Common Ground?

[thinkaboutit]

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.

When I said we would have seen or heard about outbursts - I was referring to the trial. The outburst on formal sentencing day is no indication of a man with a "violent temper" - it was an indication of a father frustrated and at his wits end that his son was going to die for a crime he didn't commit. I'd say considering - the P's held back pretty well.

Ablow jumps back and forth between Scott could have been adored/ loved too much and Scott could have been neglected and sexually abused. A clear indicator to me, along with Ablow's dozens of "could have" and maybe claims, that Ablow found no sufficient proof in his "research" of the Peterson family - of either theory.

[cookiewench]

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.


How long does it take to look at a list of items and check off which ones the other person can have? I'd say not more than 10 minutes, and yet (IIRC) a number of weeks had gone by since the request.

[cookiewench]

When I said we would have seen or heard about outbursts - I was referring to the trial. The outburst on formal sentencing day is no indication of a man with a "violent temper" - it was an indication of a father frustrated and at his wits end that his son was going to die for a crime he didn't commit. I'd say considering - the P's held back pretty well.

Ablow jumps back and forth between Scott could have been adored/ loved too much and Scott could have been neglected and sexually abused. A clear indicator to me, along with Ablow's dozens of "could have" and maybe claims, that Ablow found no sufficient proof in his "research" of the Peterson family - of either theory.

Why would the issue of Lee's outbursts come up in trial testimony?

[JustMyOpinion]

When I said we would have seen or heard about outbursts - I was referring to the trial. The outburst on formal sentencing day is no indication of a man with a "violent temper" - it was an indication of a father frustrated and at his wits end that his son was going to die for a crime he didn't commit. I'd say considering - the P's held back pretty well.

Ablow jumps back and forth between Scott could have been adored/ loved too much and Scott could have been neglected and sexually abused. A clear indicator to me, along with Ablow's dozens of "could have" and maybe claims, that Ablow found no sufficient proof in his "research" of the Peterson family - of either theory.

On the day of formal sentencing, Scott was not going to die. The Judge set clear boundaries, Lee violated them, and raged at a victimized party. Lee then abandoned his son, left him alone in chains ( as he had previously abandoned his son on the day of the verdict) IMO.

Ablow doesn't theorize that Scott was "adored or loved too much", IMO. Ablow does theorize that he was objectified, neglected, and perhaps, sexually abused, IMO.

[thinkaboutit]

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.

You are welcome ;)

My point though was that Laci grew up with Ron and Sharon. So if Ron going off fishing for the day was normal and Sharon was okay with it - this may have been acceptable for Laci in her relationship with Scott.

Laci being 7 1/2 months pregnant just isn't an issue for me - when it comes to Scott being away from her for 6 hours. She had just been to the doctor the day before - no indications the baby was going to be born any day.

But I admit, I do have a hard time with the concept that Laci knew Scott was cheating - he had told her about it (the whole truth), saw Amber after he told her - and she was okay with him leaving on Christmas Eve for an extended length of time. I don't think Laci knew about Amber.

[thinkaboutit]

How long does it take to look at a list of items and check off which ones the other person can have? I'd say not more than 10 minutes, and yet (IIRC) a number of weeks had gone by since the request.

Sure - 10 minutes if you have nothing else to do - like deal with the fact that you've been arrested for murder. I don't have a problem with this not being on the top of SP's priority list.

[thinkaboutit]

Why would the issue of Lee's outbursts come up in trial testimony?


Where did I say that it would come up in trial testimony? We heard about his outburst during Brent's VIS didn't we? Do you think Lee could have had violent outbursts and we wouldn't have heard about them?

[JustMyOpinion]

Sure - 10 minutes if you have nothing else to do - like deal with the fact that you've been arrested for murder. I don't have a problem with this not being on the top of SP's priority list.

How much do you think there is "to do" in jail? I do agree with you that Laci's familys' grief was not at the top of SP's priority list. Scott gave his parents power of attorney, they chose to put a padlock on the gate, change the alarm code, and Jackie gave shifting and inconsistent statements about Laci's things, LIED on television claiming Sharon wanting to go to the house was a surprise to her ( when she & Sharon and their lawyers had been exchanging calls & email about this for quite some time) IIRC.

[thinkaboutit]

On the day of formal sentencing, Scott was not going to die. The Judge set clear boundaries, Lee violated them, and raged at a victimized party. Lee then abandoned his son, left him alone in chains ( as he had previously abandoned his son on the day of the verdict) IMO.

Ablow doesn't theorize that Scott was "adored or loved too much", IMO. Ablow does theorize that he was objectified, neglected, and perhaps, sexually abused, IMO.

And let me guess - you would calmly sit and listen to the things Brent was saying - to your son?

JMO - do you have children?

He abandoned his son? Or maybe he couldn't bear to listen to it anymore?

All of this is from Ablow's book:

Page 48:

Anne Bird once observed, “I think Jackie treated Scott like a dress-up doll from day one, someone who could have the best manners of anyone, ever. Even when he was an adult, she would always smile at him, and you could just see her thinking, ‘He’s the perfect person.’



…Indeed, during his first year of life, Jackie carried Scott around so much that it became a family joke that his feet never touched the ground.



Additionally on page 48:

She quickly convinced him he was extraordinary, but that he was wholly owned and operated – by her. Without her adoring eyes, her ceaseless compliments, her reminders to him that he was the perfect person, he would be no one and have nothing. He would be worthless.


Page 76:

“You could tell his mother had raised him right,” Putnat told me. “He was the ultimate gentleman, regal in a way. He was very, very mature and very polite. I never even heard him swear."

“They are very close,” Lauren said of Scott and his mother. “He was a mama’s boy. She literally worried if he would cut himself or scratch himself. She babied him.”

When mothers “baby” their sons in the way Lauren was describing it is another way of loving them to death. They are depriving them of learning to take care of themselves, suggesting to them again and again that some terrible end will come to them if they are not in constant contact with home, that the world is a dangerous, unpredictable place where even a nick or a scratch could be a calamity. Better to keep oneself safely under wraps, even if it feels like suffocating.



How do you baby/smother someone and neglect them at the same time?

And Ablow's only "evidence" to back up sexual abuse - one of his lover's claims that he moaned like a girl during sex? Puh-lease!

[JustMyOpinion]

Where did I say that it would come up in trial testimony? We heard about his outburst during Brent's VIS didn't we? Do you think Lee could have had violent outbursts and we wouldn't have heard about them?

There were outbursts in the hallway of the courthouse,.. earlier outbursts with the media.. they weren't characterized as "violent"..by reporters, just rageful, or angry, IIRC.

[thinkaboutit]

How much do you think there is "to do" in jail? I do agree with you that Laci's familys' grief was not at the top of SP's priority list. Scott gave his parents power of attorney, they chose to put a padlock on the gate, change the alarm code, and Jackie gave shifting and inconsistent statements about Laci's things, LIED on television claiming Sharon wanting to go to the house was a surprise to her ( when she & Sharon and their lawyers had been exchanging calls & email about this for quite some time) IIRC.

Why should Laci's family's grief be at the top of SP's priority list if he was innocent? After they turned on him, verbally attacked him and helped the police make their case against him? Why?

A padlock on the gate wasn't necessarily to keep SR out - it was to keep everyone out - the house was empty. I don't know when the alarm code was changed - do you? Could you point me in the direction of this information that Jackie lied on television? How lont is quite some time? Sorry - but I can't debate this with you with such vague information. I don't know where it's coming from or how reliable it is.

[Beebee]

Urrrrr Beebee, You wrote this:
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..

snip

Bootsie, I don't care who Scott was banging or when/how often, what he told Sibley.... none of it matters to me.

I am of the opinion that the fling with Amber had N-O-T-H-I-N-G to do with Laci's disappearance, period. To me this is a murder case. If you think otherwise that is your right.

I think Scott was a cheater who loved his wife--- like MILLIONS of men, and had no motive what-so-ever to kill Laci.

JMO MOO

[thinkaboutit]

There were outbursts in the hallway of the courthouse,.. earlier outbursts with the media.. they weren't characterized as "violent"..by reporters, just rageful, or angry, IIRC.

Okay then - well - we ARE talking about Lee's "VIOLENT temper" right? And there was no evidence of that - right?

[cookiewench]

Sure - 10 minutes if you have nothing else to do - like deal with the fact that you've been arrested for murder. I don't have a problem with this not being on the top of SP's priority list.

He had the time to read a lot of books and to write letters - including one to Amber.

[cookiewench]

Okay then - well - we ARE talking about Lee's "VIOLENT temper" right? And there was no evidence of that - right?

Again: Why do you think there should be talk of Lee's temper at his son's trial? Does everything that wasn't talked about at the trial not exist?

[thinkaboutit]

Again: Why do you think there should be talk of Lee's temper at his son's trial? Does everything that wasn't talked about at the trial not exist?


