list of women that someone posted that I assume are other woman Scott cheated with...if they are then Amber is even less of a factor... his MO might just be to make the women think he was a high-roller looking for love...

sure he doesn't have to portray himself that way to get women... but just b/c he did doesn't mean much of anything IMO...

I think it was obivous that he was leaving Amber.. he told her he wouldn't be around for the biggest holiday of the year and that he would get back to her within a cpl months... I don't know but as a guy, doesn't that sound an awful lot like a guy trying to dump his fling easily?

Alot has been made about him calling her... at one time there was a copy of Amber's cell record and I believe she called him 12 times on 12/24-12/25.... I believe even her uncle called Scott and left a jokingly threatening message that a real man would return the calls...If he believed Laci would be found wouldn't he rather keep Amber on a short-leash? Or even better would he want to know if she had seen the news and was going to go to cops? You'd agree that it would have been better to here it from her instead of him? Maybe he wanted to keep in touch in those early days to see if he his relationship with her was about to go public? and after 12 'call me back' messages, he may have figured she knew Laci was missing and he needed to find that out....

sure once it was apparent Laci wasn't coming home quickly he should have gone straight to LE and spilled... but even then he was in tight spot b/c he wasn't forth coming to begin with...

LOTS of men, I would guess.. have lied to LE when something happens to their wife while they are cheating...

yes, keeping up with the calls and the relationship are bothersome to me..I've already said that in the switching sides thread... but I do believe that Amber is as much as fault for them as he was.... if she didn't constantly call him and sweet-love talk him I can't say with certainty he would have done it on his own...BUt at some point he needed the normalcy she provided.. I don't like it, I don't recommend it, but I don't convict on it either...

So, could Scott have been telling the truth about what Laci said about Amber? sure... I can believe it b/c I don't know their life..

[Heyes]

So, could Scott have been telling the truth about what Laci said about Amber? sure... I can believe it b/c I don't know their life..


But.... Laci's friends did know their life. They were there. They knew Laci, they knew scott.
They knew Laci would NOT be "fine with it".
I believe her close friends.

Scott had reasons to lie.
Her friends did not!.

[ekg]

Post and run. Enjoy your evening.

awwww otter, I willl give you my days and some evenings... but most of those are reserved for my kids..

We all have to log off some time right? I just find it better to tell when I am so those replying to my posts don't get the wrong ideas..or wait around for a reply... I can stop doing the whole 'post and run' and telling you if you'd rather..but to me it seems more respectful to tell you I'm leaving...

and yes, my evening was good... I screamed at ER, cried at Grey's, sat with my mouth open for CSI and laughed til I pee'd at Jon Stewart.... it was a good night, I thank the computer God for DVR...:tongue:

[ekg]

How about this theory: It's a self-protection mechanism.

There are women who blame the female victims for being raped for the same reason - it makes them feel safe. By ascribing qualities to the victim that they themselves do not posses, they convince themselves that they will never be raped because they "don't dress that way" or "don't stay out late like that", etc.

With infidelity, it's safer to take the position that all men do it because it means that the woman cheated on did nothing wrong and could not have stopped it:

--If they think that THEIR man cheated because he found another woman attractive, that means she's not attractive enough. But if ALL men cheat and it means nothing, it has nothing to do with her!

--If they think that THEIR man cheated because he is a real jerk, that means she's got poor judgment in men. But if ALL men cheat and it means nothing, it has nothing to do with her!

So, if there's nothing wrong with THEM and nothing wrong with THEIR MAN, the logical conclusion is that THE REST OF THE WORLD IS WRONG to say they shouldn't have to take that crap. Hence, they defend the cheating men of the world and lash out at those that say "You deserve better". Do you have any idea how surreal it is to tell someone they deserve better and have them argue with you? I do.

As a son to my mother, brother to my sister, father to my daughter and uncle to my nieces I make it clear that women do NOT have to take such crap. And I give a complimentary message to the men in my life.

Love is a course of action, not words on some "I'm Sorry" Hallmark card. No matter what Scott SAID, his ACTIONS showed he didn't love Laci, which in my eyes makes it believable that he killed her.


there are also strong willed women who think sex is sex and as long as it's not flaunted to them or is in accordance with some pre-determined rule it IS ok...

the beauty here is we are both right...... the danger is when we want to make everyone live by our opinions/standards instead of their own...

[ekg]

Nobody is "game", IMO. These are human beings.


so will you be joining me in asking that Jackie and Lee stay off limits?

[JustMyOpinion]

so will you be joining me in asking that Jackie and Lee stay off limits?

Discussing the conduct or words of Jackie and Lee doesn't need to be off-limits, IMO.

[Heyes]

Great post Heyes!!! Of course, there's also the infamous "We want those" and "THAT BABY", and please..........let's not forget her telling Sharon she couldn't go in the house because "it's Scott's house NOW", and then trying to sue her for mortgage payments, really.........:mad:

To think that woman had the gall to try to sue for anything. Greedy just doesn't sum it up enough!.

I too remember Anne Bird mentioning in her book about going down to the petersons to get some of their things and noticed what looked like "dinner interrupted". I'd say the petersons were on their way that night. Another lie? or just a terrible housekeeper? You choose. lol
Oh and don't forget the family dinner the night after Laci was missing. Good heavens you would think one of the petersons would think that a sit down dinner including inviting the neighbor is in poor taste to say the least. To me it showed that scotts parents also knew there was no need to look for Laci. Might as well have a big holiday dinner. sick sick sick.
How could you sit still let alone eat a big dinner with your daughter in law, not to mention your unborn grandbaby missing? Creepy!

[ekg]

Stephanie & Dawn are former highschool girlfriends of Scott Peterson who spoke with police. "Michelle" appears to be the name Lauren Putnat used when speaking with Crier. See "A Deadly Game" by Catherine Crier.
pages 53-56
Lauren Putnat also spoke with Keith Ablow "Inside the Mind of Scott Peterson", pages 105-114.




I do not have CC's book.... so I have to ask you... what do they have to do with anything? Did he have affairs with them or something?

[Heyes]

so will you be joining me in asking that Jackie and Lee stay off limits?


Why would they be off limits? They played such a huge role in this nightmare.

[Otter]

Great post Heyes!!! Of course, there's also the infamous "We want those" and "THAT BABY", and please..........let's not forget her telling Sharon she couldn't go in the house because "it's Scott's house NOW", and then trying to sue her for mortgage payments, really.........:mad:

so will you be joining me in asking that Jackie and Lee stay off limits?

Easier said than done. They put themselves out there and opened their family up to trying to get some insight into what made SP a murderer. They didn't have to do that even when there was a gag order trying to stop them. In trying to help their son, IMO they did a lot of damage.

No one has tried to implicate them in the murders, which can't be said for some of SP's supporters about Laci's family.

[JustMyOpinion]

I do not have CC's book.... so I have to ask you... what do they have to do with anything? Did he have affairs with them or something?

If you are interested in trying to understand more about who Scott Peterson is, the information provided by women he was formerly involved with gives some insight into his personality, patterns, behavior, IMO.

[ekg]

?? I feel no hatred for Jackie Peterson, ( or Scott Peterson) What Scott DID was very evil, but I feel satisfied that justice was served and hope he will never, ever be set free, I think he's a dangerous man. I disagree with some of what Jackie and Lee did/said... they don't seem healthy to me. JMO


doing everything they deem necessary to protect the child that they thought was being framed or railroaded for murder isn't healthy?

I disagree... I think you are should to do whatever you can to protect your child when you think a wrong is being committed against them...

[JustMyOpinion]

doing everything they deem necessary to protect the child that they thought was being framed or railroaded for murder isn't healthy?

I disagree... I think you are should to do whatever you can to protect your child when you think a wrong is being committed against them...

Scott was an independent adult man, he was not a child. If Scott chose to speak or offer explanations for himself, that was his decision to make, if he decided to remain silent it was also his decision to make. I personally would not disrespect my adult children by speaking for them or offering my own explanations or excuses for their conduct.
Scott had a criminal defense attorney from Dec 26 forward.( and at least one private investigator) He didn't require his parents' protection, IMO.

[ekg]

I didn't miss your point, I agreed nobody can "know", I said I think we can only form an opinion. Re-read my post, ekg.

I did.... you said "I can only form an opinion based on what those who actually knew her have said."

I contend those who knew her can't be relied on b/c they did not live in the bedroom with Laci and Scott to know with certainty...

the opinions are just that.... opinions.... assumptions... hypothesis.... speculation...not certainties b/c they are not Laci or Scott..

[ekg]

The only references to hatred I have seen are the accusations of the NGs leveled against the Gs in this case. Which I find interesting. It's so much easier to accuse someone of "hate" than to address their points, isn't it?


do you call what you have seen in reference to Jackie love? Compassion? Understanding? Forgiving?

would you rather I use a less 'non-zen-friendly' word like animosity,contempt,venomous,abhorrence?

and please PLEASE tell me that you're not saying I don't address ones point?

[ekg]

No, Jackie isn't liked or respected because of her own actions. Including but not limited to hiring Geragos and standing behind all the absolute BS that geragos put out there. She is not respected or liked because of her attitude. It came through loud and clear that she is a vengeful woman that feels she is deserving of special treatment. Her words and actions are why we all feel such disgust towards her. Her greed was despicable, (the jewelry, cleaning out the house while scott was in jail). Remember the picture of her carrying out the ironing board? Not letting the Rochas in the house to retrieve some of Laci's family mementos or any of Laci's things. The way she treated Anne Bird, used her own daughter IMO to help scott. Not to mention opening up her own tip line and then not reporting tips to police. Then.... trying to bill the CS foundation for the phone line, that one just got my hide. I probably could go on and on just on her actions alone. Mr. Peterson fairs no better imo.
There is a reason that some parents of murderers are not hated. They are the honest ones and as much as they hate the thought of their son or daughter doing time for a crime they always encourage the truth and are kind to the victims family. Not the petersons, nope!
If they cared about being respected and liked they should have played their cards a bit better. But it's who they are. One lesson jackie has never learned IMO is that you have to earn respect.

so, um.... she is or isn't hated?

either way, I guess posts like yours show where I got the idea to begin with, which certainly wasn't from my need to accuse someone instead of addressing the facts....
:shrug:

[JustMyOpinion]

I did.... you said "I can only form an opinion based on what those who actually knew her have said."

I contend those who knew her can't be relied on b/c they did not live in the bedroom with Laci and Scott to know with certainty...

the opinions are just that.... opinions.... assumptions... hypothesis.... speculation...not certainties b/c they are not Laci or Scott..

Yes, that is what I use as a basis for my own opinion about what Laci would have felt ( from what those who knew her have said, that Laci wouldn't be fine with it, or at peace with it, or okay with it). What does living in the bedroom have to do with friends or family members believing they knew Laci well enough to opine that she wouldn't feel fine with Scott having an affair with Amber Frey?
I do know my own daughter well enough to say with absolute conviction that she would not feel fine with it if her husband began an affair when she was 8 months pregnant.
In my own life I've known not one pregnant women who has expressed to me that she feels fine about her husband/partner beginning a relationship with another woman while she is 8 months pregnant ( and I have interacted with MANY pregnant women & their partners over a long period of time).
My opinion is only that, it appears you disagree.

[JustMyOpinion]

so, um.... she is or isn't hated?



Do you understand the difference between disliking/hating someone's actions and feeling personal hatred for them?

[ekg]

But.... Laci's friends did know their life. They were there. They knew Laci, they knew scott.
They knew Laci would NOT be "fine with it".
I believe her close friends.

Scott had reasons to lie.
Her friends did not!.


Where did I say her friends lied?

unless they live 24/7 in Laci and Scotts bedroom or in Laci and Scotts bodies. they cannot know with 100% certainty that Laci or Scott would do anything..... b/c not one of those ppl that claim to know them as well as you are saying they knew them, knew he was capable of killing her and his child...

their certainties of what Scott would do was wrong (iyo).... so it stands to reason they could get what Laci would do wrong also...

[ekg]

Discussing the conduct or words of Jackie and Lee doesn't need to be off-limits, IMO.


only Jackie and Lee? Or can we 'discuss' the other side of the family too?

[JustMyOpinion]

Where did I say her friends lied?

unless they live 24/7 in Laci and Scotts bedroom or in Laci and Scotts bodies. they cannot know with 100% certainty that Laci or Scott would do anything..... [...

The family members/friends didn't express an opinion about what Laci would do, they opined she would not be fine with it.( as Scott claimed she was)

[ekg]

Easier said than done. They put themselves out there and opened their family up to trying to get some insight into what made SP a murderer. They didn't have to do that even when there was a gag order trying to stop them. In trying to help their son, IMO they did a lot of damage.

No one has tried to implicate them in the murders, which can't be said for some of SP's supporters about Laci's family.


noone has tried to implicate them in the murders.... just covering them up..

look... it would be easier if someone just said "we don't like them and want to talk about them anyway we like.... But Sharon and Ron are off limits b/c and must at all times be respect b/c we do like them and only want to say/read good things about them"

atleast it's honest and upfront..... BS, but honest and upfront....lol

[JustMyOpinion]

[QUOTE=ekg;8858676]there are also strong willed women who think sex is sex and as long as it's not flaunted to them or is in accordance with some pre-determined rule it IS ok...

