Scott Peterson's appeal

[thinkaboutit]

You don't have to believe it. We still all know that Jackie is a habitual liar. She trained Scott in lying from infancy - although both of them remained amateurs at their favorite passtime, and were regularly busted.

The question is - why do you believe it - if you are of the opinion that Jackie is a habitual liar?

[cookiewench]

The question is - why do you believe it - if you are of the opinion that Jackie is a habitual liar?

Huh? I didn't say I believe it (that "everyone knew" that her cell phone wasn't working).

I DO believe the person who said that Jackie said that.

[Wearing A Halo]

So Lt. Aponte lied? Why would he do that?

It was that Lt. X. Aponte received wrong info. Anyone know what ever happended to him?

[woohoo]

I don't call the exact retracing of her steps with a stop watch an approximation. I call it a re-enactment. and it's entirely possible as the route to Austins is all timed stoplights and only 2 miles
Well obviously Ms. Servas calls it a "approximation." Since she said she "approximated."

[One2Snoop]

I don't call the exact retracing of her steps with a stop watch an approximation. I call it a re-enactment. and it's entirely possible as the route to Austins is all timed stoplights and only 2 miles

Well obviously Ms. Servas calls it a "approximation." Since she said she "approximated."

re·en·act·ed , re·en·act·ing , re·en·acts

To perform again: reenact the first two scenes.
To go through a second time: reenacted the events leading up to the accident.
********************

Approximate

Almost exact or correct: the approximate time of the accident.
Very similar; closely resembling: sketched an approximate likeness of the suspect.

The fact that Servas used a stop watch leans towards re-enactment and I believe her response was approximately what happened. IMO, JMO

[Miss Bootsie]

Originally Posted by Miss Bootsie
You're right, imo.

That would be considered an experiment conducted from reconstruction of the crime scene.

The Jurors did not reconstruct.

IMO, they did exactly that...at least there is a couple of appeal issues due to Guinasso's statement:

*Snipped*



When referring to the actions of the Jurors during their examination of the boat, please keep in mind.

It is important to note that reconstruction is NOT the same as re-creating the crime scene or re-enacting the crime scene. Crime reenactment has nothing to do with criminalistics or scientific principles.

Reconstruction involves the use of scientific method, logical reasoning, sources of information on people, criminology, victimology, and experience or skill to interpret the events that surround the commission of a crime. Bevel & Gardner (2001) define it as determining the most probable sequence of events.
http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/3210/3210lect02a.htm

But '{w}here the jurors attempt to re-enact the crime during their deliberations in accordance with their own recollection of the testimony,their conduct constitutes nothing more than an application of everyday perceptions and common sense to the issues presented in the trial.'

The jury is presumed to use their common sense and reasoning power to compensate for the variable

[JustMyOpinion]

So Lt. Aponte lied? Why would he do that?

Please cite the precise, specific content of the entire "Aponte tip", ( Bates Stamp, please)..please cite LE's investigatory response to the tip, LE's findings ( testimony under oath, please) , and link to any public statements by Lt Aponte.....
TIA.

[frydaddy]

Well obviously Ms. Servas calls it a "approximation." Since she said she "approximated."

Her approximiations were much closer than any of Scott's that he gave to LE and she put forth much more effort to try and get it right. When you see the scrutiny for Servas' timeline and effort and the complete disregard of Scott's inaccuracies, it's somewhat amusing, yet slightly uncomfortable.

[frydaddy]

Please cite the precise, specific content of the entire "Aponte tip", ( Bates Stamp, please)..please cite LE's investigatory response to the tip, LE's findings ( testimony under oath, please) , and link to any public statements by Lt Aponte.....
TIA.


Good luck with this! ;)

[adnoid]

Her approximiations were much closer than any of Scott's that he gave to LE and she put forth much more effort to try and get it right. When you see the scrutiny for Servas' timeline and effort and the complete disregard of Scott's inaccuracies, it's somewhat amusing, yet slightly uncomfortable.

Well, telling the truth often has that result.

[adnoid]

Please cite the precise, specific content of the entire "Aponte tip", ( Bates Stamp, please)..please cite LE's investigatory response to the tip, LE's findings ( testimony under oath, please) , and link to any public statements by Lt Aponte.....
TIA.

Perhaps he just "misheard".

[JustMyOpinion]

Doing prison stand up comedy under the alias of Redd Hairing?

ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[thinkaboutit]

Please cite the precise, specific content of the entire "Aponte tip", ( Bates Stamp, please)..please cite LE's investigatory response to the tip, LE's findings ( testimony under oath, please) , and link to any public statements by Lt Aponte.....
TIA.

Oh yes - I forgot - if it's not in the testimony - and there is no book written about it - or wasn't reported in the media - it didn't happen.

[frydaddy]

Please cite the precise, specific content of the entire "Aponte tip", ( Bates Stamp, please)..please cite LE's investigatory response to the tip, LE's findings ( testimony under oath, please) , and link to any public statements by Lt Aponte.....
TIA.

Told ya! ;)

[thinkaboutit]

Perhaps he just "misheard".


Now THAT would be a HUGE coincidence since the brother that wasn't in prison admitted to knowing Todd. Then Mr. R contacts the prosecution at the end of the trial - with info about Laci - and names those brothers.

REALLY big coincidence - like the 2-16-03 EDC date. ;)

[frydaddy]

Please cite the precise, specific content of the entire "Aponte tip", ( Bates Stamp, please)..please cite LE's investigatory response to the tip, LE's findings ( testimony under oath, please) , and link to any public statements by Lt Aponte.....
TIA.

Sorry to keep using this post for replies, but it's just filled with so much darn clarity, that I can't resist. As YOU well know already, along with MANY others, one needs only to read the declaration Aponte gave on March 3, 2005to see what an utter piece of rubbish this one time "Aha moment" is and was. It does however provide me a moment or two of levity each time I see someone refer to it with hope, so, that much is appreciated! I could likely say the same for you and the many, but the good people are very capable of speaking for themselves!

[USAHICK]

So what is your point?.. she had to walk across the lawn that is closer to the Peterson side, which is the one on the right side of the driveway...which is the wider lawn...


She said across the lawn. She did not say which part of her lawn, YOU are saying what part. That's my point.

[frydaddy]

Perhaps he just "misheard".

Of course he didn't hear wrong!

A prison guard, who overheard a prisoner phone call to a brother who heard from (presumably) a burglar named Steven Todd, who passed a poly, this very information. Then, Aponte listened to a now non-existent tape of this prisoner phone call to a brother who heard from (presumably) a burglar named Steven Todd, who passed a poly. And we all know that neither Aponte, the prison guard, Adam Tenbrink, Shawn Tenbrink, or Steven Todd testified because they were either intimidated, MIGHT be hostile to the defense, or Geragos was too ineffective and stupid to call them.

Additionally, we know this burglary and Laci's disappearance were related because another witness who didn't testify to seeing people not resembling the actual convicted burglars, who thought so much of these three sinister fellows being up to no good that she waited a couple days to contact LE.

Misheard...are you out of your mind?

[thinkaboutit]

Of course he didn't hear wrong!

A prison guard, who overheard a prisoner phone call to a brother who heard from (presumably) a burglar named Steven Todd, who passed a poly, this very information. Then, Aponte listened to a now non-existent tape of this prisoner phone call to a brother who heard from (presumably) a burglar named Steven Todd, who passed a poly. And we all know that neither Aponte, the prison guard, Adam Tenbrink, Shawn Tenbrink, or Steven Todd testified because they were either intimidated, MIGHT be hostile to the defense, or Geragos was too ineffective and stupid to call them.