Because - absolutely - something that dramatic - I think we would have heard about it - through the media - through people that were there - we would have heard about it.

And I'll ask you again - do you really think it's possible that LP could have had a violent outburst and we would not have heard about it?

[JustMyOpinion]

And let me guess - you would calmly sit and listen to the things Brent was saying - to your son?

JMO - do you have children?

He abandoned his son? Or maybe he couldn't bear to listen to it anymore?

All of this is from Ablow's book:



How do you baby/smother someone and neglect them at the same time?

And Ablow's only "evidence" to back up sexual abuse - one of his lover's claims that he moaned like a girl during sex? Puh-lease!


Yes ..I've raised children.

Yes, I would stay in the courtroom to support a son on the day of his formal sentencing, no matter how it made me feel. ( It wouldn't be about me)
As to your question about smothering/objectifying AND neglect & abuse.. I cannot post a short answer to your question, you could research it if you were interested...IMO.

As for the issue of sexual abuse, James Patrick Latham told Ablow: "My brothers and I didn't have sexual abuse, but it did happen to the girls there. And if the girls said anything they would embarass them in front of all the other girls. This one overseer had access to all of them. Some girls are just starting to say something now. There are lawsuits starting".
Ablow also spoke with attorney Irwin Zallkin who is representing some of those plaintiffs, including some who resided there when Jackie did, Zallkin told Ablow "Nazareth House was a cesspool of pedophilia". Zallkin cited a client who says was sexually abused daily by a priest, was then sent to a counseling priest who also abused her. pages 38-39
It appears to me Ablow has ample reason to suspect that Jackie could have been a victim of sexual abuse, and he cites the sexual behavior of Scott ( as described by Putnat & Frey) as making "perfect psychological sense if he had been sexually abused as a boy, especially by a woman". ( pages 108-109)
It seems you are taking specific elements out of context, instead of focusing on the whole picture ( whether evidence at trial, or Ablow's theories).. JMO Ablow only wonders about sexual abuse.. but it isn't just based on what Putnat shared..IMO.

[frydaddy]

You are welcome

My point though was that Laci grew up with Ron and Sharon. So if Ron going off fishing for the day was normal and Sharon was okay with it - this may have been acceptable for Laci in her relationship with Scott.

Laci being 7 1/2 months pregnant just isn't an issue for me - when it comes to Scott being away from her for 6 hours. She had just been to the doctor the day before - no indications the baby was going to be born any day.

But I admit, I do have a hard time with the concept that Laci knew Scott was cheating - he had told her about it (the whole truth), saw Amber after he told her - and she was okay with him leaving on Christmas Eve for an extended length of time. I don't think Laci knew about Amber.

I wish I had time to post for awhile, it is a bit more difficult to discuss things with hours between posts, so I apologize.

"This may have been acceptible for Laci..." - I think that is a fair statement. And I also agree that Laci wasn't gonna go into labor that day. I guess it is just how I look at things and what I would have done.

Assuming Laci was alive when Scott left at 10:00 a.m. - she had a LOT of things to do that day. Now...I do not recall with clarity the list Scott gave...but she was going to mop the floors, shop for brunch, and bake gingerbread cookies. She was also going to walk the dog. A lot of stuff for a tired, pregnant woman of 30+ weeks (using caution to avoid triggering the gestational age debate here! :chicken: ). Personally, if it were my wife, I likely wouldn't have left at all. I certainly wouldn't have jacked around at the warehouse for the extra hour or more, knowing I had a minimum of a four hour trip ahead.

Not intending to split hairs here...but he was gone 7.5 hours AND he was going to make them late for dinner. AND, he failed to accomplish unloading those umbrellas for Laci. AND, he blew off the basket for Papa. AND, he blew off Amy's call. AND, I have a hard time with this "mornin' decision" stuff, when the weather that week was pretty consistent and any golfer or fisher I know can usually tell if the weather is suitable for THEIR taste from a forecast the day, or even two, before. AND, he washed his clothes due to sea spray, but the jacket he wore was not only not washed, but dry. Now, can you see that while all of these oddities can be explained point by point, as a whole, it leaves one (me) scratching my head?

I appreciate that you don't think Laci know about Amber. While it makes him being "allowed" to go off on Christmas Eve a little more believable, it makes he himself a little more dishonest on the whole. For me it's the big picture...we'll get there eventually! :tongue: (I'm only kidding you like this because I know you don't take it personally! ;) )

[cookiewench]

And I'll ask you again - do you really think it's possible that LP could have had a violent outburst and we would not have heard about it?
Of course! Absolutely! Who would have seen these outbursts? Jackie? Scott? Do you think they'd blab about them?

How many people know about whatever drama went on behind closed doors in your own home?

[thinkaboutit]

Yes ..I've raised children.

Yes, I would stay in the courtroom to support a son on the day of his formal sentencing, no matter how it made me feel. ( It wouldn't be about me)
As to your question about smothering/objectifying AND neglect & abuse.. I cannot post a short answer to your question, you could research it if you were interested...IMO.

As for the issue of sexual abuse, James Patrick Latham told Ablow: "My brothers and I didn't have sexual abuse, but it did happen to the girls there. And if the girls said anything they would embarass them in front of all the other girls. This one overseer had access to all of them. Some girls are just starting to say something now. There are lawsuits starting".
Ablow also spoke with attorney Irwin Zallkin who is representing some of those plaintiffs, including some who resided there when Jackie did, Zallkin told Ablow "Nazareth House was a cesspool of pedophilia". Zallkin cited a client who says was sexually abused daily by a priest, was then sent to a counseling priest who also abused her. pages 38-39
It appears to me Ablow has ample reason to suspect that Jackie could have been a victim of sexual abuse, and he cites the sexual behavior of Scott ( as described by Putnat & Frey) as making "perfect psychological sense if he had been sexually abused as a boy, especially by a woman". ( pages 108-109)
It seems you are taking specific elements out of context, instead of focusing on the whole picture ( whether evidence at trial, or Ablow's theories).. JMO Ablow only wonders about sexual abuse.. but it isn't just based on what Putnat shared..IMO.


No thanks...I'll pass on doing further research as to how it's possible that someone could be neglected/abused and smothered/babied at the same time. I'll keep my opinion that it can't happen. Makes no sense to me.

Hmmm....well - James Latham says he wasn't abused - but Zalkin has represented other men who were abused as boys at the Nazareth house. So since Jackie has never said she was abused - I'd say it's possible other girls were but she wasn't. It's PROOF of nothing. And I can't say what I think of Ablow for bringing the issue up in his book - with NO PROOF. And I stand by my opinion that an ex-lover claiming Scott moaned like a girl during sex being used as support that he was sexually abused - is quite frankly - laughable. There are very definitive signs of someone who has suffered sexual abuse - and LOL - their way of moaning during sex is just not one of them IMO - never heard that one before.

I'm not taking things out of context. I just think Ablow should be required to offer some substantial proof for his professional opinion (aka - diagnosis) - because - people will take what he says as the truth - simply because he's a doctor - and run with it.

[thinkaboutit]

Of course! Absolutely! Who would have seen these outbursts? Jackie? Scott? Do you think they'd blab about them?

How many people know about whatever drama went on behind closed doors in your own home?

Okay - I forgot to include - in the courtroom - I thought you would know that's what I was talking about - since that's what the entire conversation was referring to. We're not talking about behind closed doors - in the courtroom. Do you think LP could have had violent outbursts in the courtroom and we never heard about it?

[JustMyOpinion]

No thanks...I'll pass on doing further research as to how it's possible that someone could be neglected/abused and smothered/babied at the same time. I'll keep my opinion that it can't happen. Makes no sense to me.

Hmmm....well - James Latham says he wasn't abused - but Zalkin has represented other men who were abused as boys at the Nazareth house. So since Jackie has never said she was abused - I'd say it's possible other girls were but she wasn't. It's PROOF of nothing. And I can't say what I think of Ablow for bringing the issue up in his book - with NO PROOF. And I stand by my opinion that an ex-lover claiming Scott moaned like a girl during sex being used as support that he was sexually abused - is quite frankly - laughable. There are very definitive signs of someone who has suffered sexual abuse - and LOL - their way of moaning during sex is just not one of them IMO - never heard that one before.



I'm not taking things out of context. I just think Ablow should be required to offer some substantial proof for his professional opinion (aka - diagnosis) - because - people will take what he says as the truth - simply because he's a doctor - and run with it.


Ablow doesn't make the claim that Scott or Jackie WERE sexually abused, he makes it clear he is theorizing that it is possible, IMO.( based on information he gathered, interviews he did, and..his own knowledge/clinical experience.)
Ablow did offer a basis for the formation his own theories about Scott, and it is up to the reader to form their own opinion about Ablow's theories, the book, etc.. Ablow doesn't claim to "know" the entire truth, IMO. Since he hasn't been sued for libel or defamation, I doubt he stated anything as a "fact" or a "truth" that he could not substantiate.
Why do you care about what other people might believe?