QUOTE]

I don't see Scott's relationship with Amber as purely sexual. Amber brought her daughter to one date, they took her to the park. Another time he picked up her daughter from daycare, warmed up food, fed her. He continued calling Amber for two months after their last face-to-face date.. he had to be asked to stop calling. I have no idea what being strong-willed has to do with a willingness to tolerate infidelity. ( which is a betrayal, a violation, usually a deception..IMO)

[ekg]

If you are interested in trying to understand more about who Scott Peterson is, the information provided by women he was formerly involved with gives some insight into his personality, patterns, behavior, IMO.

so you'll ask if we remember them, use them to support your argument, but when asked who they are and what they mean you'll basically tell me to go find out for myself?

well, ok then...

nice talking to you JMO...:seeya:

[JustMyOpinion]

so you'll ask if we remember them, use them to support your argument, but when asked who they are and what they mean you'll basically tell me to go find out for myself?

well, ok then...

nice talking to you JMO...:seeya:

ekg, I responded with my own opinion that reading what they had to say informed my own opinion about Scott's personality, patterns, behavior. I believe if you are interested in learning more about Scott's history, you will read the books authored by Crier and/or Ablow, and form your own opinion about the matter, and discuss it if you like. Meanwhile, if you don't like reading my posts, I am guessing you know how to utilize the filter option.

[Miss Bootsie]

I don't see Scott's relationship with Amber as purely sexual. Amber brought her daughter to one date, they took her to the park. Another time he picked up her daughter from daycare, warmed up food, fed her. He continued calling Amber for two months after their last face-to-face date.. he had to be asked to stop calling.


I'm glad someone finally brought this up.

Scott's relationship with Amber was quite different than a mere sexual fling.
Men seeking a one night stand can go to a bar and pick up a woman if sex is all they are looking for.
After sex, they put on their pants, get outta there, and go home.:chicken:

Scott took Amber out in public as if he was a carefree bachelor.
He took her to a Christmas party, met and mingled with her friends.
Nope, Scott's interest in Amber was not all about sex.

IMO

[Otter]

only Jackie and Lee? Or can we 'discuss' the other side of the family too?

We haven't discussed the good works Sharon has done since the murders. Its a good reminder how good can come from tragedy.

The Laci and Conner Law

"As the family of Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Conner, this bill is very close to our hearts," the Rochas, Laci Peterson's family, wrote in a letter to the bill's Republican co-sponsors, Rep. Melissa Hart, R-Pennsylvania, and Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio.

"During these past two weeks we have considered various ways we could pay tribute to Laci and Conner. When we heard about this bill, we immediately thought of placing a request to have it named Laci and Conner's law in their memory. Knowing that perpetrators who murder pregnant women will pay the price not only for the loss of the mother, but the baby as well, will help bring justice for these victims and hopefully act as a deterrent to those considering heinous acts," the letter concludes.

It is signed by Sharon Rocha, Laci's mother, Ron Grantski, Laci's stepfather, her brother Brent Rocha, sister Amy Rocha and father Dennis Rocha.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/07/laci.bill/

The Laci and Conner Search and Rescue Fund

http://www.lacipeterson.com/donations.html

And I'd like to thank Sharon for her book, it was beautifully written and I felt I know Laci as a person and not a victim. Sharon has earned my admiration and wish her happiness. She's had enough grief.

[Otter]

noone has tried to implicate them in the murders.... just covering them up..

look... it would be easier if someone just said "we don't like them and want to talk about them anyway we like.... But Sharon and Ron are off limits b/c and must at all times be respect b/c we do like them and only want to say/read good things about them"

atleast it's honest and upfront..... BS, but honest and upfront....lol

How you got that out of my post is beyond me. After SP was arrested, we didn't hear much from Laci's family, but we sure heard from SP's family. IMO, they're interviews didn't do SP any good say the least. The interviews were surreal. Their behavior IMO went beyond defending their son and showed me a rage directed at the real victims.

If you want to bring up Sharon "breaking into" the house, feel free. It'd be an interesting discussion.

[Heyes]

so, um.... she is or isn't hated?

either way, I guess posts like yours show where I got the idea to begin with, which certainly wasn't from my need to accuse someone instead of addressing the facts....
:shrug:

Originally you said you thought that the hatred towards scott peterson seemed to spill over onto those that supported him. Or something close to that. My response was basicaly stating that I thought that the anger/disgust (hate is too strong a word), towards jackie was because of HER words and actions. Nothing to do with my feelings towards scott. Like otter said. In their defense of their son they ended up doing more damage. I guess I don't understand what you want. sorry. I thought it was established she is widely disliked. I don't know anyone that Hates her. I just see her for what she is and it's just my opinion.

[Heyes]

noone has tried to implicate them in the murders.... just covering them up..

look... it would be easier if someone just said "we don't like them and want to talk about them anyway we like.... But Sharon and Ron are off limits b/c and must at all times be respect b/c we do like them and only want to say/read good things about them"

atleast it's honest and upfront..... BS, but honest and upfront....lol

I've watched Sharon and Ron for years handle something no parent should ever have to handle. They have been nothing but decent, lovely people. With alot of class. Never have I seen them act in anyway that the petersons acted. Jackie brought the attention to jackie. And we're gonna talk about it. what can I say. Also when Laci's family did do something it was in reaction to something the petersons did or said. Like locking them out of Laci and scotts home, while letting the defense team stay there and swim in the freakin pool. The petersons have only themselves to blame.

[frydaddy]

I'm glad someone finally brought this up.

Scott's relationship with Amber was quite different than a mere sexual fling.
Men seeking a one night stand can go to a bar and pick up a woman if sex is all they are looking for.
After sex, they put on their pants, get outta there, and go home.:chicken:

Scott took Amber out in public as if he was a carefree bachelor.
He took her to a Christmas party, met and mingled with her friends.
Nope, Scott's interest in Amber was not all about sex.

IMO

Yep, you got it Miss Bootsie! (I pray I never accidentally omit the s in the second part of your nic. I had to proof it thrice to make sure! :o )

If Scott wanted just sex, he could have gone to see a "me love you long time" type and went about his business. Probably would've saved a few bucks too! No question this was Scott pursuing something more fulfilling than impending fatherhood and placing someone else before himself. Ironic is pretending to want to do just those things with Amber. He talked the talk with Laci and Amber, but instead of walking the walk with Laci, he cut and ran. And he had a map, possibly to do the same with Amber. And that is even more sinister, when you think about the potential motive or lack thereof in Amber's case. (Of course, the map doesn't prove he was going to do anything bad. I am sure there are plenty of men who have maps to ex-girlfriends houses in their floorboard!)

[Heyes]

And he had a map, possibly to do the same with Amber. And that is even more sinister, when you think about the potential motive or lack thereof in Amber's case. (Of course, the map doesn't prove he was going to do anything bad. I am sure there are plenty of men who have maps to ex-girlfriends houses in their floorboard!)


(((((Shudder)))))))) :chicken:

[JustMyOpinion]

Yep, you got it Miss Bootsie! (I pray I never accidentally omit the s in the second part of your nic. I had to proof it thrice to make sure! :o )

If Scott wanted just sex, he could have gone to see a "me love you long time" type and went about his business. Probably would've saved a few bucks too! No question this was Scott pursuing something more fulfilling than impending fatherhood and placing someone else before himself. Ironic is pretending to want to do just those things with Amber. He talked the talk with Laci and Amber, but instead of walking the walk with Laci, he cut and ran. And he had a map, possibly to do the same with Amber. And that is even more sinister, when you think about the potential motive or lack thereof in Amber's case. (Of course, the map doesn't prove he was going to do anything bad. I am sure there are plenty of men who have maps to ex-girlfriends houses in their floorboard!)

I think it is quite chilling and sinister that he downloaded the map to Amber's workplace on the day he was arrested, and it's good police work that they traced him to Anne's parent's home and successfully stayed on his tail when he began driving ( despite his reported evasive driving manuevers) Had Scott not been located by police, had he driven to Amber's workplace and been able to talk her into coming outside alone, Amber may have disappeared, IMO.

[frydaddy]

only Jackie and Lee? Or can we 'discuss' the other side of the family too?

Why is there a need to discuss the other side, for you. I have a hard time believing you want to do so because it is pertinent to the case or trial. Does it help to "get even"? :confused:

[Hey Paula]

Yep, you got it Miss Bootsie! (I pray I never accidentally omit the s in the second part of your nic. I had to proof it thrice to make sure! :o )

If Scott wanted just sex, he could have gone to see a "me love you long time" type and went about his business. Probably would've saved a few bucks too! No question this was Scott pursuing something more fulfilling than impending fatherhood and placing someone else before himself. Ironic is pretending to want to do just those things with Amber. He talked the talk with Laci and Amber, but instead of walking the walk with Laci, he cut and ran. And he had a map, possibly to do the same with Amber. And that is even more sinister, when you think about the potential motive or lack thereof in Amber's case. (Of course, the map doesn't prove he was going to do anything bad. I am sure there are plenty of men who have maps to ex-girlfriends houses in their floorboard!)

Scott wanted so desperately to get Amber to meet him at Anne Bird's family's lakehouse. He begged her, claiming he had to look into her eyes. In the meantime, he borrowed the neighbor's shovel and never returned it. (just in case Amber decided to meet him) I wonder if AB's parents owned a boat? :eek:

[JustMyOpinion]

We haven't discussed the good works Sharon has done since the murders. Its a good reminder how good can come from tragedy.

The Laci and Conner Law

"As the family of Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Conner, this bill is very close to our hearts," the Rochas, Laci Peterson's family, wrote in a letter to the bill's Republican co-sponsors, Rep. Melissa Hart, R-Pennsylvania, and Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio.

"During these past two weeks we have considered various ways we could pay tribute to Laci and Conner. When we heard about this bill, we immediately thought of placing a request to have it named Laci and Conner's law in their memory. Knowing that perpetrators who murder pregnant women will pay the price not only for the loss of the mother, but the baby as well, will help bring justice for these victims and hopefully act as a deterrent to those considering heinous acts," the letter concludes.

It is signed by Sharon Rocha, Laci's mother, Ron Grantski, Laci's stepfather, her brother Brent Rocha, sister Amy Rocha and father Dennis Rocha.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/07/laci.bill/

The Laci and Conner Search and Rescue Fund

http://www.lacipeterson.com/donations.html

And I'd like to thank Sharon for her book, it was beautifully written and I felt I know Laci as a person and not a victim. Sharon has earned my admiration and wish her happiness. She's had enough grief.

Thanks for posting this, Otter. Sharon has my respect, my regard..her behavior was exemplary under a set of circumstances that are too difficult for me to properly imagine, IMO. I learned from what she did & said, and I also feel grateful for the book she authored. It was wonderful to get to know "Laci", how she was in her life, I wish Sharon ( & Dennis, Brent, Ron, Amy ) happiness as well.

[frydaddy]

Dang FD!!! I had to quickly scroll back - I thought I wrote this and forgot I did, you sooooooooooo read my mind, LOL!

LMAO! I'm not sure which of us would be more uncomfortable if I truly had that ability. Be a barrel of fun at a party though, eh? I'm no Dionne Warwick, I think this is just a case of like minds coming together! ;)

[Miss Bootsie]

[QUOTE=frydaddy;8858737]Yep, you got it Miss Bootsie! (I pray I never accidentally omit the s in the second part of your nic. I had to proof it thrice to make sure! :o )

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c384/3232mypic/s_giggle.gif No problem if you do accidentally omit the s. I've been called much worse, I'm sure.

If Scott wanted just sex, he could have gone to see a "me love you long time" type and went about his business. Probably would've saved a few bucks too! No question this was Scott pursuing something more fulfilling than impending fatherhood and placing someone else before himself. Ironic is pretending to want to do just those things with Amber. He talked the talk with Laci and Amber, but instead of walking the walk with Laci, he cut and ran. And he had a map, possibly to do the same with Amber. And that is even more sinister, when you think about the potential motive or lack thereof in Amber's case. (Of course, the map doesn't prove he was going to do anything bad. I am sure there are plenty of men who have maps to ex-girlfriends houses in their floorboard!)

Was that a map to Amber's house or her place of employment? Can't remember?

[JustMyOpinion]

noone has tried to implicate them in the murders.... just covering them up..

look... it would be easier if someone just said "we don't like them and want to talk about them anyway we like.... But Sharon and Ron are off limits b/c and must at all times be respect b/c we do like them and only want to say/read good things about them"

atleast it's honest and upfront..... BS, but honest and upfront....lol

I don't know Jackie, Lee, Sharon or Ron, so I don't personally "like" or "dislike" these individuals. I only have what they said in press/media, how they behaved as reported by press/media, their testimonies, their writings and information from books written about the case to utilize in forming an opinion about any of them. I don't like some of the actions & words of Jackie and Lee Peterson, they seemed very mean-spirited at times, IMO and I do understand that they were operating under challenging circumstances. I have high regard for Sharon, her conduct has been exemplary IMO,she was also operating under challenging circumstances, & I learned from her. To take something so tragic and personally painful and turn it into action which benefits others is extraordinary, and it is certainly not expected or owed..IMO. I have no desire to limit discussion here, nor do I think "we must" feel the same way. However, no victimized party deserves to be written about with venom and callous disregard for their humanity & suffering ( I've seen this in the past on other boards) If that is what you have in mind, I have no tolerance for it, no interest in reading it. JMO

[frydaddy]

[QUOTE]

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c384/3232mypic/s_giggle.gif No problem if you do accidentally omit the s. I've been called much worse, I'm sure.


Was that a map to Amber's house or her place of employment? Can't remember?

LOL - I just wanted you to know I would never intentionally call you Miss Bootie!

Her place of business, I believe. Yes...confirmed in JMO's post!