Additionally, we know this burglary and Laci's disappearance were related because another witness who didn't testify to seeing people not resembling the actual convicted burglars, who thought so much of these three sinister fellows being up to no good that she waited a couple days to contact LE.

Misheard...are you out of your mind?

And of course - we all know how reliable those polygraphs are - and no one has EVER lied while taking a polygraph and passed.

You're right - no matter what anyone else says - if those burglars said they didn't do it - then gosh - they must NOT have done it. We should dismiss what Aponte says - because those criminals say they don't know anything about it - even though Aponte heard them (while they thought no one was listening) - say they did. And if that tape didn't exist a year and a half later - then it must have NEVER existed. Silly me.

Okay - sarcasm aside - I agree with you on one part - it can be used as ineffective counsel.

[USAHICK]

And of course - we all know how reliable those polygraphs are - and no one has EVER lied while taking a polygraph and passed.

You're right - no matter what anyone else says - if those burglars said they didn't do it - then gosh - they must NOT have done it. We should dismiss what Aponte says - because those criminals say they don't know anything about it - even though Aponte heard them (while they thought no one was listening) - say they did. And if that tape didn't exist a year and a half later - then it must have NEVER existed. Silly me.

Okay - sarcasm aside - I agree with you on one part - it can be used as ineffective counsel.

For me, it wasn't so much that the burglars PASSED the lie detector test, but that they agreed to take on, as did everyone else who was asked. OPPS, that's right, I almost forgot - sarcasm aside - THE CONVICTED KILLER!

[frydaddy]

For me, it wasn't so much that the burglars PASSED the lie detector test, but that they agreed to take on, as did everyone else who was asked. OPPS, that's right, I almost forgot - sarcasm aside - THE CONVICTED KILLER!

Ack, such a small unimportant detail. The important thing is that he said he was going to take one a few times. And he had the excuse of his attorney, his family, and LE advising him HE shouldn't. Don't let a little detail like those others being willing and doing so carry any significance. Same with his mock cross and not testifying. This is the portion of the cycle where we hear about polygraphs not being admissable and their lack of reliablilty and then about the defendants right to not testify and blah, blah, blah. It's the expected reply, as you well know.

Great post actually. Thing is, like anything else in this case, the poly of Todd on it's own merit isn't much of a discussion point. In context with what we know about all facets of the burglary, it's just another nail in a coffin holding yet another deceased mirage of hope for SP's freedom.

What strikes me is...they aren't admissable...Scott seemed to think LE was unfairly singling him out already (advocates even back this up in hindsight with all the "they had their man the first night")...what more damage could taking one have done if he were innocent?

[ekg]

You know, not only did CC see it written in a police report that Jackie said everyone knew Laci's phone hadn't been working FOR WEEKS, but did anybody else find ISP "hey beautiful" message over the top? I thought it was so OBVIOUS what he was up to. IMO of course. :biggrin:



since he talked that way to Amber... and going by everyones description of the way he adored Laci... I'd have say it was pretty normal...

but since I never heard the other messages he left for Laci while they were married....I don't have enough info to make any kind of judgment...

[ekg]

A police report is hearsay. Its as accurate as the person reciting "facts" as they see it to the recording officer.

The recording officer could be the best stenographer that ever lived, the information is as good as the person relating it. Garbage in, garbarge out. Don't blame the messenger. Your point is not valid. MOO.

What do you have to say about the 1,000's of tips received?

ETA: A police is hearsay UNLESS the reporting officer witnessed what is described in the report.

so CC using an unknown LE report (which I don't believe, I think she was smart enough not to say "I read in the globe") but anyway....... she used a LE report as her source on Jackie and the broken phone..

so again...triple hearsay..

Thank you Otter for helping me make my point...:)

:seeya: How ya doin' Otter? sweltering here....grrrrrr

[ekg]

Scott adored Laci soo much that he cheated on her every chance he got, left her alone during most of her pregnancy, killed her & Conner. Some adoration, huh?

:rolleyes:


yep.. sex is not love..


Link that Laci wasn't like alot of women and chose to ignore her husbands predilections.

Link that he cheated 'every chance he got'

Link that he left her alone during most of her pregnancy?




Has Sharon ever changed that opinion of him from before the murder? Didn't she describe him as 'before' and 'after'? in her before, does she say he wasn't doting and loving and adorning? I really don't remember...

[adnoid]

Scott adored Laci soo much that he cheated on her every chance he got, left her alone during most of her pregnancy, killed her & Conner. Some adoration, huh?

:rolleyes:

I have read this explanation from a big (and I mean BIG) SP supporter. Paraphrasing:

Scott's relationship with Amber was, in fact, honorable and respectful of Laci. When Laci was pregnant, she expressed to her friends that she had lost all sexual desire. Rather than pressure her, Scott found Amber to satisfy his needs, which took the load off Laci. This is further proof of how much of a gentleman Scott is.

My response:

I understand that women react differently to pregnancy. I have female friends that have told me that when they were pregnant they became hornier than a nine-peckered Chinese temple dog. However, Mrs. Adnoid is not one of those, and the 3 times she has been pregnant she lost all interest.

Well, she is carrying OUR child. While the situation may not be my first choice, that's what it is. Any discomfort I may feel from the elevated white count pales in comparison to what she is going through. I married the woman I love and adore, not some sort of ever-ready sperm receptacle, and I personally feel that slapping nasties with some skinny blond chick down the road would not be a way to show that. I just lived with it, and I survived. Scott gets no sympathy from me - and this is EXCLUDING the murders.

[Hey Paula]

I have read this explanation from a big (and I mean BIG) SP supporter. Paraphrasing:



My response:

I understand that women react differently to pregnancy. I have female friends that have told me that when they were pregnant they became hornier than a nine-peckered Chinese temple dog. However, Mrs. Adnoid is not one of those, and the 3 times she has been pregnant she lost all interest.

Well, she is carrying OUR child. While the situation may not be my first choice, that's what it is. Any discomfort I may feel from the elevated white count pales in comparison to what she is going through. I married the woman I love and adore, not some sort of ever-ready sperm receptacle, and I personally feel that slapping nasties with some skinny blond chick down the road would not be a way to show that. I just lived with it, and I survived. Scott gets no sympathy from me - and this is EXCLUDING the murders.

That quote, from a BIG supporter of Scott, sounded very close to what his father said during the Barbara Walters interview, which aired during, and in violation of, the gag order.

IMO

[adnoid]

That quote, from a BIG supporter of Scott, sounded very close to what his father said during the Barbara Walters interview, which aired during, and in violation of, the gag order.

IMO

The acorn doesn't fall far from the tree.

[Lavindar]

Of course he didn't hear wrong!

A prison guard, who overheard a prisoner phone call to a brother who heard from (presumably) a burglar named Steven Todd, who passed a poly, this very information. Then, Aponte listened to a now non-existent tape of this prisoner phone call to a brother who heard from (presumably) a burglar named Steven Todd, who passed a poly. And we all know that neither Aponte, the prison guard, Adam Tenbrink, Shawn Tenbrink, or Steven Todd testified because they were either intimidated, MIGHT be hostile to the defense, or Geragos was too ineffective and stupid to call them.

Additionally, we know this burglary and Laci's disappearance were related because another witness who didn't testify to seeing people not resembling the actual convicted burglars, who thought so much of these three sinister fellows being up to no good that she waited a couple days to contact LE.

Misheard...are you out of your mind?