[thinkaboutit]

I wish I had time to post for awhile, it is a bit more difficult to discuss things with hours between posts, so I apologize.

"This may have been acceptible for Laci..." - I think that is a fair statement. And I also agree that Laci wasn't gonna go into labor that day. I guess it is just how I look at things and what I would have done.

Assuming Laci was alive when Scott left at 10:00 a.m. - she had a LOT of things to do that day. Now...I do not recall with clarity the list Scott gave...but she was going to mop the floors, shop for brunch, and bake gingerbread cookies. She was also going to walk the dog. A lot of stuff for a tired, pregnant woman of 30+ weeks (using caution to avoid triggering the gestational age debate here! Personally, if it were my wife, I likely wouldn't have left at all. I certainly wouldn't have jacked around at the warehouse for the extra hour or more, knowing I had a minimum of a four hour trip ahead.

Not intending to split hairs here...but he was gone 7.5 hours AND he was going to make them late for dinner. AND, he failed to accomplish unloading those umbrellas for Laci. AND, he blew off the basket for Papa. AND, he blew off Amy's call. AND, I have a hard time with this "mornin' decision" stuff, when the weather that week was pretty consistent and any golfer or fisher I know can usually tell if the weather is suitable for THEIR taste from a forecast the day, or even two, before. AND, he washed his clothes due to sea spray, but the jacket he wore was not only not washed, but dry. Now, can you see that while all of these oddities can be explained point by point, as a whole, it leaves one (me) scratching my head?

I appreciate that you don't think Laci know about Amber. While it makes him being "allowed" to go off on Christmas Eve a little more believable, it makes he himself a little more dishonest on the whole. For me it's the big picture...we'll get there eventually! (I'm only kidding you like this because I know you don't take it personally!

Hi frydaddy! You are right - I don't take it personally! ;)

And being a woman - who has had two children and considering the day before, Laci bought $90 worth of groceries and brought them into the house by herself - unloaded them - went to a facial appt - and still had energy to change her clothes and go with Scott to get his hair cut....I see no problem with what Scott said she was planning to do on the 24th.

I don't think Scott said she was mopping the floors. I think he said she was mopping the floor - and specified one area by the french doors IIRC (could have been as little as a 10 minute job) . She was going to walk the dog (I think someone said she typically took about a 20 minute walk - IIRC) - get a few things at the store - hour tops - make her marinade for french toast the next morning - 30 minutes tops and bake cookies - depending on how many I'd say an hour and a half was reasonable - and not a solid hour and a half. That adds up to 3.5 hours leaving her 5 hours to spare before she had to be at her mother's house at 6:00.

LOL! That's okay if you want to split hairs - as long as you allow me to do the same! ;) I'll compromise at 7 hours - 9:45 (although - I would think there would be many G's that argue he left the house later than that) til 4:45 (he had showered, eaten a piece of pizza, thrown his clothes in the wash and called Sharon by 5:15) - and he wouldn't have made them late for 6:00 dinner as Sharon lived 5 to 10 minutes away.

The umbrella issue baffles me. If he had put Laci in the truck and put those umbrellas on top of her - that means he would have had to take the umbrellas out of the truck - take her body out of the truck - then put the umbrellas back in the truck. (I even heard Brocchini say in an interview that he thinks SP put Laci's body on top of the umbrellas) I don't know why it's so unreasonable to believe that he put them into the back of the truck with the intent to store them at the warehouse (as the weather was getting colder and they had no garage to store them) - but forgot before he left for the marina - and then was too rushed for time to unload them when he brought the boat back to the warehouse (since he was running late).

Was the jacket washable? What kind of jacket was it? I can't explain why the jacket was dry - but as a person who has wridden in many boats - I think it's pretty reasonable to say that Scott got wet out there from the spray (unless there is some dispute that he was out on the boat that day?) Unfortunately - we only have Brocchini's word that he actually felt the jacket - and he felt the right jacket and it was dry - and well - his word/memory just isn't good enough for me. Maybe he figured it would dry - but the clothes were on his body - and he didn't dare take them off his body and leave wet or damp clothes lying around or in a hamper - or his wife would take his head off (LOL - I am forever telling my husband to quit laying wet towels on the bed). I don't know if that's anywhere near the same - but it just came to mind as I was typing!

I understand the as a whole argument - but my counter argument is - if any of the oddities can be explained - they can't be considered a part of the whole. (But I bet you knew I was going to say that!) :)

[JustMyOpinion]

[QUOTE=thinkaboutit;8859739]. And I stand by my opinion that an ex-lover claiming Scott moaned like a girl during sex being used as support that he was sexually abused - is quite frankly - laughable. There are very definitive signs of someone who has suffered sexual abuse - and LOL - their way of moaning during sex is just not one of them IMO - never heard that one before.

QUOTE]

Putnat's only description of Scott was not how he moaned during sex. You are taking one quote completely out of context, IMO.
From "Inside the Mind of Scott Peterson" Ablow, Keith.
Page 105: "They are very close" Lauren said of Scott and his mother, "He was a mama's boy. She literally worried if he would cut himself or scratch himself. She babied him".
Page 106: "He was very bland" (Putnat said) "He didn't laugh or cry like a normal person would".
"Everything had to be planned. It was right out of a movie. It was always Scott's vision of what a woman would desire. He didn't just go on dates, he executed dates. I'm talking about picnics with strawberries & wine and this and that. Yummy cookies with rasberries. Everything was perfect. He strove to be the best man he could be, but it was a little boring after awhile.
It didn't feel real."
Page 107: "He was sexual and willing to try new things, but he didn't instigate much at all. I would try anything and he was open to it, but he wanted to do whatever I wanted to do. He would conform to my desires and just follow along. It was kind of boring."
Page 108: "He would moan like a girl. I would laugh sometimes because it was kind of funny. He would be the type to lay down and say 'Okay, bring it on', More like a woman. He was very submissive" .

[thinkaboutit]

Ablow doesn't make the claim that Scott or Jackie WERE sexually abused, he makes it clear he is theorizing that it is possible, IMO.( based on information he gathered, interviews he did, and..his own knowledge/clinical experience.)
Ablow did offer a basis for the formation his own theories about Scott, and it is up to the reader to form their own opinion about Ablow's theories, the book, etc.. Ablow doesn't claim to "know" the entire truth, IMO. Since he hasn't been sued for libel or defamation, I doubt he stated anything as a "fact" or a "truth" that he could not substantiate.
Why do you care about what other people might believe?

On the first bolded part - exactly - which makes his book even more responsible.

On the second bolded part - I care what other people believe - because I believe SP is innocent - and because I have a problem with anyone publishing a bunch of speculation that defames a person - ESPECIALLY a doctor.

I think Ablow should stick to his fiction novels.

[thinkaboutit]

[QUOTE=thinkaboutit;8859739]. And I stand by my opinion that an ex-lover claiming Scott moaned like a girl during sex being used as support that he was sexually abused - is quite frankly - laughable. There are very definitive signs of someone who has suffered sexual abuse - and LOL - their way of moaning during sex is just not one of them IMO - never heard that one before.

QUOTE]

Putnat's only description of Scott was not how he moaned during sex. You are taking one quote completely out of context, IMO.
From "Inside the Mind of Scott Peterson" Ablow, Keith.
Page 105: "They are very close" Lauren said of Scott and his mother, "He was a mama's boy. She literally worried if he would cut himself or scratch himself. She babied him".
Page 106: "He was very bland" (Putnat said) "He didn't laugh or cry like a normal person would".
"Everything had to be planned. It was right out of a movie. It was always Scott's vision of what a woman would desire. He didn't just go on dates, he executed dates. I'm talking about picnics with strawberries & wine and this and that. Yummy cookies with rasberries. Everything was perfect. He strove to be the best man he could be, but it was a little boring after awhile.
It didn't feel real."
Page 107: "He was sexual and willing to try new things, but he didn't instigate much at all. I would try anything and he was open to it, but he wanted to do whatever I wanted to do. He would conform to my desires and just follow along. It was kind of boring."
Page 108: "He would moan like a girl. I would laugh sometimes because it was kind of funny. He would be the type to lay down and say 'Okay, bring it on', More like a woman. He was very submissive" .


I don't have the book with me - would you mind quoting the part where he talks about Scott being sexually abused? TIA.

Never mind - I had it on my computer. Ablow specifically says Scott's behavior in bed is a sign of being sexually abused - so we can dismiss one and two above as being support for signs of sexual abuse according to Ablow:

Page 77 - 78:

It must be said that Scott’s behavior in bed would make perfect psychological sense if he had been sexually abused as a boy, especially by a woman. Sex might then always trigger the willingness in him to submit. And, as the most powerful event in his young life, he might seek to repeat it, again and again and again, recruiting woman after woman to subtly playact his domination.