[accordn2me]

[QUOTE=Miss Bootsie;8858803]

LOL - I just wanted you to know I would never intentionally call you Miss Bootie!

snip!:lol: :lol: I think it's rather endearing. :chicken:

[Otter]

I don't know Jackie, Lee, Sharon or Ron, so I don't personally "like" or "dislike" these individuals. I only have what they said in press/media, how they behaved as reported by press/media, their testimonies, their writings and information from books written about the case to utilize in forming an opinion about any of them. I don't like some of the actions & words of Jackie and Lee Peterson, they seemed very mean-spirited at times, IMO and I do understand that they were operating under challenging circumstances. I have high regard for Sharon, her conduct has been exemplary IMO,she was also operating under challenging circumstances, & I learned from her. To take something so tragic and personally painful and turn it into action which benefits others is extraordinary, and it is certainly not expected or owed..IMO. I have no desire to limit discussion here, nor do I think "we must" feel the same way. However, no victimized party deserves to be written about with venom and callous disregard for their humanity & suffering ( I've seen this in the past on other boards) If that is what you have in mind, I have no tolerance for it, no interest in reading it. JMO

JMO, you said this so much better than I struggled with. Thank you. It couldn't have been put better than this.

No smilies in agreement, just respect for Laci's family. Quiet dignity in the worst of circumstances.

Excellent post. ITA, oh yeah, MOO. :rolleyes: <-- directed at MOO.

[frydaddy]

I think it's rather endearing.

Well...upon further review, I suppose it could be. But shouldn't there be a feeling out period first...since we are mostly strangers? :cool:

:biggrin: <---Me on a Friday nite...probably should call it a day! LOL

[accordn2me]

Well...upon further review, I suppose it could be. But shouldn't there be a feeling out period first...since we are mostly strangers? :cool:

:biggrin: <---Me on a Friday nite...probably should call it a day! LOL

Life is short....live everyday like ya mean it!

Everyday is Friday here in Hawaii! :beer:

[frydaddy]

Life is short....live everyday like ya mean it!

Everyday is Friday here in Hawaii! :beer:

Glad I didn't read this before hitting the bricks, I'd have gone to bed green w/envy. I wanna live in Hawaii!!! :(

Hope you have a wonderful weekend! :beer:

[JustMyOpinion]

JMO, you said this so much better than I struggled with. Thank you. It couldn't have been put better than this.

No smilies in agreement, just respect for Laci's family. Quiet dignity in the worst of circumstances.

Excellent post. ITA, oh yeah, MOO. :rolleyes: <-- directed at MOO.

Hi Otter,
I agree with some of the premise Ablow puts forward in his book ( "The more you look for truth, the further back you search for it, the more you realize there is no original evil left in the world. Everyone is just recycling pain", & "There are no monsters that spring fully grown onto the planet. There are only vulnerable children, destroyed by those who have been destroyed themselves, made hungry for the blood of others") I also agree with him that if the cycle is to be broken it does require more empathy from us, not less. There is something to be learned from this tragedy, IMO. I don't think Scott Peterson can be "saved", I doubt very much the light of life burns within him, or that he will ever experience the right moment in prison, and his parents will not become agents who support the truth. Scott and his parents "deny, deny, deny", therefore they can feel no sadness, experience no empathy for Laci and her family, IMO.. they cannot truly grieve for themselves, either, IMO. Trying to understand what likely led to their compromised humanity doesn't in any way negate their responsibility for their own actions, but it can teach us something about prevention, IMO.
The victims had no opportunity to prevent this crime..they had no way of knowing Scott harbored murderous intent toward the woman he had vowed to love & cherish and toward the baby her body was nurturing. They had no way to know that it was remotely possible that this expectant father could attend a prenatal visit where he recorded the strong & healthy heart-rate of the baby Laci nurtured within, and would be even more motivated to go home and enact his plan to kill her, IMO.
Since homicide by intimate partner is the leading cause of death in this country, and awareness of this fact has been raised, there ARE measures that can be undertaken to better ensure the safety & wellbeing of vulnerable women and children...society as a whole doesn't have to "deny, deny, deny"...IMO.
"Laci & Conner's Law" is a step in the right direction, IMO.

[Otter]

Since homicide by intimate partner is the leading cause of death in this country, and awareness of this fact has been raised, there ARE measures that can be undertaken to better ensure the safety & wellbeing of vulnerable women and children...society as a whole doesn't have to "deny, deny, deny"...IMO.
"Laci & Conner's Law" is a step in the right direction, IMO.

Good morning JMO! It too believe Laci and Conner's Law is long overdue. I found this googling about it:

http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/Zachariah.jpg

One Victim, or Two?

This is a photo of Tracy Marciniak Seavers, holding the body of her son Zachariah. The photo was taken at Zachariah's funeral. Tracy was seriously injured, and Zachariah was killed, by an assault during the ninth month of the pregnancy. Do you think this photograph shows one victim, or two?

http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/MarciniakTestimony.htm

Tracy was almost beaten to death by her husband, he succeeded in murdering Zachariah, however due to the law at the time in Wisconsin he was not convicted of the murder.

This is O/T, but maybe not ... Laci and Conner were the catalyst for this law.

[deputydi]

<snip>The hatred of Jackie is unprecedented.... I don't know who said that, but one of the TH's did... and it's the truth.... Dalmer,Bundy,Gacy, Hitler...OJ.... we don't even know their parents name...but b/c Scott was so very hated anyone or anything in the way of him being punished was going to be hated also...
I do not "hate" the Petersons. The reason the parents you refer to are anonymous is because they kept quiet. The Petersons were anything but quiet.

I try to stay away from discussions of the families, but I really would like to see you have some understanding of why public opinion turned on the Petersons. It's not because they defended their child who they believed in their heart and soul was innocent. It was the disrespect they showed for the Rocha/Grantski family. Denying Sharon access to some of Laci's personal items was the absolute worst PR move they could have made. Laci's wedding dress ~ why on earth would they withhold that? A rocking chair, a watering can, her jewelry ~ these are items that held NO sentimental value for the Petersons and they obviously did for Sharon. Although the reasons Jackie gave for not wanting them in the home makes no sense, maybe it did in her mind. What harm would there have been for Jackie to box some of these items and have them delivered to Sharon? Maybe if she had shown some compassion for Laci's family, she wouldn't have ended up the second "most hated mother in America" (I still think Susan Smith takes first place).

Laci's family was and is still (IMO) the personification of dignity. The families were understandably divided when the families ended up on opposite sides of the fence. It is human nature for the relationship to be broken at this point but what the Petersons did made them appear to be cold, heartless and vindictive people.

[Beebee]

I'm glad someone finally brought this up.

Scott's relationship with Amber was quite different than a mere sexual fling.
Men seeking a one night stand can go to a bar and pick up a woman if sex is all they are looking for.
After sex, they put on their pants, get outta there, and go home.:chicken:

Scott took Amber out in public as if he was a carefree bachelor.
He took her to a Christmas party, met and mingled with her friends.
Nope, Scott's interest in Amber was not all about sex.

IMO

LOL

More affair analysis I see...... WHO CARES how he treated her? If you think all married men do the slam bam one stand routine only, you are sadly mistaken! It's not JUST about sex, although I think sex is a big part.... so is the newness, the mystery, romance, fantasy... it's all involved in the thrill of an affair- that's why people do it.
Also- unless a man wants something along the lines of a hooker, some baiting is necessary, imo. All part of the game.

[deputydi]

LOL

More affair analysis I see...... WHO CARES how he treated her? If you think all married men do the slam bam one stand routine only, you are sadly mistaken! It's not JUST about sex, although I think sex is a big part.... so is the newness, the mystery, romance, fantasy... it's all involved in the thrill of an affair- that's why people do it.
Also- unless a man wants something along the lines of a hooker, some baiting is necessary, imo. All part of the game.
Even to the point of continuing to woo the girlfriend while his "beloved" wife is missing and probably dead?

If Amber chased him, as you seem to believe, why didn't he simply not answer OR RETURN her phone calls?

[Hey Paula]

Even to the point of continuing to woo the girlfriend while his "beloved" wife is missing and probably dead?

If Amber chased him, as you seem to believe, why didn't he simply not answer OR RETURN her phone calls?

Hi Dep!

Why didn't Scott simply change his cell phone number? That's what a guy who wanted to ditch a gal would do. At times, Scott called Amber several times a day, and listening to their telecons, Scott seems far from a disinterested party. Ultimately, it was Amber who cut the lines of communication, not Scott.

IMO

[Miss Bootsie]

LOL

More affair analysis I see...... WHO CARES how he treated her? If you think all married men do the slam bam one stand routine only, you are sadly mistaken! It's not JUST about sex, although I think sex is a big part.... so is the newness, the mystery, romance, fantasy... it's all involved in the thrill of an affair- that's why people do it.
Also- unless a man wants something along the lines of a hooker, some baiting is necessary, imo. All part of the game.

According to Scott, he had a lot of those,(as you call it) "slam bam one stand routines".;)
He told Shawn all about it. lol



You see Beebee, you would be amazed at the "bimbo/without brains" types that hang in bars waiting for a nice looking guy to look their way.

There is every indication, Scott was seeking a relationship.




SIBLEY: He was talking about, he said that he had dated, had a lot of one-night-stands, and he was sick of having one-night-stands. And he was sick of, seemed like all the women he met were just these bimbos with no brains. And he was really interested in finding someone who had intelligence, and didn't I have any single friends, I could hook him up with. That,

[deputydi]

Hi Dep!

Why didn't Scott simply change his cell phone number? That's what a guy who wanted to ditch a gal would do. At times, Scott called Amber several times a day, and listening to their telecons, Scott seems far from a disinterested party. Ultimately, it was Amber who cut the lines of communication, not Scott.

IMO
Hey, Hey Paula

I can understand him not changing his cell # after Laci went missing. How suspicious would that look to the investigators. But he could have kept the phone either turned off or just not answered it when she called. Or, better yet, come clean with Amber -- "You know, Amber, something serious is going on in my life right now. I do have a wife and she turned up missing last night. It might be a good idea if we don't talk for a while. I'm sorry I lied to you but I'll explain when everything settles down." Sure, she would have been mad -- maybe even mad enough to terminate her relationship with him once and for all. But, if his first concern was truly Laci and their unborn son, losing Amber wouldn't have been a priority at that point.

If he was afraid of her exposing the affair, why didn't he tell LE the truth about Amber from the beginning. Sure, it would have looked bad, but telling the truth about this would have been an entry in the plus column for Scott. A lie of this magnitude to LE that is later discovered can never be spun into being a sign of innocence. And, as he told the world, Laci knew about the affair and was okay with it. What did he have to lose?

[Hey Paula]

Hey, Hey Paula

I can understand him not changing his cell # after Laci went missing. How suspicious would that look to the investigators. But he could have kept the phone either turned off or just not answered it when she called. Or, better yet, come clean with Amber -- "You know, Amber, something serious is going on in my life right now. I do have a wife and she turned up missing last night. It might be a good idea if we don't talk for a while. I'm sorry I lied to you but I'll explain when everything settles down." Sure, she would have been mad -- maybe even mad enough to terminate her relationship with him once and for all. But, if his first concern was truly Laci and their unborn son, losing Amber wouldn't have been a priority at that point.

If he was afraid of her exposing the affair, why didn't he tell LE the truth about Amber from the beginning. Sure, it would have looked bad, but telling the truth about this would have been an entry in the plus column for Scott. A lie of this magnitude to LE that is later discovered can never be spun into being a sign of innocence. And, as he told the world, Laci knew about the affair and was okay with it. What did he have to lose?

I wonder why Scott had multiple cell phones?

I've always maintained that an innocent man might have suspected his lover discovered he was married, causing him to wonder if the lover might have been involved in his wife's disappearance, thereby informing LE of the affair. Instead, Scott denied it, even after LE produced the Christmas party photo of him and Amber.

ITA, the fact Scott kept denying the affair is proof, in and of itself, that he lied once again when he said Laci knew about it and was OK with it. Making that statement to Diane Sawyer and lying about LE having been told immediately about the affair, was more CE against Scott, displaying COG.

IMO

[deputydi]

I wonder why Scott had multiple cell phones?

I've always maintained that an innocent man might have suspected his lover discovered he was married, causing him to wonder if the lover might have been involved in his wife's disappearance, thereby informing LE of the affair. Instead, Scott denied it, even after LE produced the Christmas party photo of him and Amber.

ITA, the fact Scott kept denying the affair is proof, in and of itself, that he lied once again when he said Laci knew about it and was OK with it. Making that statement to Diane Sawyer and lying about LE having been told immediately about the affair, was more CE against Scott, displaying COG.

IMO
I've wondered about the same thing. Even my adult kids (who have every electronic device known to man LOL) only have one cell phone apiece. Each member of the family has their own, but none of them have multiple phones.

You're right also about viewing Amber as a possible suspect in his wife's disappearance. Wouldn't an "innocent" man wrack his brain trying to figure out if it could have been someone either of them knew? He hadn't known Amber long enough to be all that certain she couldn't be involved -- and, even if they had known each other for years, you can't ever predict what a woman scorned will do. Just ask Dan and Linda Broderick -- oh, that's right ~ you can't. Betty killed them.

[Beebee]

Even to the point of continuing to woo the girlfriend while his "beloved" wife is missing and probably dead?

If Amber chased him, as you seem to believe, why didn't he simply not answer OR RETURN her phone calls?


Let me ask you something. What HARM did it do to talk to her? How was it going to benefit him, Laci, her, ANYBODY-- for him to dump her cold?