Now THAT's funny. I believe there were plans to move the burglars to Redwood City to testify. Woudl have loved to see Geragos's face if that had happened.

[Lavindar]

I have read this explanation from a big (and I mean BIG) SP supporter. Paraphrasing:



My response:

I understand that women react differently to pregnancy. I have female friends that have told me that when they were pregnant they became hornier than a nine-peckered Chinese temple dog. However, Mrs. Adnoid is not one of those, and the 3 times she has been pregnant she lost all interest.

Well, she is carrying OUR child. While the situation may not be my first choice, that's what it is. Any discomfort I may feel from the elevated white count pales in comparison to what she is going through. I married the woman I love and adore, not some sort of ever-ready sperm receptacle, and I personally feel that slapping nasties with some skinny blond chick down the road would not be a way to show that. I just lived with it, and I survived. Scott gets no sympathy from me - and this is EXCLUDING the murders.

Your wife is one lucky woman. Kudos to you

[Lavindar]

yep.. sex is not love..


Link that Laci wasn't like alot of women and chose to ignore her husbands predilections.

Link that he cheated 'every chance he got'
Link that he left her alone during most of her pregnancy?




Has Sharon ever changed that opinion of him from before the murder? Didn't she describe him as 'before' and 'after'? in her before, does she say he wasn't doting and loving and adorning? I really don't remember...

Janet Ilse
Katie Hanson - and those were early on in the marriage.

His bragging about the "Mile High Club"
and many women who are probably too embarrassed to come forward.

Scott was scum. The two I mentioned were while they were still in college. That had nothing to do with her pregnancy, Scott was an accomplished womanizer (the massive flowers, giving up meat for a vegetarian girl friend. Jackie always wanted him to find a "nice girl." Guess she didn't think Laci was.

A gentleman does NOT seek sex elsewhere if he wife is uninterested. That is a slap in the face to his marriage vows. A Gentleman abides by his wife's wishes.

Scott was NO gentleman. Scott was a HORNY ******* (in his own words).

And where is the testimony that Laci was not interested in sex?

[Lavindar]

so CC using an unknown LE report (which I don't believe, I think she was smart enough not to say "I read in the globe") but anyway....... she used a LE report as her source on Jackie and the broken phone..

so again...triple hearsay..

Thank you Otter for helping me make my point...:)

:seeya: How ya doin' Otter? sweltering here....grrrrrr

At least Crier doesn't call people names or accuse them of things they have not done. I am still waiting for that large bold font you claimed I used.

[adnoid]

...His bragging about the "Mile High Club"...

He can't count that. I'm a pilot and I looked into it - there's no "Solo" rating in that category.

[I'mSun]

He can't count that. I'm a pilot and I looked into it - there's no "Solo" rating in that category.
LOL!! Now, THAT's funny! :beer:

[I'mSun]

Janet Ilse
Katie Hanson - and those were early on in the marriage.

His bragging about the "Mile High Club"
and many women who are probably too embarrassed to come forward.

Scott was scum. The two I mentioned were while they were still in college. That had nothing to do with her pregnancy, Scott was an accomplished womanizer (the massive flowers, giving up meat for a vegetarian girl friend. Jackie always wanted him to find a "nice girl." Guess she didn't think Laci was.

A gentleman does NOT seek sex elsewhere if he wife is uninterested. That is a slap in the face to his marriage vows. A Gentleman abides by his wife's wishes.

Scott was NO gentleman. Scott was a HORNY ******* (in his own words).

And where is the testimony that Laci was not interested in sex?Thanks, Lavindar. I thought it was common knowledge Scott was a known cheater, womanizer and a HB (by his own admission).

I guess we have to discount the Mile High Club though :biggrin:

[Lavindar]

Thanks, Lavindar. I thought it was common knowledge Scott was a known cheater, womanizer and a HB (by his own admission).

I guess we have to discount the Mile High Club though :biggrin:


Here's some interesting testimony from the trial

94) David Harris: And this was the first night that you had ever met him?
95) Shawn Sibley: Yes.
96) David Harris: Did you, while this was going on, did you continue to also talk about your fiancé?
97) Shawn Sibley: Yes.
98) David Harris: And so as that would occur, did the conversation kind of switch to something about relationships?
99) Shawn Sibley: Yeah. I was talking about how my fiancé is my soul mate. And Scott told me that, he said that at one point in his life he had found a woman that he thought was his soul mate, but then he lost her. And he asked me, did that mean I thought that this was going to mean that he was going the to spend the rest of his life alone. I told him, I said, No, I don't believe that. I believe there is a thousand people out there in this world who can be your soul mate, but because of circumstances, or whatever, you are not going to meet all thousand of those people. And, you know, you may, they may already have someone else, or whatever. But, you know,
100) David Harris: You can always tell when the judge turns his head, I need to ask another question. You are having this conversation talking about soul mates. Is it, the defendant that says he's lost his soul mate?
101) Shawn Sibley: Yes.


102) David Harris: Then you were explaining the rest of that conversation.
103) Shawn Sibley: Yes.
104) David Harris: When you have this soul mate conversation, does he indicate what he's attempting to do about finding another soul mate?
105) Shawn 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,
106) David Harris: Stop you there. So during that conversation, he asked you if you have any single friends?
107) Shawn Sibley: Yes.
108) David Harris: Does he indicate why he wanted to know if you have single friends?
109) Shawn Sibley: Because he hasn't been successful in finding anyone for himself. And he wants to have a long-term relationship with someone, is what he was saying.


This is in OCTOBER - two months before he told Amber he "lost" his wife.
Sounds like a man on the make to me.

[Lavindar]

168) Judge Delucchi: That's People's 94.
169) David Harris: Yes. Document
170) Judge Delucchi: All right, been shown to counsel.
171) David Harris: Miss Sibley, I'm going to show you what's been marked Number 94. Have you look at that for a second. Have you had a chance to look at that?
172) Shawn Sibley: Un-hun.
173) David Harris: Does that appear to be something that was, that came off of a computer that includes an e-mail that you had sent to the defendant?
174) Shawn Sibley: Yes.
175) David Harris: In that particular e-mail, what was the nature of that e-mail?
176) Shawn Sibley: It was about our conversation we had had where we were discussing some business and some personal.
177) David Harris: What's personal that was being discussed?
178) Shawn Sibley: He had gone to, he had told me he had been, gone to, I think, Mammoth skiing, and said that he was going to be looking for some snow bunnies up there

181) David Harris: What did the "H.B." stand for?
182) Shawn Sibley: Horny *******.
183) David Harris: How did that come about?
184) Shawn Sibley: In a phone conversation one time, Scott said that he said he was thinking about having "Horny *******" put on his business cards. And I said that probably wouldn't be a good idea, seeing most of the people in their business are men, they might get the wrong impression, think that he was hitting on them.
185) David Harris: Now, had he shown you business cards at some point in time during the time that you had met him?
186) Shawn Sibley: Yes. Gave me two business cards, his current business card, and another card which he said he was a company in Europe he had owned and sold.


looks like he cheated every chance he could get by his own admission

[frydaddy]

I have read this explanation from a big (and I mean BIG) SP supporter. Paraphrasing:



My response:

I understand that women react differently to pregnancy. I have female friends that have told me that when they were pregnant they became hornier than a nine-peckered Chinese temple dog. However, Mrs. Adnoid is not one of those, and the 3 times she has been pregnant she lost all interest.