….When and where, we cannot avoid asking, did Scott first learn to “moan like a girl”? Who first taught him?

I do not have a definitive answer, but while writing this book, I kept coming back to the question. And as a psychiatrist, I have learned that there must be a reason for that.


I've got a dot, dot, dot - there - which means there may be something in the book in between that first paragraph and the "When and where" - like I said I don't have the book with me.

Domination? Because he didn't suggest new things like Putnat in their early 20's - he was sexually abused as a child? Maybe she was a maniac in the bedroom and there was no reason for him to suggest new things. It's just beyond ridiculous in my opinion.

[JustMyOpinion]

On the first bolded part - exactly - which makes his book even more responsible.

On the second bolded part - I care what other people believe - because I believe SP is innocent - and because I have a problem with anyone publishing a bunch of speculation that defames a person - ESPECIALLY a doctor.

I think Ablow should stick to his fiction novels.

So, you aren't okay with having your own belief about Scott's innocence, and letting go of what others choose to believe? You want others to conform ?
Had Ablow "defamed Scott', I have little doubt Scott would file a suit against him. JMO
Ablow does use his background in forensic psychiatry, clinical experience combined with information he gathered to speculate about the contents of Scott's mind. IMO, Ablow wrote about Scott from an empathetic perspective.. he's one of the few people who is courageous enough to feel for and speak & write empathetically about those who have committed unspeakable acts, one of the few who will make a plea for mercy.. JMO

[JustMyOpinion]

[QUOTE=JustMyOpinion;8859748]



Domination? Because he didn't suggest new things like Putnat in their early 20's - he was sexually abused as a child? Maybe she was a maniac in the bedroom and there was no reason for him to suggest new things. It's just beyond ridiculous in my opinion.

The description provided by Putnam is not the only source Ablow is used. He spoke with Amber Frey about she & Scott's first sexual encounter ( page 176)
And, Scott's sexual behavior alone is not the sole basis for Ablow's wondering about the possibility of mother-son incest..IMO.

[thinkaboutit]

So, you aren't okay with having your own belief about Scott's innocence, and letting go of what others choose to believe? You want others to conform ?
Had Ablow "defamed Scott', I have little doubt Scott would file a suit against him. JMO
Ablow does use his background in forensic psychiatry, clinical experience combined with information he gathered to speculate about the contents of Scott's mind. IMO, Ablow wrote about Scott from an empathetic perspective.. he's one of the few people who is courageous enough to feel for and speak & write empathetically about those who have committed unspeakable acts, one of the few who will make a plea for mercy.. JMO


I am fine with others thinking for themselves and having their own beliefs and opinions. I just have a preference that those beliefs and opinions are based on true facts - not false speculations.

See - you are dictating to me Ablow's credentials to support his professional opinions. It doesn't make what he says in the book true. You are proving my point - you believe him because he is a doctor.

Do you defend Ablow because you are unwilling to believe that a doctor would lie - that a doctor would print falsehoods to further his career? Or do you defend Ablow because his position supports your position?

Ablow made a huge deal about Scott's demeanor in court - yet - he is quoted on a talk show saying that defendant's demeanor in court means nothing to him - because they are told not to show emotion? How do you explain that?

Modesto Bee, Tuesday, August 16, 2005
Author blames Peterson mother

Story by Garth Stapley, Bee staff writer, focuses on the assertion of Dr.Keith Ablow, a forensic psychiatrist, that Scott Peterson's mother is really to blame for the murder of Peterson's pregnant wife and that he is innocent by reason of insanity. Ablow claims that Peterson's mother was "damaged by her own childhood" and then wrecked Scott's. Stapley includes comments by Dr. Katherine Ramsland, assistant professor of forensic psychology at DeSales and an expert on serial killers. Ramsland states that Ablow's secondhand diagnosis is "suspect at best," since he never interviewed Peterson or reviewed his psychiatric history. She mentions those most likely to respond to his requests have memories tainted by the well-publicized case and adds that statistics show insanity pleas rarely work with jurors.

[thinkaboutit]

[QUOTE=thinkaboutit;8859751]

The description provided by Putnam is not the only source Ablow is used. He spoke with Amber Frey about she & Scott's first sexual encounter ( page 176)
And, Scott's sexual behavior alone is not the sole basis for Ablow's wondering about the possibility of mother-son incest..IMO.

How can you have that opinion - when Ablow specifically says that Scott's sexual behavior in bed suggests he was sexually abused by a child? That is the only mention of signs of sexual abuse.

[JustMyOpinion]

I am fine with others thinking for themselves and having their own beliefs and opinions. I just have a preference that those beliefs and opinions are based on true facts - not false speculations.

See - you are dictating to me Ablow's credentials to support his professional opinions. It doesn't make what he says in the book true. You are proving my point - you believe him because he is a doctor.

Do you defend Ablow because you are unwilling to believe that a doctor would lie - that a doctor would print falsehoods to further his career? Or do you defend Ablow because his position supports your position?

Ablow made a huge deal about Scott's demeanor in court - yet - he is quoted on a talk show saying that defendant's demeanor in court means nothing to him - because they are told not to show emotion? How do you explain that?

??? I believe Ablow about what, IYO? Where have I "defended him"? ( is it defending him because I have a different interpretation of the book or thought it was well-written )? I have seen no "falsehoods" in Ablow's book.
I don't care about Ablow's comments in the media about one defendant vs his comments about another. Apples & oranges, IMO.

[JustMyOpinion]

[QUOTE=JustMyOpinion;8859759]

How can you have that opinion - when Ablow specifically says that Scott's sexual behavior in bed suggests he was sexually abused by a child? That is the only mention of signs of sexual abuse.

No, it is not the only mention of the topic of sexual abuse in the book. You are isolating one sentence or paragraph.

[JustMyOpinion]

Modesto Bee, Tuesday, August 16, 2005
Author blames Peterson mother

Story by Garth Stapley, Bee staff writer, focuses on the assertion of Dr.Keith Ablow, a forensic psychiatrist, that Scott Peterson's mother is really to blame for the murder of Peterson's pregnant wife and that he is innocent by reason of insanity. Ablow claims that Peterson's mother was "damaged by her own childhood" and then wrecked Scott's. Stapley includes comments by Dr. Katherine Ramsland, assistant professor of forensic psychology at DeSales and an expert on serial killers. Ramsland states that Ablow's secondhand diagnosis is "suspect at best," since he never interviewed Peterson or reviewed his psychiatric history. She mentions those most likely to respond to his requests have memories tainted by the well-publicized case and adds that statistics show insanity pleas rarely work with jurors.

I agree that Ablow can't make a second-hand diagnosis. I also disagree with Ablow that Scott is legally insane, and agree with Ramsland that insanity pleas are rarely successful.

[thinkaboutit]

??? I believe Ablow about what, IYO? Where have I "defended him"? ( is it defending him because I have a different interpretation of the book or thought it was well-written )? I have seen no "falsehoods" in Ablow's book.
I don't care about Ablow's comments in the media about one defendant vs his comments about another. Apples & oranges, IMO.


:eek: Okay well... on that note... we probably don't have anything further to discuss on this subject - so I'll agree to disagree.

[thinkaboutit]

[QUOTE=thinkaboutit;8859761]

No, it is not the only mention of the topic of sexual abuse in the book. You are isolating one sentence or paragraph.

It is the only reference to Scott being sexually abused in the book. Obviously I can't provide proof of what I say by quoting something that simply isn't there - but if you can find another reference to Scott being sexually abused - or signs thereof - you certainly could provide those quotes here.

[cookiewench]

Ablow's not having interviewed Scott means nothing, IMO.

A diagnosis of psychopath/sociopath would depend more on background, history and general behavior than it would on anything the sociopath had to say concerning himself, as they don't generally tell the truth and cannot open up about themselves.

[JustMyOpinion]

Ablow's not having interviewed Scott means nothing, IMO.

A diagnosis of psychopath/sociopath would depend more on background, history and general behavior than it would on anything the sociopath had to say concerning himself, as they don't generally tell the truth and cannot open up about themselves.


I think many people & trial watchers ( including Geragos prior to taking the case) agree that Scott is a sociopath, I agree with you that this is an opinion based on observable & reported behavior & trial evidence, IMO. ( but it can't really be a "diagnosis", IMO)

[Hey Paula]

I think many people & trial watchers ( including Geragos prior to taking the case) agree that Scott is a sociopath, I agree with you that this is an opinion based on observable & reported behavior & trial evidence, IMO. ( but it can't really be a "diagnosis", IMO)

This opinion of Scott being a psychopath/sociopath is expressed by many because Scott exhibits anti-social behavior characteristics common to those disorders.