You may not buy this, but I think Scott is a nice guy. He did not want to treat Amber like garbage. Most men who have affairs/flings do actually like the girl they are sleeping with. It's not even close to what they have with their wives mind you... but it's still a friendly relationship.

Scott had no idea how scorned and mad Amber was at being duped yet again, imo. He had no idea she had become an agent for the MPD. And remember, when he did tell her about Laci, he expected to be dumped. Amber was the one to keep it going. Scott just then followed along. But like I said, what harm was there in that? They had already slept together. I don't see Scott's actions as cold at that point at all. In fact, just the opposite.

MOO

[Beebee]

According to Scott, he had a lot of those,(as you call it) "slam bam one stand routines".;)
He told Shawn all about it. lol
You see Beebee, you would be amazed at the "bimbo/without brains" types that hang in bars waiting for a nice looking guy to look their way.
There is every indication, Scott was seeking a relationship.


I have no idea how many one night stands he may have had, and I don't care about Amber. This is a murder case to me.

But I will say that all indications were that Scott wanted a short term fling with Amber, nothing more. His lies to her from day one prove it. He obviously expected it to be long over before he ever had to show his house in Sacramento or wherever he said he lived, or live up to many of the lies he told her.

MOO

[deputydi]

Let me ask you something. What HARM did it do to talk to her? How was it going to benefit him, Laci, her, ANYBODY-- for him to dump her cold?

You may not buy this, but I think Scott is a nice guy. He did not want to treat Amber like garbage. Most men who have affairs/flings do actually like the girl they are sleeping with. It's not even close to what they have with their wives mind you... but it's still a friendly relationship.

Scott had no idea how scorned and mad Amber was at being duped yet again, imo. He had no idea she had become an agent for the MPD. And remember, when he did tell her about Laci, he expected to be dumped. Amber was the one to keep it going. Scott just then followed along. But like I said, what harm was there in that? They had already slept together. I don't see Scott's actions as cold at that point at all. In fact, just the opposite.

MOO
Are you serious? Scott may be a "nice" guy in your eyes but I have much higher standards. If he was such a good guy, why didn't he just tell Amber the truth? It's doubtful she would have understood, but if this was "just a fling", why would he care? He lied to LE about Amber, he lied to Amber about what was going on with his wife, he lied on national television about telling LE about the affair and he lied when he told the world Laci was "fine" with the affair. And, you're saying it's not important??? :shrug:

Amber didn't keep it going all by herself. He called her as often as she called him. He didn't just "follow along" ~ he made up the most elaborate lies I've ever heard. I never heard him tell Amber (even nicely) to stop calling him.

[Beebee]

[QUOTE=deputydi;8859003]Are you serious? Scott may be a "nice" guy in your eyes but I have much higher standards. If he was such a good guy, why didn't he just tell Amber the truth? It's doubtful she would have understood, but if this was "just a fling", why would he care?

Eventually he did tell her. Early Jan. Why do you think it was so important he tell her sooner? What would that have accomplished?

He lied to LE about Amber, he lied to Amber about what was going on with his wife, he lied on national television about telling LE about the affair and he lied when he told the world Laci was "fine" with the affair. And, you're saying it's not important??? :shrug:

It's not important to me because I think most people do try to lie about their affairs/flings. Bill Clinton lied to the whole country and he was our prez. Since I don't think Amber was motive for murder in any way, or involved in any way, I discount anything having to do with her. It just doesn't matter.


Amber didn't keep it going all by herself. He called her as often as she called him. He didn't just "follow along" ~ he made up the most elaborate lies I've ever heard. I never heard him tell Amber (even nicely) to stop calling him.

IMO Scott expected to be dumped by Amber when he told her about Laci. To his surprise he wasn't. Of course he had no idea what was going on. She strung him along for the MPD. His actions with Amber don't bother me because it has nothing to do with murder. I keep trying to point out, this is a murder case, not an infidelity case.

[Hey Paula]

Let me ask you something. What HARM did it do to talk to her? How was it going to benefit him, Laci, her, ANYBODY-- for him to dump her cold?

You may not buy this, but I think Scott is a nice guy. He did not want to treat Amber like garbage. Most men who have affairs/flings do actually like the girl they are sleeping with. It's not even close to what they have with their wives mind you... but it's still a friendly relationship.

Scott had no idea how scorned and mad Amber was at being duped yet again, imo. He had no idea she had become an agent for the MPD. And remember, when he did tell her about Laci, he expected to be dumped. Amber was the one to keep it going. Scott just then followed along. But like I said, what harm was there in that? They had already slept together. I don't see Scott's actions as cold at that point at all. In fact, just the opposite.

MOO

The harm it did was to himself, BB, as Scott was rightfully perceived as a selfish, heartless guy who cared more about talking to Amber than he did about finding his missing pregnant wife. This behavior is totally inconsistent with Scott being a "nice guy", IMO. What nice guy would chat gaily with his lover amid a crowd of tearful people holding vigil for his missing pregnant wife, who disappeared only a week ago.

IMO

[deputydi]

Eventually he did tell her. Early Jan. Why do you think it was so important he tell her sooner? What would that have accomplished?
"Eventually" after he had lied to everyone that mattered. Amber had him backed in a corner (on tape) when he finally came clean. He didn't just have an attack of conscience.
It's not important to me because I think most people do try to lie about their affairs/flings. Bill Clinton lied to the whole country and he was our prez. Since I don't think Amber was motive for murder in any way, or involved in any way, I discount anything having to do with her. It just doesn't matter.
Yes, men lie to their girlfriends all the time. But, not while an intensive missing persons investigation is going on and you're turning out to be the prime suspect. I never, ever said Amber was motive for murder. You can discount all you want, but she's not as insignificant as you want to believe. IMO Scott expected to be dumped by Amber when he told her about Laci. To his surprise he wasn't. Of course he had no idea what was going on. She strung him along for the MPD. His actions with Amber don't bother me because it has nothing to do with murder. I keep trying to point out, this is a murder case, not an infidelity case.
If he "expected to be dumped" once he told her, why all the tears? Why did he continue to call her? Why did he continue to answer her calls? Why did he leave the birthday present? Why did he beg her to see him?

[JustMyOpinion]

LOL

More affair analysis I see...... WHO CARES how he treated her? .

It seems apparent you don't, even though he was convicted of murdering her.
Is whatever Scott does justifiable because Laci didn't matter?

[JustMyOpinion]

Let me ask you something. What HARM did it do to talk to her? How was it going to benefit him, Laci, her, ANYBODY-- for him to dump her cold?

You may not buy this, but I think Scott is a nice guy. He did not want to treat Amber like garbage. Most men who have affairs/flings do actually like the girl they are sleeping with. It's not even close to what they have with their wives mind you... but it's still a friendly relationship.


MOO

He did treat Amber & Laci like garbage, IMO. He disposed of Laci when she no longer served, he was fully capable of doing the same to Amber, IMO. So how was Amber serving him, IYO?

[Beebee]

The harm it did was to himself, BB, as Scott was rightfully perceived as a selfish, heartless guy who cared more about talking to Amber than he did about finding his missing pregnant wife. This behavior is totally inconsistent with Scott being a "nice guy", IMO. What nice guy would chat gaily with his lover amid a crowd of tearful people holding vigil for his missing pregnant wife, who disappeared only a week ago.

IMO

Paula he didn't talk to Amber during the vigil.

She bugged him all day until he finally talked to her. It was a total set up.

The Amber tapes are grounds for appeal in this case (one of MANY). They were prejudicial not probative.

MOO

[attorneywan2be]

Paula he didn't talk to Amber during the vigil.

She bugged him all day until he finally talked to her. It was a total set up.

The Amber tapes are grounds for appeal in this case (one of MANY). They were prejudicial not probative.

MOO

I agree BeeBee..he didn't talk to Amber during the vigil....

BTW, Richelle Nice said to the media that Scott was talking to Amber during the vigil..that was a false story the media was spreading...so IMO, Nice was watching the news..she didn't pay attention to the evidence..(another appeal issue)

[Hey Paula]

Paula he didn't talk to Amber during the vigil.

She bugged him all day until he finally talked to her. It was a total set up.

The Amber tapes are grounds for appeal in this case (one of MANY). They were prejudicial not probative.

MOO

Are you going by phone records or personal knowledge that Amber bugged Scott all day, BB?

I believe the Amber tapes were more probative than prejudicial, as they served as proof vs a "he said, she said" (LOL, in this case Geragos being the "he" because Scott didn't testify in his own defense) version of their relationship.

IMO

[deputydi]

I agree BeeBee..he didn't talk to Amber during the vigil....<snip>
He didn't? Between 3:05 on Dec 31 and 12:01 on Jan 1 he made 4 calls to Amber.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/docs/wiretap1231a.html

The first call was the one where he told the first whopper about being near the Eiffel Tower. The second is when he told her about his "friends" Francois and Pasqual.

[thinkaboutit]

:beer: Excellent, excellent post! You've done the faithful men of the world proud! Of course, some will see such a thing in a negative light. Some simply like bad boys...for whatever reason! Well done!

Sorry if this subject is done and gone - but this is the first chance I've had to reply to this.

Speaking as a woman who used to like bad boys - I think there are multiple reasons why (some) women like bad boys - and I think there are multiple reasons why (some) women who stay with men who cheat.

I agree low self esteem is one reason. For me....it wasn't low self esteem. Looking back now - I realize I liked being needed. My mother calls me the Mother Theresa of the family - always wanting to help people. Part of me liked being the stable person in the relationship - the together person - part of me liked picking him up when he fell. I always knew I was better at him at everything - at keeping a job - at maintaining relationships - but I felt sorry for him - and the guilt of knowing he'd be on the street without me prevented me from leaving him.

That all changed when I got pregnant and had my son. Now my son needed me. So he filled that need to be needed. And I also had him to protect. I may have been willing to allow him to drag me down trying to help him - but I was not going to allow him to drag my child down. I left him when my son was 9 months old and I never looked back. And just as I thought - he wound up on the street - and died 7 years later at the young age of 33.

I've never been cheated on - but like I said, I believe women stay with cheating men for different reasons. Some have low self esteem. Some may not care. Some stay for the children. The human mind is too complex and there are too many life experiences that affect the way we think to narrow it down to one thing.

Alot of people say - no way Laci would have allowed Scott to be gone all day on Christmas Eve - or after the baby was born. But from reading Sharon's book - it sounds like this could have been normal behavior to Laci. After all - Sharon and Ron were having Christmas Eve dinner at their house - and where was Laci's step-father that day? After finishing work up at noon - he went fishing. He wasn't at home working on his honey-do list. He was fishing. Sharon writes of there being days when she was so distraught with grief that she couldn't get out of bed - and Ron would go fishing - but made sure someone was there with her. Now based on my marriage - and my experiences - I could say - any man who was that inconsiderate - to leave the house when I was that distraught - well...I'd show him the door. But from the way Sharon writes her book - I'd say she was perfectly okay with this. And our tolerances for our spouses' quirks and shortfalls sometimes mimick our parents' tolerances for their spouses - and then again - sometimes we go the complete opposite direction. Ya just never know.

[attorneywan2be]

He didn't? Between 3:05 on Dec 31 and 12:01 on Jan 1 he made 4 calls to Amber.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/docs/wiretap1231a.html

The first call was the one where he told the first whopper about being near the Eiffel Tower. The second is when he told her about his "friends" Francois and Pasqual.


Scott didn't call Amber DURING the vigil..the last call he made on Dec 31st, 2002 was at 4:20pm which, I think, lasted for 1 minute or less..


Mark Geragos: Is it a fair statement that about an hour and a half before the candlelight vigil, which I think Mr. Distaso had asked you to take a look at, which is on your page three of three, candlelight vigil started at 4:40?
Ron Cloward: Correct.
Mark Geragos: Candlelight vigil ended at 5:00 o'clock?
Ron Cloward: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Based,
Ron Cloward: That's what it says.
Mark Geragos: Based on the notes?
Ron Cloward: Based on the notes, yes.
Mark Geragos: Is it a fair statement that your notes were made at a time when your memory was fairly good as to what you were doing? Better than your memory is today?
Ron Cloward: Probably so.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And is it a fair statement that you noticed that Scott Peterson was there when he was putting up the signs at least an hour, almost exactly an hour and a half before the candlelight vigil began?
Rick Distaso: Objection. Been asked and answered.
Judge Delucchi: I'll overrule. You can answer.
Ron Cloward: The notes reflect the information that was provided that day. So probably should clarify that I don't actually enter that information. That was actually done by somebody in the Command Post. That's what he entered into the log.
Mark Geragos: These are records that were kept in the course and scope of business as you were operating the Command Post, correct?
Ron Cloward: Correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And information was, is that Scott Peterson was there an hour and a half before the vigil, according to the records, putting up very large signs, correct?
Ron Cloward: Correct.