Well, she is carrying OUR child. While the situation may not be my first choice, that's what it is. Any discomfort I may feel from the elevated white count pales in comparison to what she is going through. I married the woman I love and adore, not some sort of ever-ready sperm receptacle, and I personally feel that slapping nasties with some skinny blond chick down the road would not be a way to show that. I just lived with it, and I survived. Scott gets no sympathy from me - and this is EXCLUDING the murders.

:beer: To a true gentleman, who's actions represent themselves as such!

[frydaddy]

Now THAT's funny. I believe there were plans to move the burglars to Redwood City to testify. Woudl have loved to see Geragos's face if that had happened.

Yep. And my guess is he didn't want to appear as if he was having a BM in the defense chair, which he may or may not have actually done upon hearing the testimony.

[I'mSun]

:beer: To a true gentleman, who's actions represent themselves as such!ITA, FD. That is one of the things I admire most about Adnoid.

[adnoid]

Now THAT's funny. I believe there were plans to move the burglars to Redwood City to testify. Woudl have loved to see Geragos's face if that had happened.

One of them WAS brought there, but was never called. I think it was Todd.

That's what you do with witnesses - you call them, and they must testify or face contempt and jail time, as we just saw in the Spector trial. No attorney is going to not call a witness that could help his client because he doesn't want to inconvenience the witness.

[I'mSun]

168) Judge Delucchi: That's People's 94.

*snipped*
186) Shawn Sibley: Yes. Gave me two business cards, his current business card, and another card which he said he was a company in Europe he had owned and sold.

looks like he cheated every chance he could get by his own admission Every chance... indeed. And the lies! Seems like he lied more than telling the truth. Thanks for posting this, Lavindar. :beer:

[frydaddy]

Janet Ilse
Katie Hanson - and those were early on in the marriage.

His bragging about the "Mile High Club"
and many women who are probably too embarrassed to come forward.

Scott was scum. The two I mentioned were while they were still in college. That had nothing to do with her pregnancy, Scott was an accomplished womanizer (the massive flowers, giving up meat for a vegetarian girl friend. Jackie always wanted him to find a "nice girl." Guess she didn't think Laci was.

A gentleman does NOT seek sex elsewhere if he wife is uninterested. That is a slap in the face to his marriage vows. A Gentleman abides by his wife's wishes.

Scott was NO gentleman. Scott was a HORNY ******* (in his own words).

And where is the testimony that Laci was not interested in sex?

Stellar! :beer:

[Lavindar]

Yep. And my guess is he didn't want to appear as if he was having a BM in the defense chair, which he may or may not have actually done upon hearing the testimony.

http://scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Court%20Docs/dec_DVI_prisoner_010504.pdf

[adnoid]

Every chance... indeed. And the lies! Seems like he lied more than telling the truth..,

What is most amazing to me is the number of his advocates that will grant him a "get out of truth free" card and accept lies as, well, acceptable. Or even admirable.

Honesty and integrity are a way of life and a course of conduct. In my view, someone who "just" lies to women to get laid will lie about anything to anyone. I would not have such a person as a friend, I would not employ someone like that and I'd fire an employee I found to be doing that. In case you want to know if I'm serious, yes I am.

[caphill]

One of them WAS brought there, but was never called. I think it was Todd.

That's what you do with witnesses - you call them, and they must testify or face contempt and jail time, as we just saw in the Spector trial. No attorney is going to not call a witness that could help his client because he doesn't want to inconvenience the witness.


Todd was a prosecution witness. It is a common lawyer ploy to put witnesses on their list so the opposing lawyer has to wait for cross examination to question them. When the prosecution decided to not put Todd on the stand then the defense had no ability to question the witness. Clever ploy of prosecution wounldn't you say? The timing was caarefully calculated to further cripple the defense in being able to get Todd on the stand.

It is interesting to speculate what might have happened if MG had a chance to crow examine Todd. I do believe that now or sometime in the future Todd will be heard from again.

[ekg]

There were many mistakes in CC's book. It makes for more salacious reading and sells books.


and so does saying stuff like Dennis showed up so drunk to Laci's graduation that he needed help putting his pants on.. and then he ripped the seat of them out and they needed to be stapled together..

She also said that Dennis and Laci were estrange after this....

there's no need for it to be in a book.........

Profiteer, plain and simple...

[Lavindar]

What is most amazing to me is the number of his advocates that will grant him a "get out of truth free" card and accept lies as, well, acceptable. Or even admirable.

Honesty and integrity are a way of life and a course of conduct. In my view, someone who "just" lies to women to get laid will lie about anything to anyone. I would not have such a person as a friend, I would not employ someone like that and I'd fire an employee I found to be doing that. In case you want to know if I'm serious, yes I am.

Bravo:beer:

[adnoid]

Todd was a prosecution witness. It is a common lawyer ploy to put witnesses on their list so the opposing lawyer has to wait for cross examination to question them. When the prosecution decided to not put Todd on the stand then the defense had no ability to question the witness. Clever ploy of prosecution wounldn't you say? The timing was caarefully calculated to further cripple the defense in being able to get Todd on the stand.

It is interesting to speculate what might have happened if MG had a chance to crow examine Todd. I do believe that now or sometime in the future Todd will be heard from again.

MG could have called him as well - nothing prevented it. Todd was not an expert witness. Geragos simply simply chose not to call him for his own reasons - most probably because Todd's testimony would not help his client. I can't think of any other reason to not call a witness - can you?

[frydaddy]

http://scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Court%20Docs/dec_DVI_prisoner_010504.pdf

Well, there you have it. The state had him there free of charge to the defense and MG had his chance to prove to the world what some advocates believe. Guess it is easier and more comfortable for some to believe in Mark's inadequacy than to believe there's one less issue to place hope on.

At the end of the day, I honestly find it difficult to believe that MG is incompetent. Perhaps he has poor judgment for taking on cases that can't be won, but he's got a nice practice and he's won awards. I can't get my hands around him having ten other attornies willing to work side by side with or for him if he's incompetent to the level stated here. It's simply just another reach by the advocates who claim such.

[Lavindar]

MG could have called him as well - nothing prevented it. Todd was not an expert witness. Geragos simply simply chose not to call him for his own reasons - most probably because Todd's testimony would not help his client. I can't think of any other reason to not call a witness - can you? Peggy O'Donnel was on Geragos's witness list and he didn't call her. Just because a witness is on one side's list doesn't not mean they cannot be on the others. They can appear on both witness lists. Lee Peterson did

[ekg]

Crier does NOT say it was OVERHEARD by a police officer. She said it was in a police report.


pg 78

Brochinni knew that Laci's cell phone was dead. He had checked it the previous evening. If what Jackie Peterson was saying was true, he asked "then why did Scott leave a message on that cell phone Christmas Eve?"

"I was repeating what other people said", she snapped.

well she makes it sound like it was over heard by Brochinni..

she goes on to say

"As the afternoon wore on...." .......and it mentions the Medina's finding out about the robbery.

so this supposedly happened within the 1st cpl days..... so I would ask why did Brochinni just let this go? It would be a total slam dunk if he could prove the phone didn't even work... he'd have Scott in a pretty big lie within the 1st 48hrs...... and he just let it go?

nah...... he didn't check into it b/c it was never said...

just more rumor from The Globe, that CC used...

[ekg]

I try not to discuss this with her as the wound is still too fresh. And I was not mocking you - I have a sticky keyboard and am disabled so have to work hard at typing. Sharon does not have the car, but the family does


Dennis has it right?

[JustMyOpinion]

Todd was a prosecution witness. It is a common lawyer ploy to put witnesses on their list so the opposing lawyer has to wait for cross examination to question them. When the prosecution decided to not put Todd on the stand then the defense had no ability to question the witness. Clever ploy of prosecution wounldn't you say? The timing was caarefully calculated to further cripple the defense in being able to get Todd on the stand.