IMO

[accordn2me]

This opinion of Scott being a psychopath/sociopath is expressed by many because Scott exhibits anti-social behavior characteristics common to those disorders.

IMONot putting you on the spot but.....would you mind stating some of these for me?

I've always wondered "how do you tell" if a person is

OMG!....i've SHRUNK MY COMPUTER viewing area. I can barely see what I'm typing!

o

no!

[accordn2me]

that could have been my fault........it could be this possessed board! :eek:

Anyway.....how do you tell if a person is...da kine?

[cookiewench]

Not putting you on the spot but.....would you mind stating some of these for me?


no!

The lying, lack or emotion and showing inappropriate emotion, or showing an emotion inappropriately (acting, because he's not familiar with that emotion), his lack or worry or anxiety while being investigated, his jaunty demeanor in court - to name a few.

[thinkaboutit]

And I'm assuming everyone here assumes they can tell these things based on media interviews, courtroom demeanor, etc.

I'm just flabbergasted when people claim to know when someone is faking emotion or when someone is not worried about something.

I've read plenty on sociopaths/psychopaths - and even psychiatrists are sometimes fooled by these people. I guess if Scott's a sociopath - he isn't very good at it - because he can't even fool the every day person without a psychiatric degree.

[cookiewench]

And I'm assuming everyone here assumes they can tell these things based on media interviews, courtroom demeanor, etc.

I'm just flabbergasted when people claim to know when someone is faking emotion or when someone is not worried about something.

I've read plenty on sociopaths/psychopaths - and even psychiatrists are sometimes fooled by these people. I guess if Scott's a sociopath - he isn't very good at it - because he can't even fool the every day person without a psychiatric degree.


Yep. Those things can show in a media interview and in his courtroom demeanor. Everyone who saw it, either in person or in photos or on TV were shocked.

Are you saying that you don't have a clue, when you see someone expressing an emotion, on whether or not they appear to be sincere?

Scott isn't the first psychopath who fooled a lot of people for a long time and then showed his psychopathy when when pushed up against the wall.

Do you have a problem with Ted Bundy's smug, superior, imperious and disrespectful attitude in court being used as an indication of HIS psychopathy?

[thinkaboutit]

Yep. Those things can show in a media interview and in his courtroom demeanor. Everyone who saw it, either in person or in photos or on TV were shocked.

Are you saying that you don't have a clue, when you see someone expressing an emotion, on whether or not they appear to be sincere?

Scott isn't the first psychopath who fooled a lot of people for a long time and then showed his psychopathy when when pushed up against the wall.

Do you have a problem with Ted Bundy's smug, superior, imperious and disrespectful attitude in court being used as an indication of HIS psychopathy?

Yes - I'm saying you and I both don't have a clue whether someone is faking an emotion. When Dan Horowitz' wife was murdered and he did his first interview - my husband said - that guy is faking. You can form an opinion - but I guarantee you won't be right every time.

Sure - maybe there have been psychopaths who fooled alot of people for a long time until pushed up against the wall. And I'll give you this......if SP is guilty - and he murdered his wife - then he is a sociopath - no doubt. But you are claiming that he fooled everyone he knew - his entire life - except you and other viewers of the television set. That I can't agree with.

I honestly haven't seen footage or read about Ted Bundy's "smug, superior, imperious, and disrespectful attitude in court". I would need to see some specific examples of what you are talking about.

Defendants are told not show emotions in the courtroom. A person having difficulty crying in front of an interviewer, a camera, cameraman and other total strangers - especially a man - means nothing to me. I don't like crying in front of my own husband.

[JustMyOpinion]

Yes - I'm saying you and I both don't have a clue whether someone is faking an emotion. When Dan Horowitz' wife was murdered and he did his first interview - my husband said - that guy is faking. You can form an opinion - but I guarantee you won't be right every time.

Sure - maybe there have been psychopaths who fooled alot of people for a long time until pushed up against the wall. And I'll give you this......if SP is guilty - and he murdered his wife - then he is a sociopath - no doubt. But you are claiming that he fooled everyone he knew - his entire life - except you and other viewers of the television set. That I can't agree with.

I honestly haven't seen footage or read about Ted Bundy's "smug, superior, imperious, and disrespectful attitude in court". I would need to see some specific examples of what you are talking about.

Defendants are told not show emotions in the courtroom. A person having difficulty crying in front of an interviewer, a camera, cameraman and other total strangers - especially a man - means nothing to me. I don't like crying in front of my own husband.

I disagree that people cannot perceive manipulation, deception, charm, grandiosity, superficiality, shallowness, flat affect, lack of remorse, etc. Instincts are very keen, and rarely fail ...IF one pays attention to them, JMO.
I doubt Scott fooled everyone he knew. For example, Laura Putnant perceived there was something not "real" about Scott, Janet Isle perceived arrogance, Dennis Rocha didn't like or trust him from the outset, and I have little doubt that Laci Peterson knew Scott was flawed ( which is likely one of the reasons he killed her, IMO) "Defendants" are told by who not to show emotions in the courtroom, IYO? Doesn't it depend on circumstances, IYO?

[frydaddy]

And being a woman - who has had two children and considering the day before, Laci bought $90 worth of groceries and brought them into the house by herself - unloaded them - went to a facial appt - and still had energy to change her clothes and go with Scott to get his hair cut....I see no problem with what Scott said she was planning to do on the 24th.

Be honest...do you think mopping (a floor, the floor, or floors - take your pick) or walking a dog like McKenzie, on a day when other dogs were out walking, would take more or less effort than carrying groceries, changing clothes, or getting a facial? It's not an issue of whether she could do it, it's an issue of whether she would have. I tend to think not...not on Christmas Eve. I think she would have delegated a couple tasks to SP...left the dog home...etc. I think she would have had a conniption at the idea of him being gone ALL day...but that's just me.


I don't think Scott said she was mopping the floors. I think he said she was mopping the floor - and specified one area by the french doors IIRC (could have been as little as a 10 minute job) . She was going to walk the dog (I think someone said she typically took about a 20 minute walk - IIRC) - get a few things at the store - hour tops - make her marinade for french toast the next morning - 30 minutes tops and bake cookies - depending on how many I'd say an hour and a half was reasonable - and not a solid hour and a half. That adds up to 3.5 hours leaving her 5 hours to spare before she had to be at her mother's house at 6:00.

Never been an issue of time for me. Scott said she was always mopping due to dog/cat hair...cleaning lady just came...she's just gonna mop the one area? Maybe, but it doesn't make sense that she'd only mop one area for that reason - she'd mop it all or none, especially when Nava was just there recently. Shopping and baking are reasonable...mopping and walking, in context, for me, are not.


LOL! That's okay if you want to split hairs - as long as you allow me to do the same! ;) I'll compromise at 7 hours - 9:45 (although - I would think there would be many G's that argue he left the house later than that) til 4:45 (he had showered, eaten a piece of pizza, thrown his clothes in the wash and called Sharon by 5:15) - and he wouldn't have made them late for 6:00 dinner as Sharon lived 5 to 10 minutes away.

I concede that seven hours is likely accurate. I thought the call to Sharon was later than that, going off my usual faulty memory. But I'd say the timeline was more 10:00-5:00. He left Livermore at 3:52. No way he gets to the warehouse from there, unhooks the boat, checks e-mail, and gets home in less than an hour plus. Not with the pace it took him to go from warehouse to marina or marina to Livermore. At best, I'd say 5pm arrival home. But...now you add another couple pieces...a dark house...no smell of baking...dog with the muddy leash on...door unlocked...etc.


The umbrella issue baffles me. If he had put Laci in the truck and put those umbrellas on top of her - that means he would have had to take the umbrellas out of the truck - take her body out of the truck - then put the umbrellas back in the truck. (I even heard Brocchini say in an interview that he thinks SP put Laci's body on top of the umbrellas) I don't know why it's so unreasonable to believe that he put them into the back of the truck with the intent to store them at the warehouse (as the weather was getting colder and they had no garage to store them) - but forgot before he left for the marina - and then was too rushed for time to unload them when he brought the boat back to the warehouse (since he was running late).

I couldn't tell you whether Laci was on top, under, or wedged between them. She could have even been wrapped with them in a blue tarp for all I know for sure. But if you hitch a boat, these things had to be right there in your face, if not sticking out the back...there's no way forgetting is reasonable...for me.


Was the jacket washable? What kind of jacket was it? I can't explain why the jacket was dry - but as a person who has wridden in many boats - I think it's pretty reasonable to say that Scott got wet out there from the spray (unless there is some dispute that he was out on the boat that day?) Unfortunately - we only have Brocchini's word that he actually felt the jacket - and he felt the right jacket and it was dry - and well - his word/memory just isn't good enough for me. Maybe he figured it would dry - but the clothes were on his body - and he didn't dare take them off his body and leave wet or damp clothes lying around or in a hamper - or his wife would take his head off (LOL - I am forever telling my husband to quit laying wet towels on the bed). I don't know if that's anywhere near the same - but it just came to mind as I was typing!