[deputydi]

<snip>Alot of people say - no way Laci would have allowed Scott to be gone all day on Christmas Eve - or after the baby was born. But from reading Sharon's book - it sounds like this could have been normal behavior to Laci. After all - Sharon and Ron were having Christmas Eve dinner at their house - and where was Laci's step-father that day? After finishing work up at noon - he went fishing. He wasn't at home working on his honey-do list. He was fishing. Sharon writes of there being days when she was so distraught with grief that she couldn't get out of bed - and Ron would go fishing - but made sure someone was there with her. Now based on my marriage - and my experiences - I could say - any man who was that inconsiderate - to leave the house when I was that distraught - well...I'd show him the door. But from the way Sharon writes her book - I'd say she was perfectly okay with this. And our tolerances for our spouses' quirks and shortfalls sometimes mimick our parents' tolerances for their spouses - and then again - sometimes we go the complete opposite direction. Ya just never know.
I think what people are saying is that if Laci had known about the affair she wouldn't have allowed him to go fishing that day. None of us know what Laci would or would not have allowed and it is pretty presumptious of us to assume this would be her reaction. I have been cheated on and I stayed with him for 15 more years after I found out about the first one. I was a stay at home mom with three young children (12, 9 and 7) and there were many reasons why we both tried to make it work. When the second affair happened the kids were all adults and I kicked him out without ever looking back. The distrust and feelings of betrayal stay with you for years.

As for Ron ~ don't forget he went fishing that day because Sharon was at a movie with a friend. After Laci's disappearance, Ron and Sharon were both grieving and trying to cope with their loss in their own way. To call Ron "inconsiderate" isn't really fair. He was coping in the only way he knew how and he always made sure Sharon was never alone.

[thinkaboutit]

The only references to hatred I have seen are the accusations of the NGs leveled against the Gs in this case. Which I find interesting. It's so much easier to accuse someone of "hate" than to address their points, isn't it?

Really? You don't see any in the following post? The bolding in the following post was done by me:

No, Jackie isn't liked or respected because of her own actions. Including but not limited to hiring Geragos and standing behind all the absolute BS that geragos put out there. She is not respected or liked because of her attitude. It came through loud and clear that she is a vengeful woman that feels she is deserving of special treatment. Her words and actions are why we all feel such disgust towards her. Her greed was despicable, (the jewelry, cleaning out the house while scott was in jail). Remember the picture of her carrying out the ironing board? Not letting the Rochas in the house to retrieve some of Laci's family mementos or any of Laci's things. The way she treated Anne Bird, used her own daughter IMO to help scott. Not to mention opening up her own tip line and then not reporting tips to police. Then.... trying to bill the CS foundation for the phone line, that one just got my hide. I probably could go on and on just on her actions alone. Mr. Peterson fairs no better imo.
There is a reason that some parents of murderers are not hated. They are the honest ones and as much as they hate the thought of their son or daughter doing time for a crime they always encourage the truth and are kind to the victims family. Not the petersons, nope!
If they cared about being respected and liked they should have played their cards a bit better. But it's who they are. One lesson jackie has never learned IMO is that you have to earn respect.

Ya know what gets MY hide? Is that when Sharon Rocha wants Laci's things - it's because she only wants a piece of her daughter. But when the Petersons want things - it's greed - nothing to do with the fact that they believed their son was innocent and if he is - rightfully all of those things belonged to him. No one can understand why the Petersons would deny Sharon Rocha Laci's things? Not even after she (SR) called their son - accusing him of what they consider unspeakable things, recorded her phone conversations with their son for the police, telling him no one in Modesto wanted him here....etc., etc.

EKG has made some fantastic points. For one minute....those of you who have children, put yourself in the Petersons' shoes. Those of you who don't have children - don't even begin to think that you can - because unless you have children - you have no understanding of the love and protectiveness a parent feels for their child - ESPECIALLY a mother. I can tell you what I would have done - if my son had called me and told me that his mother-in-law had said those things to him - I would have been so angry - I would have been on the phone - giving that woman a piece of my mind - missing daughter or no missing daughter.

Sharon Rocha was no angel. I don't judge her for it - nor do I claim that I would have done anything differently than she did. But I just don't think that the people who have such a dislike for the Petersons are looking at this objectively.

I do sort of agree with Heyes on one issue - I don't think the Petersons care whether you like or respect them or you don't. They have bigger things to worry about - like freeing their son from an imprisonment for a crime they believe he did not commit. And I would feel the same way if I was in their shoes. I see no signs that the Petersons have any doubt that their son is totally and completely innocent.

[thinkaboutit]

I think what people are saying is that if Laci had known about the affair she wouldn't have allowed him to go fishing that day. None of us know what Laci would or would not have allowed and it is pretty presumptious of us to assume this would be her reaction. I have been cheated on and I stayed with him for 15 more years after I found out about the first one. I was a stay at home mom with three young children (12, 9 and 7) and there were many reasons why we both tried to make it work. When the second affair happened the kids were all adults and I kicked him out without ever looking back. The distrust and feelings of betrayal stay with you for years.

As for Ron ~ don't forget he went fishing that day because Sharon was at a movie with a friend. After Laci's disappearance, Ron and Sharon were both grieving and trying to cope with their loss in their own way. To call Ron "inconsiderate" isn't really fair. He was coping in the only way he knew how and he always made sure Sharon was never alone.


Absolutely - which is why I said - based on my experiences in my marriage - I COULD say this was inconsiderate. I agree - Ron could have been trying to cope - and maybe he just COULDN'T cope with Sharon's inability to cope at the moment. You are absolutely right. Which is exactly my point - we cannot judge others' actions based on what we would find acceptable or how things APPEAR.

No - I wasn't talking about the argument - if Laci had known about the affair - she wouldn't have allowed him to go fishing. I've stated before - I pretty much agree with that. I've heard people say on this board (and others like Anne Bird) that Laci would not have allowed Scott to go fishing
on Christmas Eve - (I believe Anne Bird said Scott would have had a honey-do list a mile long) because there was too much to do. That's what I was referring to. ;)

[JustMyOpinion]

Ya know what gets MY hide? Is that when Sharon Rocha wants Laci's things - it's because she only wants a piece of her daughter. But when the Petersons want things - it's greed - nothing to do with the fact that they believed their son was innocent and if he is - rightfully all of those things belonged to him. No one can understand why the Petersons would deny Sharon Rocha Laci's things? Not even after she (SR) called their son - accusing him of what they consider unspeakable things, recorded her phone conversations with their son for the police, telling him no one in Modesto wanted him here....etc., etc.

EKG has made some fantastic points. For one minute....those of you who have children, put yourself in the Petersons' shoes. Those of you who don't have children - don't even begin to think that you can - because unless you have children - you have no understanding of the love and protectiveness a parent feels for their child - ESPECIALLY a mother. I can tell you what I would have done - if my son had called me and told me that his mother-in-law had said those things to him - I would have been so angry - I would have been on the phone - giving that woman a piece of my mind - missing daughter or no missing daughter.

Sharon Rocha was no angel. I don't judge her for it - nor do I claim that I would have done anything differently than she did. But I just don't think that the people who have such a dislike for the Petersons are looking at this objectively.

I do sort of agree with Heyes on one issue - I don't think the Petersons care whether you like or respect them or you don't. They have bigger things to worry about - like freeing their son from an imprisonment for a crime they believe he did not commit. And I would feel the same way if I was in their shoes. I see no signs that the Petersons have any doubt that their son is totally and completely innocent.

I have no idea why you assume others have not attempted to put themselves in the Peterson's "shoes", and I disagree they are "freeing their son from imprisonment for a crime they believe he didn't commit". They don't care whether or not he committed it, IMO. I agree they don't appear to care if others respect them, as they showed blatant disrespect for the victims, the Court, the jurors and the law, IMO. But the saddest moment of all for me ( as a parent of sons who did try to put myself in their shoes) was when they utterly abandoned Scott, left him alone in shackles on the day of formal sentencing because they couldn't contain their own selfish rage. They knew he couldn't walk out with them, they are truly callous & cold, IMO.

[accordn2me]

Really? You don't see any in the following post? The bolding in the following post was done by me:

Ya know what gets MY hide? Is that when Sharon Rocha wants Laci's things - it's because she only wants a piece of her daughter. But when the Petersons want things - it's greed - nothing to do with the fact that they believed their son was innocent and if he is - rightfully all of those things belonged to him. No one can understand why the Petersons would deny Sharon Rocha Laci's things? Not even after she (SR) called their son - accusing him of what they consider unspeakable things, recorded her phone conversations with their son for the police, telling him no one in Modesto wanted him here....etc., etc.

<snip>
Welcome back, stranger! :seeya:

I really can't understand denying Sharon Laci's things. The Ps didn't want them.....unless they needed to sell them for the money (was that why Scott was interested in selling?)...but really...those things meant something to Sharon - a mother who was longing for her murdered daughter. It would have been cruel to sell them, keep them, or do anything other than give them to the mother of the victim. There was a high road here. The Peterson's chose not to take it.

As a person who has watched a mother (my grandmother) bury her murdered daughter (my mother) I know it would take a cruel, cold, hateful person to deny her anything she wanted.

[Hey Paula]

I have no idea why you assume others have not attempted to put themselves in the Peterson's "shoes", and I disagree they are "freeing their son from imprisonment for a crime they believe he didn't commit". They don't care whether or not he committed it, IMO. I agree they don't appear to care if others respect them, as they showed blatant disrespect for the victims, the Court, the jurors and the law, IMO. But the saddest moment of all for me ( as a parent of sons who did try to put myself in their shoes) was when they utterly abandoned Scott, left him alone in shackles on the day of formal sentencing because they couldn't contain their own selfish rage. They knew he couldn't walk out with them, they are truly callous & cold, IMO.

Hi JMO!

ITA with your assessment and opinion of Scott's parents. Asking Sharon to delay the burial of Laci and Conner until Scott was acquitted is about the most cold-hearted, selfish and cruel request/statement anyone could make, much less a MIL and grandmother, followed by claiming if Scott was given the DP, it would be as though Laci never existed (or some such words).

I've always wondered if Scott was perhaps a sensitive and loving child, who shut down emotionally, as a coping mechanism, to living in a detached and cold environment?

IMO

[ekg]

Why is there a need to discuss the other side, for you. I have a hard time believing you want to do so because it is pertinent to the case or trial. Does it help to "get even"? :confused:


Saying that Ron went fishing isn't pertinent to the case? or is 'getting even'?

I want to be able to say the family's name without it being said how dreadful it is that I (or any NG) am trying to smear them in some way..

[ekg]

Really? You don't see any in the following post? The bolding in the following post was done by me:



Ya know what gets MY hide? Is that when Sharon Rocha wants Laci's things - it's because she only wants a piece of her daughter. But when the Petersons want things - it's greed - nothing to do with the fact that they believed their son was innocent and if he is - rightfully all of those things belonged to him. No one can understand why the Petersons would deny Sharon Rocha Laci's things? Not even after she (SR) called their son - accusing him of what they consider unspeakable things, recorded her phone conversations with their son for the police, telling him no one in Modesto wanted him here....etc., etc.

EKG has made some fantastic points. For one minute....those of you who have children, put yourself in the Petersons' shoes. Those of you who don't have children - don't even begin to think that you can - because unless you have children - you have no understanding of the love and protectiveness a parent feels for their child - ESPECIALLY a mother. I can tell you what I would have done - if my son had called me and told me that his mother-in-law had said those things to him - I would have been so angry - I would have been on the phone - giving that woman a piece of my mind - missing daughter or no missing daughter.

Sharon Rocha was no angel. I don't judge her for it - nor do I claim that I would have done anything differently than she did. But I just don't think that the people who have such a dislike for the Petersons are looking at this objectively.

I do sort of agree with Heyes on one issue - I don't think the Petersons care whether you like or respect them or you don't. They have bigger things to worry about - like freeing their son from an imprisonment for a crime they believe he did not commit. And I would feel the same way if I was in their shoes. I see no signs that the Petersons have any doubt that their son is totally and completely innocent.


Great post.....Thank You....

:beer:

[Otter]

Saying that Ron went fishing isn't pertinent to the case? or is 'getting even'?

I want to be able to say the family's name without it being said how dreadful it is that I (or any NG) am trying to smear them in some way..

This has always puzzled me -- why is Ron's short fishing trip on the way home from work pertinent to the case?

He did it all the time, he had a rod in the trunk and stopped and fished off a bank. That's not even important, whether he did or not. Or how often or just on Thursdays with odd numbered dates in a lake with a name starting with a vowel.

When NG's bring up this fact, there's always an ominous undertone in the post, IMO. That's what I don't get.

[accordn2me]

Saying that Ron went fishing isn't pertinent to the case? or is 'getting even'?

I want to be able to say the family's name without it being said how dreadful it is that I (or any NG) am trying to smear them in some way..NO! Why do you think that it is pertinent?

BTW...I wanted to tell you thank you for sharing yourself with us. I enjoyed that post. You sound like a very interesting person.

I don't remember...do you have daughters?

[Otter]

TAI said:

Sharon Rocha was no angel. I don't judge her for it - nor do I claim that I would have done anything differently than she did. But I just don't think that the people who have such a dislike for the Petersons are looking at this objectively.

None of us are angels. I have great admiration and compassion for Sharon. I have equal admiration and compassion for Cherica Adams' mother, Saundra Adams. Ms. Adams gave the most eloquent and dignified VIS I have ever heard. Which is totally O/T, but another mother who lost a daughter to homicide.

I do dislike JP. I don't "hate" her, never have, never will.

The only reason I read Ann Bird's book was to glean some insight into the Peterson family. I don't believe I had ever encountered people like that before in any way, shape or form and I was very curious. We heard all about them at the trial, both gave long autobiographical testimonies, even back to LP's grandfather and a house with no plumbing. I felt a lot of compassion for JP and the hardships she suffered as a child and young woman.

What hit me during the stories of their lives was they had so much to tell. But they didn't say very much about SP. Not really ... what they did say was so meaningless considering the circumstances. And look who else spoke up for him. No one who was a current friend or even a business associate or client. Only people from the past with the exception of Susan Medina, who could only add that he showed up at the volunteer center.