It is interesting to speculate what might have happened if MG had a chance to crow examine Todd. I do believe that now or sometime in the future Todd will be heard from again.

Nothing prevented Geragos from putting Todd on his list and calling him. The defense was not "crippled". Geragos is not a victim. He chose. IMO.

[frydaddy]

Nothing prevented Geragos from putting Todd on his list and calling him. The defense was not "crippled". Geragos is not a victim. He chose. IMO.

I was gonna say this, but three people beat me to it. Guess I'll wait for a response from caphill.

[adnoid]

Peggy O'Donnel was on Geragos's witness list and he didn't call her. Just because a witness is on one side's list doesn't not mean they cannot be on the others. They can appear on both witness lists. Lee Peterson did

Witnesses are called for the truth. Other than an expert, witnesses are not "FOR" one side or the other. Each side will, of course, call witnesses that will support their side, but neither side can preclude the other from calling a witness (except for a few specific, narrow circumstances, none of which apply to Todd).

It's clear Geragos did not think Todd's story would help Scott's case.

Or Geragos was incompetent. :rolleyes:

[Lavindar]

pg 78

Brochinni knew that Laci's cell phone was dead. He had checked it the previous evening. If what Jackie Peterson was saying was true, he asked "then why did Scott leave a message on that cell phone Christmas Eve?"

"I was repeating what other people said", she snapped.

well she makes it sound like it was over heard by Brochinni..

she goes on to say

"As the afternoon wore on...." .......and it mentions the Medina's finding out about the robbery.

so this supposedly happened within the 1st cpl days..... so I would ask why did Brochinni just let this go? It would be a total slam dunk if he could prove the phone didn't even work... he'd have Scott in a pretty big lie within the 1st 48hrs...... and he just let it go?

nah...... he didn't check into it b/c it was never said...

just more rumor from The Globe, that CC used...
I would think if Crier used the globe she would have quoted them exactly, not Jackie. Please show me where Crier used the Globe as her source

[Riviera]

pg 78

Brochinni knew that Laci's cell phone was dead. He had checked it the previous evening. If what Jackie Peterson was saying was true, he asked "then why did Scott leave a message on that cell phone Christmas Eve?"

"I was repeating what other people said", she snapped.

well she makes it sound like it was over heard by Brochinni..

she goes on to say

"As the afternoon wore on...." .......and it mentions the Medina's finding out about the robbery.

so this supposedly happened within the 1st cpl days..... so I would ask why did Brochinni just let this go? It would be a total slam dunk if he could prove the phone didn't even work... he'd have Scott in a pretty big lie within the 1st 48hrs...... and he just let it go?

nah...... he didn't check into it b/c it was never said...

just more rumor from The Globe, that CC used...

Please site your source, otherwise state it's your opinion. Thank you.

It's in the TOS -

You Are Responsible For What You Post
You are entirely responsible and liable for all activities conducted through your sessions. It is required that when making a factual statement you provide a source for that information otherwise you must use IMO IMHO etc.. to advise others that the post is your opinion only. Exceptions are made for common knowledge like definitions, etc...
Sharon, a CL member, explains the spirit and intent of IMO very well....

"When a forum is overwhelmingly on one side IMO doesn't really matter. You can all go and say anything, the more outlandish and entertaining the better! But, when you have 2 very distinct opinions and there is serious debate involved, it is a courtesy at the least to use IMO when you are saying something that is just that. We have found that it seems to appease both sides in a heated argument, and perhaps allows more to be said without offending anyone. If anything it gives the poster more liberty to say what is on their mind. IMO "

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?p=8907053#post8907053

[adnoid]

Dennis has it right?

When it comes to his opinion about Scott, I'd definitely agree that Dennis has it right.

[ekg]

Right! And I'll bet we can find a "report" on this press conference and check it out. If Crier says Jackie and Lee had just arrived at the house it would have been the December 25th press conference.

It would be interesting to see if Wasden even said that. Or for that matter if the Petersons even attended that news conference.


interestingly enough...... the copy of the PC release is the cover of her book..

http://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Game-Untold-Peterson-Investigation/dp/0060766123

click on the 'see inside' and it brings up the cover... you can just barely read at the top of the book..

Office of the Chief of Police
Wednesday 25,2002
10am for immediate release

Press Conference to be held on eight month Pregnant woman missing

but I can't find anything on it....... I can find one the 30th, but not on the 25th...hopefully someone else can

but I already posted where it was said to Brochinni..... and I can't imagine that he wouldn't have looked into it...

[ekg]

the investigator was seen "on a couple of occasions" but you're sure the receipts were from the same day?

sorry, but with all of geragos' smoke and mirrors work i don't have any trouble believing that he had two receipts done 10 minutes apart one day and then have someone go back later for another receipt to use in court.

cyn

so you think Mark Geragos would knowingly perpetrate a fraud upon the courts?

what was someone saying about liable and slander the other day to saraliba or the other one that got banned?

[ekg]

GERAGOS: Okay. Did he make, or have somebody ring up two no-sales receipts while you were there?

AUSTIN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Those two no-sales receipts, just show you, are these, do those look familiar?

AUSTIN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Mark this as a defense.

JUDGE: Want this as a Defense Exhibit.

GERAGOS: Defense Exhibit.

JUDGE: All right. That will be Defense H. No-sale receipts from Austin's

GERAGOS: Defense H?

JUDGE: Right.

GERAGOS: Now, these two receipts, you see the one says 1:35 and the other says 2:26? Do you see that?

AUSTIN: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Isn't it true that those two, even though they show approximately being 50 minutes apart, or 49 minutes apart, were actually run up just ten minutes apart?

AUSTIN: I have no recollection of how far apart those were rung up.

GERAGOS: Isn't that what Mr. Jensen was doing is to check the accuracy of the machine and see if it self-programs?

AUSTIN: I don't know how close together those were rung up. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, who changes the time on the, on the Christmas register? Is that also Mr. Jared Jensen?

AUSTIN: It doesn't get changed.

GERAGOS: Okay. So he's the one who programs it initially; is that correct?

AUSTIN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Thank you. I have no further questions.


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

HERE's the KICKER:


Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:09 pm Post subject: Geragos lies cash register

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

Cross Examination by Mark Geragos



JUDGE: Mr. Geragos.

GERAGOS: Mr. Austin, you don't set up the -- program the machine, do you?

AUSTIN: I didn't program this one, no.

GERAGOS: It's a gentleman by the name of Jared Jensen is the one who did it?

AUSTIN: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Jared Jensen is an employee of yours?

AUSTIN: Yes, he is.

GERAGOS: There's actually four cash registers in the store on December 24th of 2002, correct?

AUSTIN: No, sir.

GERAGOS: You had,

AUSTIN: Three.

GERAGOS: Three, you had four cash registers. One that was computerized, three that were standard; is that correct?

AUSTIN: There's three cash registers at that time. Two were standard and one is computerized. GERAGOS: The computerized cash register would have been attended to by Mr. Jensen?

AUSTIN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And he's the one who would have set up that cash register back in 2002; is that correct?

AUSTIN: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. You did not set it up?

AUSTIN: No, I did not.

GERAGOS: Do you recognize my Mr. Jensen over here, can you stand up for a second, Paul? Do you recognize him?

AUSTIN: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. He's talked to you and been in your store?

AUSTIN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Did he make, or have somebody ring up two no-sales receipts while you were there?