I get the wet clothes lecture as well! :o At any rate, you believe Scott over AB...that's fine. But, how wet are these clothes? We're talking three hours after he left the bay...and it's sea spray on a small boat...not a cow peeing on a flat rock type rain. At best, either the jacket should be wet or his clothes were not wet enough to wash. Wonder if he sat on something in the truck...if he had cloth seats? I don't give a lot of weight to his not getting other clothes from the hamper to wash with his...some men aren't laundry types. But, to get the rags out of the washer to wash them goes against the effort rule men also fall under. Now IF those rags were on the washing machine like the picture showed (thought there might have been testimony about this?), that also raises a red flag. It's just a curiosity why you'd put them IN THAT SPOT!


I understand the as a whole argument - but my counter argument is - if any of the oddities can be explained - they can't be considered a part of the whole. (But I bet you knew I was going to say that!) :)

Yes, I figured something might come up along these lines. And really, it's the crux of the debate, isn't it? I've always found it humorous that each sides "I see nothing odd" is 180 degrees out from the other side. For me, it boils down to the number of oddities and curiosities in a given circumstance. How many oddities can be found from when he left for the warehouse until he called Sharon. There's a BUNCH for me. I've always felt like when there are that many oddities in a relatively (and supposedly) normal routine, it's likely a "fish" story. Scott's entire existence seems to be filled with tons of these oddities that "must be explained" to make them appear normal.

[accordn2me]

The lying, lack or emotion and showing inappropriate emotion, or showing an emotion inappropriately (acting, because he's not familiar with that emotion), his lack or worry or anxiety while being investigated, his jaunty demeanor in court - to name a few.

Thanks, cookiewench. I'm gullible, naive...and tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. Not a good judge sometimes.

[cookiewench]

Defendants are told not show emotions in the courtroom. A person having difficulty crying in front of an interviewer, a camera, cameraman and other total strangers - especially a man - means nothing to me. I don't like crying in front of my own husband.

Then why didn't he listen to his attorney, because he DID show emotions in the courtroom.

He looked happy, superior to his surroundings, and smug. Even if he'd been innocent, this was his dead wife they were talking about, and he was on trial for his LIFE. His reaction was totally inappropriate for the situation.

[deputydi]

Sure - 10 minutes if you have nothing else to do - like deal with the fact that you've been arrested for murder. I don't have a problem with this not being on the top of SP's priority list.
Scott didn't have anything else to do at that time. He was sitting in a jail cell with lots of time on his hands. Jackie kept putting Sharon off and Sharon just got tired of it. Who can forget the interview where Sharon was talking about needing to just be in the house and sit in Conner's room. She wanted to feel the presence of her daughter. Remember when Jackie's call came in and she lied to everyone. She told Sharon on national tv that she could have access anytime she wanted. That was so not true and it wasn't long before Sharon took matters into her own hands.

I do try to put myself in the Peterson's position, but in my most bitter thoughts I can't imagine not showing some compassion toward a mother whose daughter was murdered (by someone, if not Scott). Even if Sharon's opinion of Scott was more about the fact that he had cheated on her pregnant daughter than about murder, I think I would have tried to understand that.

Sharon felt totally betrayed by Scott and eventually came to believe in her heart that he had murdered Laci and Conner. For Jackie that had to be pretty hard to swallow since she completely believed in her son's innocence. I think I can empathize with both mothers in this impossible situation. I still think the animosity between the two women could have been diffused somewhat if Jackie had shown some compassion. Sharon's hatred wasn't directed at the entire Peterson family -- just Scott. Jackie's vindictiveness was directed at the entire Rocha/Grantski family.

[frydaddy]

Yes - I'm saying you and I both don't have a clue whether someone is faking an emotion. When Dan Horowitz' wife was murdered and he did his first interview - my husband said - that guy is faking. You can form an opinion - but I guarantee you won't be right every time.

Sure - maybe there have been psychopaths who fooled alot of people for a long time until pushed up against the wall. And I'll give you this......if SP is guilty - and he murdered his wife - then he is a sociopath - no doubt. But you are claiming that he fooled everyone he knew - his entire life - except you and other viewers of the television set. That I can't agree with.

I honestly haven't seen footage or read about Ted Bundy's "smug, superior, imperious, and disrespectful attitude in court". I would need to see some specific examples of what you are talking about.

Defendants are told not show emotions in the courtroom. A person having difficulty crying in front of an interviewer, a camera, cameraman and other total strangers - especially a man - means nothing to me. I don't like crying in front of my own husband.

The issue with the last paragraph is the Diane Sawyer interview. The waterworks, letting the tears and nose funk run darn near into his mouth (sorry to be graphic) and just leaving it there while he kept talking through his nose to keep it going...it was the most forced and fake thing I ever saw. IMO

[deputydi]

The issue with the last paragraph is the Diane Sawyer interview. The waterworks, letting the tears and nose funk run darn near into his mouth (sorry to be graphic) and just leaving it there while he kept talking through his nose to keep it going...it was the most forced and fake thing I ever saw. IMO

:beer: He did a way better job than Susan Smith. His fake tears at least produced some moisture.

[Sturgeon_Moon]

Not putting you on the spot but.....would you mind stating some of these for me?

I've always wondered "how do you tell" if a person is

OMG!....i've SHRUNK MY COMPUTER viewing area. I can barely see what I'm typing!

o

no!

Did you accidentally press {Ctrl} (-)?

[Otter]

The issue with the last paragraph is the Diane Sawyer interview. The waterworks, letting the tears and nose funk run darn near into his mouth (sorry to be graphic) and just leaving it there while he kept talking through his nose to keep it going...it was the most forced and fake thing I ever saw. IMO

Hi ya'll! I'm rebuilding my links to this case, and some actually still exist. :eek: FD, you're sure not alone with your issues.

This one is very short, but I liked very much. At the bottom of the page, is a link to the gentleman's expertise. His is much better than mine.

Anyway, it quite telling IMO. A snippet:

January 29, 2003
Interview with Diane Sawyer on ABC's Good Morning America

A portion of his taped January 28 interview aired on the following day.

Sawyer: "What kind of marriage was it?"
Peterson: "God, the first word that comes to mind is, you know, glorious. I mean we took care
of each other, very well. She was amazing. She is amazing."

Peterson uses the phrase "you know." We do not know something unless the person tells us it. People sometimes use this phrase expecting us to take for granted what they are saying. Other people just have a habit of saying this. Peterson uses this phrase a lot during his interviews. We would have to see if it is part of his normal speaking pattern.


http://www.statementanalysis.com/speterson/

I'll have to read back the transcipts regarding "you know". I don't know! I hear kids use the term "ya know" all the time, which is certainly a pattern for teens, but I'm in total agreement with this guy -- was SP a valley girl? Probably not, but what do I know?

[accordn2me]

Did you accidentally press {Ctrl} (-)?
Probably!

It resolved on its own.

Next time, how do I fix it? ctrl + ?

Thanks!

[frydaddy]

:beer: He did a way better job than Susan Smith. His fake tears at least produced some moisture.

I didn't want to stray too far down that path on this thread, but there were all kinds of examples of this. I simply can't get over how odd everything he said and did appeared. But, more than that, I can't get how people ignore or dismiss it. I'm willing to assume the burden that, to them, I am wrong, but such a thing defies the limits of what I can grasp when it comes to this topic. ;)

[frydaddy]

Hi ya'll! I'm rebuilding my links to this case, and some actually still exist. :eek: FD, you're sure not alone with your issues.

This one is very short, but I liked very much. At the bottom of the page, is a link to the gentleman's expertise. His is much better than mine.

Anyway, it quite telling IMO. A snippet:

January 29, 2003
Interview with Diane Sawyer on ABC's Good Morning America

A portion of his taped January 28 interview aired on the following day.

Sawyer: "What kind of marriage was it?"
Peterson: "God, the first word that comes to mind is, you know, glorious. I mean we took care
of each other, very well. She was amazing. She is amazing."

Peterson uses the phrase "you know." We do not know something unless the person tells us it. People sometimes use this phrase expecting us to take for granted what they are saying. Other people just have a habit of saying this. Peterson uses this phrase a lot during his interviews. We would have to see if it is part of his normal speaking pattern.


http://www.statementanalysis.com/speterson/

I'll have to read back the transcipts regarding "you know". I don't know! I hear kids use the term "ya know" all the time, which is certainly a pattern for teens, but I'm in total agreement with this guy -- was SP a valley girl? Probably not, but what do I know?