JP pleading to the jury to spare him:

GERAGOS: You said you feel hollow at this point.

PETERSON: I do. My husband and I talk. We feel like we're just shells in front of you in coming here everyday like there's nothing left inside us. We've mourned for Laci and Conner. We've seen Scott mourn for them. We've lost him and them. And I really feel if, if you were to take Scott away from us it would, they were like a family, Laci and Conner and Scott. And it would be a whole family wiped off the whole face of the earth. It would be like Laci never existed because she was a woman with him, she grew with him from 18 to 28. And it was a family member of ours and we would lose a whole family, both Sharon and I would lose a whole family. You know, it would be like they never existed. That it would be so unreasonable. Such a waste. It's, it's irreversible and he can do a lot of good things with his life. No matter what it is, he'll do it. And I, I beg you to consider that how he helps people and how he always has. In this trial you've heard one month of how he reacted to the loss of his wife and baby being ripped from him. The bizarre things he did because he didn't know what to do at 30 years old when all his work was taken away. He was stalked by the media and everybody twisted and turned and harassed by the police and painted as a devil in the public. He's not that. He's never been that. He's always been nurturing and kind and loving.

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Timelines/Trial%20Transcripts/Trial%20Penalty%20Phase%20Jacqueline%20Peterson.ht m

I can't even begin to say how offended I was by the statement in bold. Laci was much more than SP's wife, even if she hadn't been murdered and we'd never heard of her. It shows, IMO how Laci was an object not only to SP, but to JP also.

The second bolded statement is stunningly odd, IMO. His work???? Taken away???? If that was his focus while his wife was missing, no wonder he was a suspect. Laci's gone, time to move on as if nothing happened. Like flushing a goldfish down the toilet.

I'll stop. There's no point in going on, but IMO, she is cold as ice. And instead of trying to get money from Laci's estate for a Dyson vacuum, she should've just kept it for her own house. MOO.

Sorry for the long post.

[enlightenme]

Hi JMO!

ITA with your assessment and opinion of Scott's parents. Asking Sharon to delay the burial of Laci and Conner until Scott was acquitted is about the most cold-hearted, selfish and cruel request/statement anyone could make, much less a MIL and grandmother, followed by claiming if Scott was given the DP, it would be as though Laci never existed (or some such words).

I've always wondered if Scott was perhaps a sensitive and loving child, who shut down emotionally, as a coping mechanism, to living in a detached and cold environment?

IMO

I agree too. Jackie's story on the witness stand of how Scott came into possession of HER money to the tune of about 14 K was sad and pathetic.

It is rather refreshing to know they don't care what anyone thinks of them. That's probably a good thing and seems to fit their actions during this sorry odeal.

MOO

[Hey Paula]

I agree too. Jackie's story on the witness stand of how Scott came into possession of HER money to the tune of about 14 K was sad and pathetic.

It is rather refreshing to know they don't care what anyone thinks of them. That's probably a good thing and seems to fit their actions during this sorry odeal.

MOO

Hi EM!

People who show no compassion and empathy to others, should not expect to receive compassion and empathy themselves. The Petersons' behavior towards Laci's family and the lack of love and respect they exhibited for Laci and Conner, is what caused most to turn against them, and deny them the compassion many feel for families of other murderers, who are often victims themselves of their loved ones actions. It seems as though the Petersons resented Laci's family, as if to blame them for Scott's fate, when instead the Petersons should have felt remorse and compassion for the loss of Laci and Conner.

IMO

[ekg]

This has always puzzled me -- why is Ron's short fishing trip on the way home from work pertinent to the case?

He did it all the time, he had a rod in the trunk and stopped and fished off a bank. That's not even important, whether he did or not. Or how often or just on Thursdays with odd numbered dates in a lake with a name starting with a vowel.

When NG's bring up this fact, there's always an ominous undertone in the post, IMO. That's what I don't get.


it establishes that ppl DO go fishing at that time..

I don't care if he went every single day.. the claim was/is noone fishes at that time... Him going fishing is pertinant to the case in that manner....

Explain to me how I'm being at all 'ominous'...But this is exactly my point and thank you for making it.... all of that vile stuff can be said against Jackie and if I just say Ron's name I'm implying something sinister.. unreal..

Adnoid said "The only references to hatred I have seen are the accusations of the NGs leveled against the Gs in this case".... well as far as I have seen the only ones talking about 'ominous undertones' in Reference to Ron are the G's..and like adnoid found the 'hatred' accusations interesting, I find the 'ominous undertone' accusations interesting as well..

[ekg]

NO! Why do you think that it is pertinent?

BTW...I wanted to tell you thank you for sharing yourself with us. I enjoyed that post. You sound like a very interesting person.

I don't remember...do you have daughters?


you're welcome... Thank you.. and yes, I have 2....:)



I've made the point 10000000 times already on why I think him fishing at the same is pertinent to the case...I was asked to explain why I wanted to be able to discuss Laci's family in the 1st place and my example was that I just wanted to be able to say "Ron went fishing at the same time" w/o having mean anything other than RON WENT FISHING AT THE SAME TIME

as I just said... after all the vile things that have been said against JP, whether ppl feel it's deserved or not, she gets slammed right and left... but then for me to catch a wrath for speaking the name of Ron Grantski is just ........... well it would get me banned to say what it is... But Penn and Teller could probably tell you...:D

[Otter]

it establishes that ppl DO go fishing at that time..

I don't care if he went every single day.. the claim was/is noone fishes at that time... Him going fishing is pertinant to the case in that manner....

Explain to me how I'm being at all 'ominous'...But this is exactly my point and thank you for making it.... all of that vile stuff can be said against Jackie and if I just say Ron's name I'm implying something sinister.. unreal..

Adnoid said "The only references to hatred I have seen are the accusations of the NGs leveled against the Gs in this case".... well as far as I have seen the only ones talking about 'ominous undertones' in Reference to Ron are the G's..and like adnoid found the 'hatred' accusations interesting, I find the 'ominous undertone' accusations interesting as well..

Talk about a rush to judgment. Go to boards that support SP, you'll understand my point. And frankly, my using the word "ominous" was gentle. Its a point that his supporters bring up over and over and over.

Look, Ron stopping for a bit and throwing a line in, as he did all the time and SP, going 90 miles to do something he never did are two totally separate things. Sharon wasn't pregnant, Ron didn't have a deadline on Christmas Eve to pick up a gift. Sheesh.

I answered your question, answer mine and a2m's please, why is Ron going fishing on that day pertinent?

[Hey Paula]

you're welcome... Thank you.. and yes, I have 2....:)



I've made the point 10000000 times already on why I think him fishing at the same is pertinent to the case...I was asked to explain why I wanted to be able to discuss Laci's family in the 1st place and my example was that I just wanted to be able to say "Ron went fishing at the same time" w/o having mean anything other than RON WENT FISHING AT THE SAME TIME

as I just said... after all the vile things that have been said against JP, whether ppl feel it's deserved or not, she gets slammed right and left... but then for me to catch a wrath for speaking the name of Ron Grantski is just ........... well it would get me banned to say what it is... But Penn and Teller could probably tell you...:D

Hi EKG!

I always thought what Ron was questioning was Scott getting such a late start because he chose to fish 90 miles from home.

IMO

[Otter]

you're welcome... Thank you.. and yes, I have 2....:)



I've made the point 10000000 times already on why I think him fishing at the same is pertinent to the case...I was asked to explain why I wanted to be able to discuss Laci's family in the 1st place and my example was that I just wanted to be able to say "Ron went fishing at the same time" w/o having mean anything other than RON WENT FISHING AT THE SAME TIME

as I just said... after all the vile things that have been said against JP, whether ppl feel it's deserved or not, she gets slammed right and left... but then for me to catch a wrath for speaking the name of Ron Grantski is just ........... well it would get me banned to say what it is... But Penn and Teller could probably tell you...:D


Oh for crying out loud. What vile things have been said against JP? Her own actions and words put her out there for criticism. Do you think anyone is happy to say these things? I'm not, I just call it like I see it. How many quotes do I have to post?

And ekg, you still haven't explained your rationale about why Ron fishing is pertinent -- here it is again in this post -- saying its pertinent and not explaining are two different things. I'm not dense, and I doubt I've missed your one million explanations. But gee, if I have would you link me to one of these million posts.

Go ahead, discuss Laci's family. Its a free country. I betcha even Penn and Teller think so. Are they pertinent too?

[ekg]

Talk about a rush to judgment. Go to boards that support SP, you'll understand my point. And frankly, my using the word "ominous" was gentle. Its a point that his supporters bring up over and over and over.

Look, Ron stopping for a bit and throwing a line in, as he did all the time and SP, going 90 miles to do something he never did are two totally separate things. Sharon wasn't pregnant, Ron didn't have a deadline on Christmas Eve to pick up a gift. Sheesh.

I answered your question, answer mine and a2m's please, why is Ron going fishing on that day pertinent?

who said anything about the day he went...

it establishes that ppl DO go fishing at that time..

I don't care if he went every single day.. the claim was/is noone fishes at that time... Him going fishing is pertinent to the case in that manner....




can it be any clearer? when someone says "I don't believe him b/c noone would go fishing at that time of day" then the information that Ron went at that time also is by definition

~~pertaining or relating directly and significantly to the matter at hand; relevant