AUSTIN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Those two no-sales receipts, just show you, are these, do those look familiar?

AUSTIN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Mark this as a defense.

JUDGE: Want this as a Defense Exhibit.

GERAGOS: Defense Exhibit.

JUDGE: All right. That will be Defense H. No-sale receipts from Austin's

GERAGOS: Defense H?

JUDGE: Right.

GERAGOS: Now, these two receipts, you see the one says 1:35 and the other says 2:26? Do you see that?

AUSTIN: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Isn't it true that those two, even though they show approximately being 50 minutes apart, or 49 minutes apart, were actually run up just ten minutes apart?

AUSTIN: I have no recollection of how far apart those were rung up.

GERAGOS: Isn't that what Mr. Jensen was doing is to check the accuracy of the machine and see if it self-programs?

AUSTIN: I don't know how close together those were rung up. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, who changes the time on the, on the Christmas register? Is that also Mr. Jared Jensen?

AUSTIN: It doesn't get changed.

GERAGOS: Okay. So he's the one who programs it initially; is that correct?

AUSTIN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Thank you. I have no further questions.


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



Redirect Examination by Dave Harris



JUDGE: May this witness be excused?

HARRIS: No, I have some questions.

JUDGE: Okay.

HARRIS: Mr. Austin, just so we're clear about this, the date, you were asked about the time on these particular exhibits.

AUSTIN: Uh-huh.

HARRIS: I'll let you look at it. This was done in 2004; is that correct?

AUSTIN: Yes.

HARRIS: And that was done in January?

AUSTIN: Oh, according to this one was on the 14th, one was on the 20th.
HARRIS: Of January of 2004?

AUSTIN: Yes.


Nice try, Geragos





GERAGOS: Okay. But did you run two receipts for him on the same day?

AUSTIN: I can't tell you if I did or not.

GERAGOS: Well, when I asked you before, I asked you about it and you said that you did. Do you remember testifying to that about five minutes ago?

AUSTIN: I also didn't look at the dates on these two receipts

GERAGOS: Okay. How many times have you talked to the investigator?

AUSTIN: A couple of occasions.

GERAGOS: And you ran the receipts for him on one occasion; isn't that correct?

AUSTIN: Excuse me?

GERAGOS: You ran the receipts for him on one occasion; is that correct?

AUSTIN: That's what I recall.

GERAGOS: Right. Same day?

AUSTIN: As far as I can recall, yes.

GERAGOS: Thank you. No further questions.




nice try yourself Lavindar
:beer:

[ekg]

you are assuming that Laci went willingly with an abductor also. A screaming or struggling victim requires more time than someone willingly walking into their house, washing their hands, getting in their car and making a 2 mile drive


how long does it take?

1 minute?
2 minutes?

6 minutes?

[frydaddy]

so you think Mark Geragos would knowingly perpetrate a fraud upon the courts?

what was someone saying about liable and slander the other day to saraliba or the other one that got banned?

I think it's possible.

Whatever the rules are regarding libel and slander, I doubt that Mark Geragos is going to pursue anonymous posters on a message board for accusing him of being capable of fraud in court, any more than Catherine Crier would pursue anonymous posters for accusing her of lying about the sources for her book. So, I think we are all likely safe!

[frydaddy]

sure, but you asked..... so I'm not debating the poster..Like I was just warned about....... so I have officially been warned... and just in case,I want to say Bye to FryDaddy now... You've been great.

and Lav, you're not too bad either...:tongue:

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8895768&postcount=820

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8895859&postcount=837

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8909787&postcount=1991

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8909615&postcount=1987

Not sure why you are saying bye, but perhaps I am missing the meaning of this post. I appreciate the compliment and I must admit, you were THE most objective SNG I can recall posting with and I appreciate that.

Also, I originally missed the post that I was your first - I think it was in regards to admitting the phone worked - I caught it skimming back through. I hope it was good for you! LOL

At any rate, it seems that some tempers are up and some reports are flowing. We didn't seem to have either problem until five or so days ago. Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail and we can all get back to being friendly again. :)

[TopGunner]

since he talked that way to Amber... and going by everyones description of the way he adored Laci... I'd have say it was pretty normal...

but since I never heard the other messages he left for Laci while they were married....I don't have enough info to make any kind of judgment...


Adored Laci? ekg - if lying, cheating, spending family money on affairs, boats, diploma's, letting her attend a Christmas party solo 'cause he had a committment w/his lover is ADORING someone, and then snuffing out her life and dumping her into the bay is ADORING, man, I'd hate to see your definition of hate. :eek:

[TopGunner]

and so does saying stuff like Dennis showed up so drunk to Laci's graduation that he needed help putting his pants on.. and then he ripped the seat of them out and they needed to be stapled together..

She also said that Dennis and Laci were estrange after this....

there's no need for it to be in a book.........

Profiteer, plain and simple...


It was her wedding, and she wrote the facts. I agree, this wasn't necessary, but it did happen.

[Lavindar]

how long does it take?

1 minute?
2 minutes?

6 minutes?

I don't know. Maybe an approximation can be done. Don't forget - Todd has to go get a car first

[TopGunner]

Nothing prevented Geragos from putting Todd on his list and calling him. The defense was not "crippled". Geragos is not a victim. He chose. IMO.

JMO - I was thinking the same thing. Can you imagine how EASY it'd be to convict people - just have the prosecution put all the witnesses on their list, and the defense is sh*t out of luck. Brillant! :D

[TopGunner]

I have read this explanation from a big (and I mean BIG) SP supporter. Paraphrasing:



My response:

I understand that women react differently to pregnancy. I have female friends that have told me that when they were pregnant they became hornier than a nine-peckered Chinese temple dog. However, Mrs. Adnoid is not one of those, and the 3 times she has been pregnant she lost all interest.

Well, she is carrying OUR child. While the situation may not be my first choice, that's what it is. Any discomfort I may feel from the elevated white count pales in comparison to what she is going through. I married the woman I love and adore, not some sort of ever-ready sperm receptacle, and I personally feel that slapping nasties with some skinny blond chick down the road would not be a way to show that. I just lived with it, and I survived. Scott gets no sympathy from me - and this is EXCLUDING the murders.

This is one of the many reasons why we love you Adnoid. When you speak of Mrs Adnoid and your Jr. Adnoid's, you positively BEAM with light. Integrity, that's the name of your game.

And -- I will add that those with itegrity cannot stomach what ISP did. Those without, excuse it. Integrity is something you cannot buy, just like character. You either have it or you don't.:rose:

[TopGunner]

I don't know. Maybe an approximation can be done. Don't forget - Todd has to go get a car first


Assuming he gets approved for a loan, he also has to get insurance. :patriot:

[I'mSun]

Assuming he gets approved for a loan, he also has to get insurance. :patriot:Does he have a license to drive? :shrug:

[ekg]

And of course - we all know how reliable those polygraphs are - and no one has EVER lied while taking a polygraph and passed.

snipped.

IMO,Kim McGregor got away with lying on hers....

PG 257
Catherine Criers;A DEADLY GAME

Kim was said she was asked whether she'd known the Peterson before Laci's disappearance. She was surprised that her denial registered as inconclusive, since she really didn't know them before that time

[aingael]

IMO,Kim McGregor got away with lying on hers....

PG 257
Catherine Criers;A DEADLY GAME

Kim was said she was asked whether she'd known the Peterson before Laci's disappearance. She was surprised that her denial registered as inconclusive, since she really didn't know them before that time


Do you mind me asking how inconclusive equates to lying?