I saw a lot of analysis of the DS interview back then. And while I believed much of it, some would dismiss it as junk science. I could live with that opinion, but at the same time, sometimes the obvious just kind of jumps out at you. I'm no psych doctor...frankly, I'm closer to needing one than being one! :o But just the "was amazing...is amazing" is enough to startle the senses. Why the correction?

I appreciate ya Otter!

[JustMyOpinion]

I am fine with others thinking for themselves and having their own beliefs and opinions. I just have a preference that those beliefs and opinions are based on true facts - not false speculations.



The quotes from sources contained in the book are not speculation. The reader may determine for themselves whether Ablow's theories ( which are speculative, IMO..since he hasn't interviewed or examined Scott) seem plausible. Ablow didn't publish the book prior to verdict or sentence, and he isn't arguing guilt or innocence, he's attempting to explain what may have gone on inside Scott's mind, and theorizes about Scott's mental disorders. He doesn't proclaim to "know". I do believe Ablow spoke with the sources he cites, and I do believe someone like Mark Peterson has some insight into family dynamics, Scott's history, his father's behavior..JMO I found the revelations from various sources to be interesting.

[JustMyOpinion]

And I'm assuming everyone here assumes they can tell these things based on media interviews, courtroom demeanor, etc.

.

?? Why do you assume what everyone here assumes? I think a television viewer will make a judgment about an interview subject, Scott likely believed this, IMO. He was trying to shift public perception, change his image..IMO ( which is why he ignored his lawyer's advice and did his mini-PR-blitz)..IMO.
As for demeanor in the courtroom, it was reported that Scott was heard giggling at the defense table at times, Dimitrius had said they did research and found that when Scott was "serious" he "looked mean". ( paraphrasing) I do believe his team made efforts at times ( i.e. joked with him) to keep him in a light-hearted mood, they didn't want him to "look mean".
However, IIRC even some defense attorney pundits who vehemently defended him throughout the trial ( Horowitz comes to mind) said they were taken aback by his callousness and complete inability to demonstrate compassion, sorrow or empathy during Sharon's testimony.

[JustMyOpinion]

Why should Laci's family's grief be at the top of SP's priority list if he was innocent? After they turned on him, verbally attacked him and helped the police make their case against him? Why?

A padlock on the gate wasn't necessarily to keep SR out - it was to keep everyone out - the house was empty. I don't know when the alarm code was changed - do you? Could you point me in the direction of this information that Jackie lied on television? How lont is quite some time? Sorry - but I can't debate this with you with such vague information. I don't know where it's coming from or how reliable it is.

I didn't opine whether or not Laci's familys' grief should or shouldn't be at the top of Scott's priority list, but to claim Scott didn't have time to make a list is ludicrious, IMO.
Jackie Peterson lied to Greta Van Susteren on television ( after Sharon & Ron had made it public that they weren't getting access to the house). i.e. "I'm surprised".. "I'll make her tea". The alarm code was changed after Scott's arrest ( per Sharon's call to alarm company) See "For, Laci" pages 227-231.
What is it that you wish to debate?

[JustMyOpinion]

There are very definitive signs of someone who has suffered sexual abuse - and LOL - their way of moaning during sex is just not one of them IMO - never heard that one before.



I don't think sexual abuse is something to laugh out loud about, and how many male victims of covert or overt sexual abuse that was perpetrated by their mother are you personally acquainted with? What research/reading on this subject have you undertaken?

[thinkaboutit]

Hi ya'll! I'm rebuilding my links to this case, and some actually still exist. :eek: FD, you're sure not alone with your issues.

This one is very short, but I liked very much. At the bottom of the page, is a link to the gentleman's expertise. His is much better than mine.

Anyway, it quite telling IMO. A snippet:

January 29, 2003
Interview with Diane Sawyer on ABC's Good Morning America

A portion of his taped January 28 interview aired on the following day.

Sawyer: "What kind of marriage was it?"
Peterson: "God, the first word that comes to mind is, you know, glorious. I mean we took care
of each other, very well. She was amazing. She is amazing."

Peterson uses the phrase "you know." We do not know something unless the person tells us it. People sometimes use this phrase expecting us to take for granted what they are saying. Other people just have a habit of saying this. Peterson uses this phrase a lot during his interviews. We would have to see if it is part of his normal speaking pattern.


http://www.statementanalysis.com/speterson/

I'll have to read back the transcipts regarding "you know". I don't know! I hear kids use the term "ya know" all the time, which is certainly a pattern for teens, but I'm in total agreement with this guy -- was SP a valley girl? Probably not, but what do I know?

Hi Otter! Thanks for the link - I had never seen that.

I won't bore everyone with my comments on every point this guy made - but basically - yes - I am one of those people that believe this is junk science.

Like this one:

A portion of his taped January 28 interview aired on the following day.

Sawyer: "What kind of marriage was it?"
Peterson: "God, the first word that comes to mind is, you know, glorious. I mean we took care
of each other, very well. She was amazing. She is amazing."


He focuses on Scott's past tense answer - but look at the question. What kind of marriage WAS it? This interview was at the end of January. Everyone including the MPD and SR at this point had a good idea that Laci was dead by this time. I just don't agree that because he corrected himself -maybe he didn't like the way talking in the past tense about her sounded - is
incriminating.


Two weeks later - interview with Nancy Grace, Grantski refers to Laci in the past tense:

GRANTSKI: Well, you know, you have to remember, you know, Scott and Laci, you know, lived their own lives, and they had their own lives and friends, and so forth. But if there was any kind of a function or any question, she was very close to Sharon, and she called her mother all the time or, you know, would come by and see us. So if that's what you mean by a pattern, if there was anything of any importance, believe me, Laci would have said something to her mother.

February 12, 2003 - Interview with Connie Chung - Sharon Rocha refers to Laci in the past tense:

S. Rocha: No, I don't think Laci knew about the affair. I really - really don't believe that she knew about it.

Laci was the kind of person that - she was a happy, upbeat person. We would have noticed a change in her attitude, in her behavior.




And Grantski also refers to Conner as "the baby" in this press conference:

"And one other thing," he said. "The baby is due on the 10th of February, which is this coming Monday. We've confirmed the date......

......."But please understand that this is not the easiest time for us....especially with the baby coming close....it's not that easy right now."


It won't let me post the link - but this is from lacipeterson.com - Articles - press conference 2/5/03.

And didn't someone point out that JP referred to Conner as "her baby"? So did Sharon Rocha - press conference 1/24/03:

"......I miss listening to the excitement in her voice when she talks about her baby. ..........I miss listening to her talk about her future with her husband and her baby."

[thinkaboutit]

I don't think sexual abuse is something to laugh out loud about, and how many male victims of covert or overt sexual abuse that was perpetrated by their mother are you personally acquainted with? What research/reading on this subject have you undertaken?

As I stated, several posts back, I am done discussing this subject with you JMO.

And as usual, you are twisting my words - and quite frankly - it's really getting old. Yeah - okay - that's what I was doing - I was laughing out loud at sexual abuse. Believe what you want - I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you otherwise.

[deputydi]

I saw a lot of analysis of the DS interview back then. And while I believed much of it, some would dismiss it as junk science. I could live with that opinion, but at the same time, sometimes the obvious just kind of jumps out at you. I'm no psych doctor...frankly, I'm closer to needing one than being one! :o But just the "was amazing...is amazing" is enough to startle the senses. Why the correction?

I appreciate ya Otter!
Exactly! If he had just said "was amazing" and left it at that, I wouldn't have given it a second thought. It was the correction that made me take notice.

[frydaddy]

Exactly! If he had just said "was amazing" and left it at that, I wouldn't have given it a second thought. It was the correction that made me take notice.

In truth Di, it's comedic to actually read the transcript of the DS interview. Here's the link for those who wanna read it...I started to type all the oddities, but my post would likely be as long as the transcript! The dude was something...sociopath...psychopath...freak of some sort...certainly not normal or realistic. IMO

[accordn2me]

In truth Di, it's comedic to actually read the transcript of the DS interview. Here's the link for those who wanna read it...I started to type all the oddities, but my post would likely be as long as the transcript! The dude was something...sociopath...psychopath...freak of some sort...certainly not normal or realistic. IMOummm...something must be wrong with my screen....it's not showing the link.....;)

[frydaddy]

ummm...something must be wrong with my screen....it's not showing the link.....;)

DOH! :o

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/docs/sawyerinterview.html

IOU1! lol

[accordn2me]

DOH! :o

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/docs/sawyerinterview.html

IOU1! lolMahalo! frydaddy...

I probably shouldn't have asked....can't even make past page 3...I'm starting to boil....and it's HOT here today anyway...

I watched this not too long ago. Reading the transpcript after watching it is having an effect I'd just as soon not experience...

and....I'm watching Allan Jackson redirect the driver in Phil Spector's trial..


accordn2me<-----crush on Allan Jackson:tongue:

[accordn2me]

Not that I believe for one minute that SLP told Laci about Amber....but if I were to buy his BS....the "...at peace with it....not happy about it...." completely supports my Laci was going to leave him theory.