~~Having logical precise relevance to the matter at hand

~~~1. having precise or logical relevance to the matter at hand; "a list of articles pertinent to the discussion"; "remarks that were to the point"
2. being of striking appropriateness and pertinence


pertinent.

now answer me.... where am I being ominous, making canards, deflecting from the facts.....etc etc etc

Just b/c I am saying Ron's name in conjunction with something that Scott Peterson did, does NOT mean I am saying Ron murdered anyone. You and only you and only the G's who have attacked me for saying Ron's name have implied otherwise. .. you are NOT getting that vibe from me but from yourself and your fellow G's...

show me where I am disrespecting Ron, lying about Ron, implying wrong doing on Ron's part, implying anything other than here is an example of ppl that do go fishing at the same time of day Scott did... I have answered your questions on this matter numerous times since I've been here and you have yet to show me how I am defaming Ron in any way shape or form.....

Maybe you should stop attacking me b/c Ron did the same thing at the same time as evil the Scott Peterson...it's not my fault... but it is sure as heck is pertinent to bring up when someone says noone goes fishing at that time of day....

[ekg]

Oh for crying out loud. What vile things have been said against JP? Her own actions and words put her out there for criticism. Do you think anyone is happy to say these things? I'm not, I just call it like I see it. How many quotes do I have to post?

And ekg, you still haven't explained your rationale about why Ron fishing is pertinent -- here it is again in this post -- saying its pertinent and not explaining are two different things. I'm not dense, and I doubt I've missed your one million explanations. But gee, if I have would you link me to one of these million posts.

Go ahead, discuss Laci's family. Its a free country. I betcha even Penn and Teller think so. Are they pertinent too?

maybe you should re-read the last cpl pages.... I think TIA even highlighted one post with a few 'choice' things said about JP...

vengeful woman
we all feel such disgust towards her
Her greed was despicable

call me crazy, but those sure aren't kind words towards her...and those are only from one post.....

"she is cold as ice" thats you on this page.. not very nice IMO..

sure you don't like her actions..Fine..but why the need to use all these negative adjectives to describe her? unless yes, ppl are just happy to say them..

[accordn2me]

I'm sorry I'm too distracted to put together a coherent post for y'all. Nothing new...it's been said before..........here's the gist:


To compare Ron's fishing to Scott's planned trip, is like comparing a boat to an aircraft carrier.

[ekg]

I'm sorry I'm too distracted to put together a coherent post for y'all. Nothing new...it's been said before..........here's the gist:


To compare Ron's fishing to Scott's planned trip, is like comparing a boat to an aircraft carrier.


yes or no.... did they go at the same time of day?

[One2Snoop]

yes or no.... did they go at the same time of day?

If you know the answer to this then please post it - why must it be a guessing game? IIRC Ron went fishing sometime that day - without a boat and it was a fishing hole he frequented often. The comparison to Scott's trip is what? There isn't one. Scott had a boat no one knew about and then he drove it 90 miles out of the way to test it on unfamiliar waters for about an hour - very, very strange IMO. I find nothing strange about Ron's trip. And if I'm reading you right, you're implicating Ron which is way off course IMO. JMO.

[accordn2me]

yes or no.... did they go at the same time of day?like it matters? but if you must.....yes (i don't even really know)

And like a boat and an aircraft carrier (they both float in water).....the comparasion ends there.

[JustMyOpinion]

Maybe you should stop attacking me b/c Ron did the same thing at the same time as evil the Scott Peterson...it's not my fault... but it is sure as heck is pertinent to bring up when someone says noone goes fishing at that time of day....

I disagree Ron did the same thing as Scott Peterson. Ron went fishing. Scott disposed of his pregnant wife in the Bay.

[JustMyOpinion]

Hi JMO!

ITA with your assessment and opinion of Scott's parents. Asking Sharon to delay the burial of Laci and Conner until Scott was acquitted is about the most cold-hearted, selfish and cruel request/statement anyone could make, much less a MIL and grandmother, followed by claiming if Scott was given the DP, it would be as though Laci never existed (or some such words).

I've always wondered if Scott was perhaps a sensitive and loving child, who shut down emotionally, as a coping mechanism, to living in a detached and cold environment?

IMO

I agree the request to delay funeral was cold & cruel..displayed a distinct lack of empathy, and the wording of the email objectified Laci & Conner, there was more objectification of Laci in Jackie's testimony, IMO. For Jackie, once Laci no longer "served" Scott, she DID cease to exist or matter, IMO. During the investigation, it appeared "Laci" & "that baby" only served as an objects for Jackie to refer to when it suited her own purposes, IMO.
I personally believe all children are born completely vulnerable, capable of learning to love, and needing to be loved/nurtured as much as they need food & shelter. I cannot imagine more horrific childhood circumstances than what has been described as that which Jackie endured beginning at age 3. I can certainly see how she would have developed defense mechanisms to split-off from pain, it would have been impossible for her to feel and survive, IMO ( can you imagine growing up in what has been described a a "prison")?. Jackie wasn't properly nurtured, she was abandoned, she was living in an institution where children were physically and sexually abused, her ability to attach to others was likely destroyed, IMO. If it is true ( per information from sources who spoke to Ablow) that Lee has a violent temper, lacks insight into himself & others and has taken psychiatric medication for years.. it is easy for me to see how baby/child Scott Peterson also had to adapt to his environment by developing defense mechanisms from a very young age, how he likely had to split-off from self and others, just to physically survive, IMO. Some of the descriptions of him as a child confirm this..IMO. He was a lost child, IMO.

[JustMyOpinion]

Hi EM!

People who show no compassion and empathy to others, should not expect to receive compassion and empathy themselves. The Petersons' behavior towards Laci's family and the lack of love and respect they exhibited for Laci and Conner, is what caused most to turn against them, and deny them the compassion many feel for families of other murderers, who are often victims themselves of their loved ones actions. It seems as though the Petersons resented Laci's family, as if to blame them for Scott's fate, when instead the Petersons should have felt remorse and compassion for the loss of Laci and Conner.

IMO

M. Scott Peck defines mental health as "an on-going process of dedication to reality at all costs". How can any person be dedicated to reality when they deny, deny, deny and project shame & blame all over everyone else?

[deputydi]

it establishes that ppl DO go fishing at that time..
<snip>
Once again, it establishes that ppl DO go fishing at that time IF it is their practice to stop at a lake whenever they have a chance. For some ppl fishing is as much a part of their life and relaxation as breathing. This describes RON -- not SCOTT. Scott didn't have a current license and hadn't fished in years.

[deputydi]

Mark Geragos: Is it a fair statement that about an hour and a half before the candlelight vigil, which I think Mr. Distaso had asked you to take a look at, which is on your page three of three, candlelight vigil started at 4:40?
Ron Cloward: Correct.
Mark Geragos: Candlelight vigil ended at 5:00 o'clock?
Ron Cloward: Yes.

You're splitting hairs on this . . . I will assume you are correct that the last call to Amber on the 31st was made at 4:20. You have posted testimony that the vigil officially began at 4:40 and ended 20 minutes later. Where do you suppose Scott was when he called Amber at 4:20? You don't really think that all those people just magically appeared at the stroke of 4:40 and immediately disappeared, do you? I would call the period of time immediately before and immediately following part of the "vigil".

Also, per the comment you highlighted in red, even if the call wasn't made exactly during the vigil, he found time to call her when he was at the site supposedly putting up "large signs".

[ekg]

If you know the answer to this then please post it - why must it be a guessing game? IIRC Ron went fishing sometime that day - without a boat and it was a fishing hole he frequented often. The comparison to Scott's trip is what? There isn't one. Scott had a boat no one knew about and then he drove it 90 miles out of the way to test it on unfamiliar waters for about an hour - very, very strange IMO. I find nothing strange about Ron's trip. And if I'm reading you right, you're implicating Ron which is way off course IMO. JMO.


I find nothing strange about the time Ron went either...... or the day for that matter...

The comparison is the time of day they went

for whatever reason I'm not being understood...I am not being confusing or vague in anything I am saying..

it's simple.... the statement that started all of this is easy...

'Noone goes fishing at that time of day' (paraphrased)

now either this is a true statement..... that NOONE goes fishing at that time of day or it's a false one....

Since we all g et asked for 'proof' or 'links' to our statements, sometimes I post the proof along with my statements...So to prove that ppl DO go fishing at that time of day, I gave Ron as an example of innocent ppl who fish during that time of day..

It's relevant b/c it shows that..... Yes, ppl do fish at that time and are not out covering up a murder..


the level of fisherman the person is isn't in question.
the distance driven to fish isn't in question.
the question of whether or not the person has a boat or not isn't in question.


the ONLY question is Do ppl go fishing at that time or not...

the answer is simple... yes they do or no they don't.

I don't see why a G cannot answer with a simple 'yes or no'.. what is there to explain..why the need to make an already innocent trip seem even more innocent? is there some kind of fear here?

They both went fishing at the same time.... the innocent implication that Ron went cancels out the guilty implication of Scott going..... simple and relevant...

[ekg]

Are you going by phone records or personal knowledge that Amber bugged Scott all day, BB?

I believe the Amber tapes were more probative than prejudicial, as they served as proof vs a "he said, she said" (LOL, in this case Geragos being the "he" because Scott didn't testify in his own defense) version of their relationship.

IMO

it's not the day of the vigil but...



817. You made what appears -- if I'm right here, you made one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen phone calls.

818. Yes.

819. So you called Scott on the 26th fourteen times?

820. Again, attempts or actual contact?

821. You actually dialed the number fourteen times?

822. Yes.

14 calls to anyone in one day is 'bugging them' IMO.... LOL


and I didn't see this before in RDs opening

267. And, like I said, Modesto Police Department

268. has Amber record all future calls. Actually that evidence -- and click on that. Played the last five minutes of a call. You are going to have -- here it is here. You are going to have a lot of calls between these, some of which Amber Frey recorded, some of which were recorded later after the Court authorized of the wiretap of the defendant's phones.

so Amber WAS taping him before the police stepped in...

huh....I didn't know that was confirmed....

[attorneywan2be]

You're splitting hairs on this . . . I will assume you are correct that the last call to Amber on the 31st was made at 4:20. You have posted testimony that the vigil officially began at 4:40 and ended 20 minutes later. Where do you suppose Scott was when he called Amber at 4:20? You don't really think that all those people just magically appeared at the stroke of 4:40 and immediately disappeared, do you? I would call the period of time immediately before and immediately following part of the "vigil".

Also, per the comment you highlighted in red, even if the call wasn't made exactly during the vigil, he found time to call her when he was at the site supposedly putting up "large signs".

It was said that Scott called Amber during the vigil..it is so simple, there is a "before", "after" and "during"..he didn't call her DURING the vigil..the call he made at 4:20 pm was 20 minutes BEFORE the vigil, lasted less than 1 minute (about 30 seconds), he was basically telling Amber that he will call her back at 9:00 pm...so yes, if you want to put it this way, he found 30 seconds of his time to call Amber as he was putting up "large signs"..

[attorneywan2be]

so Amber WAS taping him before the police stepped in...

huh....I didn't know that was confirmed....

No, Amber started to record on Dec 30, 2002, that was when Brocchini met her and bought her the recording equipments...later on, I think in early January, the court authorized the wiretap of Scott's phones...

[ekg]

No, Amber started to record on Dec 30, 2002, that was when Brocchini met her and bought her the recording equipments...later on, I think in early January, the court authorized the wiretap of Scott's phones...

Thank you for clearing that up....

Like I said, I hadn't read that before but I remember on CTV ppl had asked if she was taping him before LE stepped in but I never heard the end of that argument to know the outcome.. and then when I read RD opening where he said 'some of them Amber recorded and some after the court authorized it' I was like..... "awwww so she was, that answers that" lol

so LE can tape you without a court authorization?

well I know they can now-lol.... but back then they could too?

[thinkaboutit]

I agree the request to delay funeral was cold & cruel..displayed a distinct lack of empathy, and the wording of the email objectified Laci & Conner, there was more objectification of Laci in Jackie's testimony, IMO. For Jackie, once Laci no longer "served" Scott, she DID cease to exist or matter, IMO. During the investigation, it appeared "Laci" & "that baby" only served as an objects for Jackie to refer to when it suited her own purposes, IMO.
I personally believe all children are born completely vulnerable, capable of learning to love, and needing to be loved/nurtured as much as they need food & shelter. I cannot imagine more horrific childhood circumstances than what has been described as that which Jackie endured beginning at age 3. I can certainly see how she would have developed defense mechanisms to split-off from pain, it would have been impossible for her to feel and survive, IMO ( can you imagine growing up in what has been described a a "prison")?. Jackie wasn't properly nurtured, she was abandoned, she was living in an institution where children were physically and sexually abused, her ability to attach to others was likely destroyed, IMO. If it is true ( per information from sources who spoke to Ablow) that Lee has a violent temper, lacks insight into himself & others and has taken psychiatric medication for years.. it is easy for me to see how baby/child Scott Peterson also had to adapt to his environment by developing defense mechanisms from a very young age, how he likely had to split-off from self and others, just to physically survive, IMO. Some of the descriptions of him as a child confirm this..IMO. He was a lost child, IMO.

Well sure you'd believe all that - if you believe Ablow -who never met the Petersons or can't verify speaking to anyone that would have any true insight
to the Peterson family dynamics or Jackie or Lee's childhood.

For someone with such a violent temper - I sure haven't ever seen any outbursts or read about them - under the most trying and stressful circumstance.

What else is interesting is how divided even the G's are on what was wrong with Scott's childhood. On one hand you have the G's who believe Jackie was cold and unable to attach to/unable to nurture Scott because she wasn't nurtured herself. Lee with the terrible temper.

Then you have the other hand - who believe Scott was never told no - never put down until he was 1 - he was a spoiled brat - and Lee treated him more like a friend than a son.

Even Ablow couldn't decide which one it was.....and you can't have both.

[Miss Bootsie]

I have no idea how many one night stands he may have had, and I don't care about Amber. This is a murder case to me.

But I will say that all indications were that Scott wanted a short term fling with Amber, nothing more. His lies to her from day one prove it. He obviously expected it to be long over before he ever had to show his house in Sacramento or wherever he said he lived, or live up to many of the lies he told her.

MOO

Urrrrr Beebee, You wrote this:

If you think all married men do the slam bam one stand routine only, you are sadly mistaken! It's not JUST about sex, although I think sex is a big part.... so is the newness, the mystery, romance, fantasy... it's all involved in the thrill of an affair- that's why people do it.
Also- unless a man wants something along the lines of a hooker, some baiting is necessary, imo. All part of the game.

If you think SP was one of those married men that didn't have one-night stands, according to statements he made to Shawn, you are wrong.

Scott and Amber had sex the first night.
Yet, he went on to take her out several times, pick up her child, give her gifts, continued phoning and tried to entice her to meet with him when his wife was missing.
Obviously, Scott had much more interest in Amber, than the many over night stands he told Shawn about.

All indications are, he wanted a relationship with Amber.

[ekg]

snipped
And I beg to differ about "an already innocent trip". Nothing could be further from the truth, unless he psychic. He bought a ticket on the 20th for a fishing trip that was, in his own words, "a morning decision" on the 24th.


I was talking about Ron's already innocent trip that ppl seem to feel the need to explain and make 'more innocent'


again, I'm not talking about why Ron said what he said, why he went fishing when he did, how often he does it.... etc etc etc...