Inconclusive means leading no final results. I can see where that would register like that if I were to take a polygraph about some of my neighbors. I know them, but I don't ~know~ them.

She might not have known them personally, but, seeing them around hearing their name would lead to an indecisive results. This does not mean she is lying, if she was it would have shown deception.

[ekg]

Janet Ilse
Katie Hanson - and those were early on in the marriage.

His bragging about the "Mile High Club"
and many women who are probably too embarrassed to come forward.

Scott was scum. The two I mentioned were while they were still in college. That had nothing to do with her pregnancy, Scott was an accomplished womanizer (the massive flowers, giving up meat for a vegetarian girl friend. Jackie always wanted him to find a "nice girl." Guess she didn't think Laci was.

A gentleman does NOT seek sex elsewhere if he wife is uninterested. That is a slap in the face to his marriage vows. A Gentleman abides by his wife's wishes.

Scott was NO gentleman. Scott was a HORNY ******* (in his own words).

And where is the testimony that Laci was not interested in sex?

I didn't say Laci wasn't interested in sex...


where can I find this "mile high club' info?

[TopGunner]

I didn't say Laci wasn't interested in sex...


where can I find this "mile high club' info?

If you didn't mean Laci wasn't interested in sex, what DID you mean when you posted this:

yep.. sex is not love..


Link that Laci wasn't like alot of women and chose to ignore her husbands predilections.


Mile High Club reference is in both Bird and Crier's books.

[adnoid]

I didn't say Laci wasn't interested in sex...

Laci's friends reported that Laci told them that.

...where can I find this "mile high club' info?

In general terms you're on your own. It's a research project. Just don't disable the smoke detector.

With regard to Scott, Deadly Game, page 286.

[attorneywan2be]

IMO,Kim McGregor got away with lying on hers....

PG 257
Catherine Criers;A DEADLY GAME

Kim was said she was asked whether she'd known the Peterson before Laci's disappearance. She was surprised that her denial registered as inconclusive, since she really didn't know them before that time



Maybe it was inconclusive because according to her statement to Brocchini she met Laci on one or two occasions during a neighborhood watch meeting...


Mark Geragos: Okay. Do you want to just write "McGregor" there? Okay. She said the first time she ever saw Scott was in the driveway on the 24th of December?
Allen Brocchini: Yes.
Mark Geragos: She assisted in searching and brought over coffee and food, right?
Allen Brocchini: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And she said she began work at the Command Center, right?
Allen Brocchini: That's right. That's what she said.
Mark Geragos: And that eventually began taking Laci's and Scott's dog for, MacKenzie for a walk, and feeding the dog?
Allen Brocchini: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And she said that Sharon Rocha first recommended that her, that McGregor take care of, or walk the dog when Scott was away, correct?
Allen Brocchini: Yes.
Mark Geragos: She said that she had met Laci Peterson prior to the time when she went missing, correct?
Allen Brocchini: Yes.
Rick Distaso: Objection, your Honor. Hearsay. This doesn't really go to the investigation of the burglary.
Mark Geragos: Exactly.
Judge Delucchi: I don't know. Can I see what you are going to ask him again, if this goes to the reasonableness of the officer's conduct.
Mark Geragos: The highlighted, the last part.
Judge Delucchi: That's an issue. Overruled.
Mark Geragos: Okay. She said that she met Laci Peterson on one or two occasions in the park during a Neighborhood Watch meeting involving the Encina entrance to the park, correct?
Allen Brocchini: That's what she said.
Mark Geragos: Okay. The Encina entrance to the park, do you know where that is?
Allen Brocchini: No.
Mark Geragos: Now, she said she hadn't been to Laci's residence. On one or two occasions she met her. She wasn't sure where Laci lived until some friends came to her residence on the 24th, correct?
Allen Brocchini: And showed her some pictures, yes.
Mark Geragos: Showed her pictures, right?
Allen Brocchini: Yes.

[adnoid]

Maybe it was inconclusive because according to her statement to Brocchini she met Laci on one or two occasions during a neighborhood watch meeting...

That makes sense. Those things are pretty accurate, huh? She actually had met Laci, and perhaps her subconscious mind reacted to the conscious denial and gave the inconclusive result.

Wonder why Scott wouldn't take one? Marc Klass sure did.

[TopGunner]

Laci's friends reported that Laci told them that.



In general terms you're on your own. It's a research project. Just don't disable the smoke detector.

With regard to Scott, Deadly Game, page 286.

Ahhhhhhhh - the Mile High Club is referenced on page 286 in Criers book. THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!

I knew it was in there somewhere, you just saved me a lot of time.:D :biggrin:

[I'mSun]

I didn't say Laci wasn't interested in sex...


where can I find this "mile high club' info?The Mile High Club is mentioned in C. Crier's book on page 286. In addition here (http://www.milehighatlanta.com/) is one link, and this (http://www.milehighclub.com/) will take you to another.
There are links all over the place.

[Lavindar]

Ahhhhhhhh - the Mile High Club is referenced on page 286 in Criers book. THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!

I knew it was in there somewhere, you just saved me a lot of time.:D :biggrin:
and here is what she says:

Two women also came forward claiming affairs with Scott Peterson while he was married. Police found both Janet Ilse and Katy Hansen's claims credible. In addition, a third woman calling from the Las Vegas area was also claiming an affair with Peterson. While researching this book, I have heard references to other women--including a few members of the "mile-high club" who beca me intimately acquainted w ith Scott while flying overseas--but to date the reports have not been confirmed.

Any typos are mine and mine alone.

[Otter]

so CC using an unknown LE report (which I don't believe, I think she was smart enough not to say "I read in the globe") but anyway....... she used a LE report as her source on Jackie and the broken phone..

so again...triple hearsay..

Thank you Otter for helping me make my point...:)

:seeya: How ya doin' Otter? sweltering here....grrrrrr

Hey ekg! I'm good thanks! Sorry its so hot where you are, lol, last week on this day it was a record high of 98, now its in the low 60's and gray and rainy, just how I like it. :beer:

But I didn't bump this post to talke about the weather. I didn't make you help any point, because I was responding to tia. Her citation of police reports, the official ones, are totally different than what you are insinuating here. The cops don't work in vacuum, just like you and me.

Just want to clear that up. :)

Hope it cools off for 'ya! :seeya:

[ekg]

Please site your source, otherwise state it's your opinion. Thank you.

It's in the TOS -

You Are Responsible For What You Post
You are entirely responsible and liable for all activities conducted through your sessions. It is required that when making a factual statement you provide a source for that information otherwise you must use IMO IMHO etc.. to advise others that the post is your opinion only. Exceptions are made for common knowledge like definitions, etc...
Sharon, a CL member, explains the spirit and intent of IMO very well....

"When a forum is overwhelmingly on one side IMO doesn't really matter. You can all go and say anything, the more outlandish and entertaining the better! But, when you have 2 very distinct opinions and there is serious debate involved, it is a courtesy at the least to use IMO when you are saying something that is just that. We have found that it seems to appease both sides in a heated argument, and perhaps allows more to be said without offending anyone. If anything it gives the poster more liberty to say what is on their mind. IMO "

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?p=8907053#post8907053

You're right, I should have said IMO The Globe prints rumors..

and IMO Catherine Crier used them as her source for what she wrote...

I apologize..

[TopGunner]

You're right, I should have said IMO The Globe prints rumors..

and IMO Catherine Crier used them as her source for what she wrote...

I apologize..

I do not recall CC references the Globe as her source for anything stated as factual. Can you be more specific?