IF we believe he told Laci, I believe the only way she would be "at peace with it" was if she knew and told Scott....she would be divorcing him after the holidays. And we all know how well Scott takes rejection.....

[frydaddy]

Mahalo! frydaddy...

I probably shouldn't have asked....can't even make past page 3...I'm starting to boil....and it's HOT here today anyway...

I watched this not too long ago. Reading the transpcript after watching it is having an effect I'd just as soon not experience...

and....I'm watching Allan Jackson redirect the driver in Phil Spector's trial..


accordn2me<-----crush on Allan Jackson:tongue:

Your welcome and I'm sorry! I should have posted a disclaimer that reading the tranny might cause one to feel like they were going to vomit into their own mouth. It does cause a range of emotions...with anger and illness competing for the top one.

Crush on Allan Jackson? Geez...my wife with the Chatahoochie guy...you with this attorney...Frydaddy should have gone to law school or learned to play the Gee-tar! And got a new name! :mad:

[frydaddy]

Not that I believe for one minute that SLP told Laci about Amber....but if I were to buy his BS....the "...at peace with it....not happy about it...." completely supports my Laci was going to leave him theory.

IF we believe he told Laci, I believe the only way she would be "at peace with it" was if she knew and told Scott....she would be divorcing him after the holidays. And we all know how well Scott takes rejection.....

This could be A2, I simply don't know. My opinion has always been that due to when he said he told Laci (early December) and the fact he went to the 12-23 doctor appointment with her, that she was unaware. But, it will likely never be known for certain.

[accordn2me]

This could be A2, I simply don't know. My opinion has always been that due to when he said he told Laci (early December) and the fact he went to the 12-23 doctor appointment with her, that she was unaware. But, it will likely never be known for certain.I don't believe he told her the truth! I believe it's possible he made mention of someone he met.....didn't Sharon testify that Laci made a comment that Scott wasn't "acting like a married man?" When did Laci say that to her?

[accordn2me]

Your welcome and I'm sorry! I should have posted a disclaimer that reading the tranny might cause one to feel like they were going to vomit into their own mouth. It does cause a range of emotions...with anger and illness competing for the top one.

Crush on Allan Jackson? Geez...my wife with the Chatahoochie guy...you with this attorney...Frydaddy should have gone to law school or learned to play the Gee-tar! And got a new name! :mad:You nailed my feelings, frydaddy....anger and illness competing!

Oh yeah....AJ is on my crush list and I can't even tell you why, exactly...:tongue:

But I do have a weakness for guitarists...and the country music Allan Jackson is a hottie too! whew!

[One2Snoop]

I don't believe he told her the truth! I believe it's possible he made mention of someone he met.....didn't Sharon testify that Laci made a comment that Scott wasn't "acting like a married man?" When did Laci say that to her?

IIRC that was early on in the marriage when they weren't living together.

[One2Snoop]

Here's a snipped article about it....

Four months later, Laci graduated from Cal Poly. As Scott continued his studies, Laci moved temporarily to Prunedale in Monterey County and took a job as a wine distributor. Scott shared a house with roommates, and Laci visited on weekends.

No signs of strain

Shortly before he was arrested and charged with Laci's murder, Scott told the Richardsons that it was during her absence that he began an affair with another woman -- and that his mistress had walked in on Scott and Laci during his graduation weekend in 1998. The woman did not know Scott was married and thought she had caught Scott cheating on her.

Richardson, who had spent the weekend with the couple, said that at the time, Laci had been noticeably irritated with Scott and the couple had locked themselves in the bathroom and argued. Laci told Richardson that Scott was "acting like he's not married," but Laci didn't elaborate.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/05/30/MNG8P6T9CA1.DTL

[One2Snoop]

Do I have bad breath or somethin'? LOL - I posted and everyone stopped. You guys are making me paranoid and giving me a complex - :chicken: Please continue on and I'll refrain from posting LOL! ;)

[accordn2me]

Do I have bad breath or somethin'? LOL - I posted and everyone stopped. You guys are making me paranoid and giving me a complex - :chicken: Please continue on and I'll refrain from posting LOL! ;)Hey! I'm on a different time zone! And I don't know why but I'll be right in the middle of a response to someone...and either company comes over, unexpectedly...or Momo and/or Buddy gets into something and I lose my post....or think I posted/replied....and obviously, when I go look for it.....I didn't! So, please don't take it personally!

What I was about to reply to you when Brian came home.....I thought it was Sharon, Laci's mom, that said Laci told her that. I was wondering if that was at their last dinner on the 15th? or not all....:shrug:


I've been wondering about Anne. Where is she?

[frydaddy]

You nailed my feelings, frydaddy....anger and illness competing!

Oh yeah....AJ is on my crush list and I can't even tell you why, exactly...:tongue:

But I do have a weakness for guitarists...and the country music Allan Jackson is a hottie too! whew!

Oy! Let me know when you develop a taste for chopped liver! :D

[frydaddy]

Do I have bad breath or somethin'? LOL - I posted and everyone stopped. You guys are making me paranoid and giving me a complex - :chicken: Please continue on and I'll refrain from posting LOL! ;)

<Laffin> Can't speak for the rest, but it smells fine to me. I took a rare opportunity to get some early shut-eye last night. Of course, I woke an hour earlier, so what was the point?!!

[One2Snoop]

Hey! I'm on a different time zone! And I don't know why but I'll be right in the middle of a response to someone...and either company comes over, unexpectedly...or Momo and/or Buddy gets into something and I lose my post....or think I posted/replied....and obviously, when I go look for it.....I didn't! So, please don't take it personally!

What I was about to reply to you when Brian came home.....I thought it was Sharon, Laci's mom, that said Laci told her that. I was wondering if that was at their last dinner on the 15th? or not all....:shrug:


I've been wondering about Anne. Where is she?

OK, LOL. Anyhow I couldn't find where Sharon said this and I don't recall if it was in her book. I no longer have a copy of it. I did search online and all I could come up with was the comment from the Richardsons. I'm sure someone who knows the subject better than I will know the answer.

Anne's been busy with Real Life and said she'd pop in when she can. :seeya:

[One2Snoop]

<Laffin> Can't speak for the rest, but it smells fine to me. I took a rare opportunity to get some early shut-eye last night. Of course, I woke an hour earlier, so what was the point?!!

LOL - I know what you mean! :tongue:

[thinkaboutit]

Your welcome and I'm sorry! I should have posted a disclaimer that reading the tranny might cause one to feel like they were going to vomit into their own mouth. It does cause a range of emotions...with anger and illness competing for the top one.

Crush on Allan Jackson? Geez...my wife with the Chatahoochie guy...you with this attorney...Frydaddy should have gone to law school or learned to play the Gee-tar! And got a new name! :mad:

Frydaddy - your wife has good taste!!! Allan Jackson (the Chatahoochie guy) is a cutie!!!

[accordn2me]

Frydaddy - your wife has good taste!!! Allan Jackson (the Chatahoochie guy) is a cutie!!!So is my Allan Jackson, tai! :cuss:

[thinkaboutit]

So is my Allan Jackson, tai! :cuss:

I'm sorry A2ME! :D :lol: I haven't followed one moment of the Spectre (sp?) trial - so I have no idea what your Allan Jackson looks like! I'll look him up!!

[accordn2me]

I'm sorry A2ME! :D :lol: I haven't followed one moment of the Spectre (sp?) trial - so I have no idea what your Allan Jackson looks like! I'll look him up!!

oooo...I just turned it on....looks like Dr. Henry Lee has lost some credibility. The THs were discussing it....commercial now.....but even Nancy feels sorry for him and said that she didn't want to see him "go down" because he was renowned for a reason!

Like his pro-defense stance, maybe?

[thinkaboutit]

So is my Allan Jackson, tai! :cuss:


Okay - it took me a while to find pics - and I couldn't find any really good ones - with a direct shot of his face - but from what I can see - I agree! And he has dark hair - so he's got one up on the Chatahoochie AJ in my book!

;)

Am I forgiven? :seeya:

[accordn2me]

Okay - it took me a while to find pics - and I couldn't find any really good ones - with a direct shot of his face - but from what I can see - I agree! And he has dark hair - so he's got one up on the Chatahoochie AJ in my book!



Am I forgiven?Yep!:D

You like the dark-haired ones, eh? I've never had a preference. It's easier that way. :tongue:

.....although....I do like black hair, blue-eyes and blonde hair, green eyes....and brown eyes go with any color hair...:biggrin:

ps....he's on Court TV everyday! you can hear him too....i do love to listen

[adnoid]

...looks like Dr. Henry Lee has lost some credibility...

Where's the ketchup when you really need it? No wonder he wasn't called in Scott's case!