I just said he went at the same time of day that Scott did...any explanation as to why he went or why it's ok that he went is not needed or asked for.. none of that is pertinent to the case.. the only pertinent issue is the time of day he went..since it gives credibility to Scott for going at the same time.. the argument "He's guilty b/c noone goes fishing at that time" is debunked with Ron going at the same time..

is that the problem here? That I'm using Ron to debunk the myth that Scott's guilty b/c of the time he went fishing?

[deputydi]

I was talking about Ron's already innocent trip that ppl seem to feel the need to explain and make 'more innocent'


again, I'm not talking about why Ron said what he said, why he went fishing when he did, how often he does it.... etc etc etc...

I just said he went at the same time of day that Scott did...any explanation as to why he went or why it's ok that he went is not needed or asked for.. none of that is pertinent to the case.. the only pertinent issue is the time of day he went..since it gives credibility to Scott for going at the same time.. the argument "He's guilty b/c noone goes fishing at that time" is debunked with Ron going at the same time..

is that the problem here? That I'm using Ron to debunk the myth that Scott's guilty b/c of the time he went fishing?
Please, please, please give it up already! I will admit that Scott claiming to have left around noon to drive 90 miles to participate in an activity that was uncommon for him, is not evidence of murder all by itself. All it is, is part of the web of deceit he wove that day. Can we now talk about something else?

[deputydi]

>snip>EKG has made some fantastic points. For one minute....those of you who have children, put yourself in the Petersons' shoes. Those of you who don't have children - don't even begin to think that you can - because unless you have children - you have no understanding of the love and protectiveness a parent feels for their child - ESPECIALLY a mother. I can tell you what I would have done - if my son had called me and told me that his mother-in-law had said those things to him - I would have been so angry - I would have been on the phone - giving that woman a piece of my mind - missing daughter or no missing daughter. <snip>
I have three adult children and I know what you're talking about. The mother tiger has come out in me on more than one occasion. This is exactly why I tried my best not to judge the things Jackie said publicly. I can't help feeling that denying Sharon access to the house was revenge -- pure and simple. I could even accept that if she had done the compassionate thing and box up the items Sharon wanted most -- Laci's wedding dress (what on earth was Scott going to do with it?), Laci's decorated watering can, a rocking chair from Conner's room. Come on now -- a little consideration would have gone a very long way, doncha think?

[JustMyOpinion]

Well sure you'd believe all that - if you believe Ablow -who never met the Petersons or can't verify speaking to anyone that would have any true insight
to the Peterson family dynamics or Jackie or Lee's childhood.

For someone with such a violent temper - I sure haven't ever seen any outbursts or read about them - under the most trying and stressful circumstance.

What else is interesting is how divided even the G's are on what was wrong with Scott's childhood. On one hand you have the G's who believe Jackie was cold and unable to attach to/unable to nurture Scott because she wasn't nurtured herself. Lee with the terrible temper.

Then you have the other hand - who believe Scott was never told no - never put down until he was 1 - he was a spoiled brat - and Lee treated him more like a friend than a son.

Even Ablow couldn't decide which one it was.....and you can't have both.

Ablow did speak with Lee Peterson ( Lee did not tell him he was on psychiatric medicine or had a violent temper) Ablow obtained that information from sources he only identifies as "a family member ", "a first-degree relative" ( page 78) I do believe Ablow spoke with these sources.
Ablow did disclose the names of some of the people he interviewed besides Lee,,: ( John Latham, James Patrick Latham, Jennifer Peterson, Mark Peterson, Lauren Putnat) Page 9
How would you have seen outbursts, do you live in the Peterson home or gather with their family?
I have read about outbursts ( the one on the formal sentencing day comes to mind..there were others reported by media during trial)
Not sure why you don't think it's possible for Scott to have been neglected or abused ( or both) while also experienced objectification, privilege and entitlement.
Ablow puts forward his own theories & opinion very clearly,( he doesn't seem a bit confused about his own opinion in his book,, IMO) Ablow thinks Scott is insane.

[frydaddy]

Saying that Ron went fishing isn't pertinent to the case? or is 'getting even'?

I want to be able to say the family's name without it being said how dreadful it is that I (or any NG) am trying to smear them in some way..

Discussing Ron's fishing is no problem. And if you feel it (what Ron did and said) makes a difference in discussing SP going to the bay on Christmas Eve, I personally have no problem with it. But, let's be real okay? Ron going fishing is the least of the commentary on him or Sharon that people take exception to. The curious part is when someone posts about Laci's folks in quoting a post about the Petersons. Intended or not, it gives the appearance of "getting even". Just how I see it is all. :)

[frydaddy]

Sorry if this subject is done and gone - but this is the first chance I've had to reply to this.

Speaking as a woman who used to like bad boys - I think there are multiple reasons why (some) women like bad boys - and I think there are multiple reasons why (some) women who stay with men who cheat.

I agree low self esteem is one reason. For me....it wasn't low self esteem. Looking back now - I realize I liked being needed. My mother calls me the Mother Theresa of the family - always wanting to help people. Part of me liked being the stable person in the relationship - the together person - part of me liked picking him up when he fell. I always knew I was better at him at everything - at keeping a job - at maintaining relationships - but I felt sorry for him - and the guilt of knowing he'd be on the street without me prevented me from leaving him.

That all changed when I got pregnant and had my son. Now my son needed me. So he filled that need to be needed. And I also had him to protect. I may have been willing to allow him to drag me down trying to help him - but I was not going to allow him to drag my child down. I left him when my son was 9 months old and I never looked back. And just as I thought - he wound up on the street - and died 7 years later at the young age of 33.

I've never been cheated on - but like I said, I believe women stay with cheating men for different reasons. Some have low self esteem. Some may not care. Some stay for the children. The human mind is too complex and there are too many life experiences that affect the way we think to narrow it down to one thing.

Alot of people say - no way Laci would have allowed Scott to be gone all day on Christmas Eve - or after the baby was born. But from reading Sharon's book - it sounds like this could have been normal behavior to Laci. After all - Sharon and Ron were having Christmas Eve dinner at their house - and where was Laci's step-father that day? After finishing work up at noon - he went fishing. He wasn't at home working on his honey-do list. He was fishing. Sharon writes of there being days when she was so distraught with grief that she couldn't get out of bed - and Ron would go fishing - but made sure someone was there with her. Now based on my marriage - and my experiences - I could say - any man who was that inconsiderate - to leave the house when I was that distraught - well...I'd show him the door. But from the way Sharon writes her book - I'd say she was perfectly okay with this. And our tolerances for our spouses' quirks and shortfalls sometimes mimick our parents' tolerances for their spouses - and then again - sometimes we go the complete opposite direction. Ya just never know.

I appreciate the insight into you, it's always nice to get background on what makes people tick. Thanks for that.

Here's where we differ.

Sharon was not pregnant.
Sharon and Ron had been together for a long time. Much longer than Laci and Scott.
Scott supposedly told Laci he was cheating.
Ron's honey hole and fishing stomps were common knowledge and regular practice for him.
Scott was the one who gave up glorious and completing each other and all that. Ron was pretty straight up that he was somewhat set in his ways and his own man.

So, the debate is really apples and oranges.

[thinkaboutit]

Allow me. Ron initially made the comment to ISP about the time of day he went fishing, because he was unaware that ISP owned a boat, therefore he assumed he caught the chartered boat, that leaves around 6:30 AM out of the Marina. So, IMO, no - there's no "correct" time to go fishing (although those that do will probably tell you that early morning and sunset is when they bite), however - the fishing comment, taken IN context - when nobody knew ISP had his own boat, is correct.

And I beg to differ about "an already innocent trip". Nothing could be further from the truth, unless he psychic. He bought a ticket on the 20th for a fishing trip that was, in his own words, "a morning decision" on the 24th.


Yeah - Ron Grantski's explanation of why he questioned the time Scott went fishing - morphed into - Scott told him he was fishing in the bay area - and Grantski thought he was out on a charter boat (LKL 3-29-06) -interestingly - that was never mentioned in Ron's testimony:

Ron's testimony - as of the trial - he was being a "smart behind" - "kidding" - "making an off-handed joke". He testified that Scott did not tell him where he had been fishing and after he made the comment - he felt bad:

GRANTSKI: Only very briefly. I, we were standing out in the front under a tree, and I was talking with a couple officers and Scott come walking up. And I said, you know, said Hi. Scott said Hi. I said, How was your golf today? He said No, I didn't play golf, I went fishing. And I, being the smart behind I am, I said Well, what time did you go fishing? He said Oh, about 9:30. And I said, I said 9:30? I said That's when I come home from fishing, that's not when I go. And he turned around and walked away. I was just kidding, but I felt bad that I had said that.

DISTASO: Okay. Did, did he tell you where he had gone fishing? Did you ask him?

GRANTSKI: No, not at that time, no.

DISTASO: Okay. So he comes walking up, you said Hey, how was golf today, and then he said Oh, no, I went fishing instead?

GRANTSKI: Yeah.

DISTASO: And did that strike you as, how did you take that?

GRANTSKI: Well, I was just,

GERAGOS: Excuse me. Irrelevant.



GRANTSKI: He came walking up as I was talking to the police, to where I was standing.

GERAGOS: Okay. And you say, How was golfing?

GRANTSKI: Yeah.

GERAGOS: Okay. And he said,

GRANTSKI: He said I didn't go golfing, I went fishing.

GERAGOS: And you told him, you said that sounded like a fishy story?

GRANTSKI: Yeah, I said What time did you go fishing?

GERAGOS: And he said?

GRANTSKI: 9:30. And I said That's when you come home. Kidding. That's not when you go fishing.

GERAGOS: You didn't joke with him, say Wow, that's amazing, I was fishing today at that exact same time?

GRANTSKI: No, I didn't have a chance. He turned around and walked away.

GERAGOS: Okay. At that point he was, his pregnant wife was missing?

GRANTSKI: Sure.

GERAGOS: Everybody is in a high state of panic?

GRANTSKI: Sure.

GERAGOS: The police are there?

GRANTSKI: I agree.

GERAGOS: Okay. Is it,

GRANTSKI: And I felt bad.

GERAGOS: You felt bad,

GRANTSKI: Yeah.

GERAGOS: because,

GRANTSKI: Sure.

GERAGOS: you thought that he thought you were implying something, or you thought he thought that you were implying something,

GRANTSKI: Right, and,

REPORTER: Excuse me. Excuse me. I can't have the two of you, I'm not getting it. So if you go back to "you were implying something," he said "Right."

JUDGE: Okay. Let the witness finish his answer. Mr. Grantski you said you felt bad. Finish your answer.

GRANTSKI: Well, because that was the first time it hit me, it was in front of two police officers, I'm making an offhanded joke about fishing, so that was the reason.

GERAGOS: As you sit here it's understandable that somebody might take offense at that, and that's what you realized at the time, right?

GRANTSKI: Yes.



Then - as I said - he told LKL on 3-29-06 - that Scott told him he was fishing in the bay area (even though Ron testified that Scott did not tell him where he had been fishing) - Ron says he made the comment because he assumed SP was out on a charter boat -

GRANTSKI: I didn't see much of Scott until -- I went back up to the front of the house and there's people everywhere. And the police are -- I think they have Scott in the house and they're walking around. And so I'm standing out front, talking to a couple of police officers. And here again, I'm not thinking anything. If you want to know the truth, at that time I thought Laci had probably just gone to a friend's house and you know that this would all be -- would get better.

And Scott came walking up. And I'm -- I said so, how was your golf game today and thinking -- because I really did. I was wrong, but I thought he went to play golf. And he said oh, I didn't go play golf, I went fishing. I said fishing. Where did you go fishing? He said over the bay area. I said oh yes, when? And he said oh about 10:00 or something like that.

And I said well, that's when you come home from there fishing. That's not when you go fishing. Well the two police officers were there and they looked at each other. And then it started to hit me, oh, no. You know I think maybe I've said something that makes them him...

(CROSSTALK)

GRANTSKI: ... he turned around and walked away.

KING: Did you think then, something's wrong?

GRANTSKI: When he turned around and walked away, then I felt something's not right there. And what I meant by that -- because I'd been deep-sea fishing before. And we would go out on a party boat, which I thought he was talking about. He went out you know deep-sea fishing on a party boat. And you have to be there at 5:00 in the morning. You go out and fish until about noon, and then you're back in. And I didn't even know he had a boat, so you know.


:shrug: To - me - what he testified to - and what he told LKL - are VERY different.

June 9th 2003 - Ron says in an interview he thinks he said something to the police about Scott golfing:

SHARON: “I didn’t realize he had gone fishing until later. I had assumed he had gone golfing because that’s normally what he did was golfing. I’d never known him to go fishing by himself.”

GRANTSKI: “I would have thought he would have gone to play golf. That’s what I was told. I remember, I think I said something about that to the police that night and still thinking that that’s where he went because everybody was running around. And then he told me, Scott said then, No, I didn’t play golf. I went fishing. So, that was the first I’d heard of it.”



IIRC - Sharon Rocha does not address this incident in her book.

[thinkaboutit]

I have three adult children and I know what you're talking about. The mother tiger has come out in me on more than one occasion. This is exactly why I tried my best not to judge the things Jackie said publicly. I can't help feeling that denying Sharon access to the house was revenge -- pure and simple. I could even accept that if she had done the compassionate thing and box up the items Sharon wanted most -- Laci's wedding dress (what on earth was Scott going to do with it?), Laci's decorated watering can, a rocking chair from Conner's room. Come on now -- a little consideration would have gone a very long way, doncha think?

Well - absolutely. According to an interview Lee Peterson did - he said Scott was going over a list with his lawyer of the things he was going to give to Sharon. Around the same time - Sharon broke into the house and took what she wanted. I understand Sharon's torment - her unwillingness to wait - her desire for those things. I also understand the Petersons wanting to look out for their son's wishes - first - and give him the opportunity to give his okay to Sharon's requests. I'm not going to make an excuse for everything the P's said and did - but I just think - if I had been in their shoes - the media would have had a field day with me - because I would have given them much more to write about. I would, without a doubt, put my son's feelings and interests before anyone elses - even Laci's parents - IF I truly believed in his innocence.

[cookiewench]

I find nothing strange about the time Ron went either...... or the day for that matter...

The comparison is the time of day they went

for whatever reason I'm not being understood...I am not being confusing or vague in anything I am saying..

it's simple.... the statement that started all of this is easy...

'Noone goes fishing at that time of day' (paraphrased)

now either this is a true statement..... that NOONE goes fishing at that time of day or it's a false one....

Since we all g et asked for 'proof' or 'links' to our statements, sometimes I post the proof along with my statements...So to prove that ppl DO go fishing at that time of day, I gave Ron as an example of innocent ppl who fish during that time of day..

It's relevant b/c it shows that..... Yes, ppl do fish at that time and are not out covering up a murder..


the level of fisherman the person is isn't in question.
the distance driven to fish isn't in question.
the question of whether or not the person has a boat or not isn't in question.


the ONLY question is Do ppl go fishing at that time or not...

the answer is simple... yes they do or no they don't.

I don't see why a G cannot answer with a simple 'yes or no'.. what is there to explain..why the need to make an already innocent trip seem even more innocent? is there some kind of fear here?

They both went fishing at the same time.... the innocent implication that Ron went cancels out the guilty implication of Scott going..... simple and relevant...

Ron has stated that the reason he said "no one goes fishing at that time of day" is because he didn't know about the boat, and so assumed that Scott had gone out on a charter boat - which would have gone out early in the morning.

Have you read any of the books on this case? If you do, they will fill in some of this background information for you.

I find it interested that Scott didn't tell Ron about the boat at that time, to alleviate Ron's incredulous stance on the time he went fishing. At that time, Scott still hadn't even mentioned to anyone that he'd bought a "secret boat".