[ekg]

Not sure why you are saying bye, but perhaps I am missing the meaning of this post. I appreciate the compliment and I must admit, you were THE most objective SNG I can recall posting with and I appreciate that.

Also, I originally missed the post that I was your first - I think it was in regards to admitting the phone worked - I caught it skimming back through. I hope it was good for you! LOL

At any rate, it seems that some tempers are up and some reports are flowing. We didn't seem to have either problem until five or so days ago. Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail and we can all get back to being friendly again. :)

ah well, after getting a warning and getting called on the board for not providing links or the "IMO" tag, I wasn't sure if I'd be able to stay on here or be asked to leave..... ya never know what's going to happen when those tempers are up and reports are a flyin..

So I wanted to make sure I got to atleast say a good-bye to ya, just in case..:)


" you were THE most objective SNG I can recall posting with and I appreciate that. "


Thank you for that..... I try to look at each side. I know it seems like I don't and some of my 'reasons' or explanations may be fanciful to some, but I do try to be as honest about them as I can..... even with the stuff that I find 'guilty'....as I have also seen you do a number of times.... IMO,I think things could progress much easier and with less hostility if both sides could objectively say "it doesn't all have to mean he's guilty/innocent" to every single piece of anything...

IMO some things just are...



and yes, of course it was good for me....:tongue:

[Lavindar]

Nothing prevented Geragos from putting Todd on his list and calling him. The defense was not "crippled". Geragos is not a victim. He chose. IMO.

Isn't that why lawyers say I Reserve the right to call this witness or something like that? I believe Geragos DID call

Bertalotto
Buehler
Grogan - who were all prosecution witnesses

[ekg]

Adored Laci? ekg - if lying, cheating, spending family money on affairs, boats, diploma's, letting her attend a Christmas party solo 'cause he had a committment w/his lover is ADORING someone, and then snuffing out her life and dumping her into the bay is ADORING, man, I'd hate to see your definition of hate. :eek:

from Sharon's book

pg 113
Brent told reporters that Scott loved Laci and that he was suffering more than anyone. All of us agreed that we thought Scott had nothing to do with Laci's disappearance

pg 122
"And I think, well, could he have done something to Laci? But then I think about them, how they were so loving with each other, and I go, no way. "


pg 135
"Again, I stayed up with Lissa and made more Before and After lists—how Scott treated Laci before Decem*ber 24 and how he acted after then. The Scott from the Before list was considerate, thoughtful, and loving"


IMO, Scott loved and adored her....

[ekg]

It was her wedding, and she wrote the facts. I agree, this wasn't necessary, but it did happen.


ok, wedding........ I thought it was her graduation...thanks

and no, it didn't need to be in there at all.......

[ekg]

Hey! I just caught this......is ekg still here? I sincerely hope so. ekg, I've been to the black hole, but found my way back - no doubt you will too, LOL!


yeah, I'm still here....you can never tell how those things will bounce once they start bouncing....:)

and you had ppl fighting for you while you were in the hole...:tongue:

[ekg]

If you didn't mean Laci wasn't interested in sex, what DID you mean when you posted this:

yep.. sex is not love..


Link that Laci wasn't like alot of women and chose to ignore her husbands predilections.


Mile High Club reference is in both Bird and Crier's books.

I think a man or a woman can cheat on their spouse and still love them....... sex is not love

my g/parents celebrated the 59th anniversary today....... He was in WWII and Korea.. he was away from my g/ma for many many months at a time... She accepted that he may do things a soldier fighting in a war may do....b/c it didn't mean he didn't love her..:shrug:

for all we know Laci looked the other way on Scotts affairs as many women do..... Not that she didn't want to have sex, but some women just chose to ignore it...... we know she knew about one for sure and while she was pissed, it didn't break them up... since that's all we can go by, IMO she was the kind of woman who chose to ignore her husbands predilections for other women..


can you tell me how you got "Laci didn't like sex" out of anything I said tho?

OH wait, you were thinking I meant his she ignored his "favors" as in sex??

LOL, no I meant his fondness of other women

[cookiewench]

IMO, Scott loved and adored her....

You honestly believe that men who "love and adore" their women cheat on them and lie to them?

How sad.

[cookiewench]

I think a man or a woman can cheat on their spouse and still love them....... sex is not love




Sometimes people have sex without love, but married people who love their spouses do not cheat, lie to and betray them.

BTW: Do you have any evidence that LACI believed that "sex is not love"?

[cookiewench]

so you think Mark Geragos would knowingly perpetrate a fraud upon the courts?


I'll say it.

Not only would he knowingly perpetrate a fraud upon the courts, he tried to do so several (more like many) times.

[ekg]

The Mile High Club is mentioned in C. Crier's book on page 286. In addition here (http://www.milehighatlanta.com/) is one link, and this (http://www.milehighclub.com/) will take you to another.
There are links all over the place.


:lol:

yes, I know all about the 'mile high club' ;)

I wanted a ref to where Scott attributed it to himself, silly rabbit...:punch:

thank you.. for the ref in CC's book...

[ekg]

I do not recall CC references the Globe as her source for anything stated as factual. Can you be more specific?

as I said.... IMO Crier used them for her source.... but since she would look foolish using them as a source, she used 'artist-whatever-its-called' and changed it to reading it in an LE report...

IMO anyway..:shrug:



on 2 ppl reported anything like that...... The Globe 1st and then Crier...I can't prove it..... it's just my take on it..

[accordn2me]

And of course - we all know how reliable those polygraphs are - and no one has EVER lied while taking a polygraph and passed.

You're right - no matter what anyone else says - if those burglars said they didn't do it - then gosh - they must NOT have done it. We should dismiss what Aponte says - because those criminals say they don't know anything about it - even though Aponte heard them (while they thought no one was listening) - say they did. And if that tape didn't exist a year and a half later - then it must have NEVER existed. Silly me.

Okay - sarcasm aside - I agree with you on one part - it can be used as ineffective counsel.Do you think cops like raking criminals over the coals? I know some do. And many can smell a lie a mile away. I'm sure some cops...probably more than one....got to sharpen and hone skills by raking these hoodlums back and forth over every inch of their story and timelines. I bet the thieves were scared to bits. Do you have any indications or feeling that LE covered up, or didn't properly check the thugs out? I believe they were thoroughly checked inside (polygraph] and out and cross-referenced with each other until they were sick! And do you really believe that one of them wouldn't have squealed on the others for all that reward money? Like Mr. R....what's with this code name :shrug: ......I think for, what was it...half a mil.....I'd give my name, collect the money and hire some protection if I was a fraidy cat.

All that to ask: How can it be used as ineffective counsel?

[ekg]

OK, not to butt in on this *private* conversation, but this is the third or so time I've read the reports are flying around. Who is reporting who and for WHAT?! I would HOPE that after everything we've all been through together, and survived, there'd be no reporting going on - a PM conversation would be more appropriate at this point, and if that didn't wash - maybe then a report. But oh hey, I'm not telling anyone what to do. Just making a back door suggestion to keep the peace. It has gotten a bit nutty in here RECENTLY.:cuss:

" I would HOPE that after everything we've all been through together, and survived, there'd be no reporting going on"

that's what I thought....... I have said my 'peace' with adnoid and others on here numerous times. I think it's best that way,no wondering who's saying what and you get it out in the open and over with......But I guess that's not how it's to be done or how ppl want it..:shrug:


doing it off the board in a report is much easier and safer... so I will be doing that way when necessary, b/c I like it here...

and adnoid, I am sorry I made that comment today....:rose:

[woohoo]

I don't see any reason Geragos would want to call Todd, except perhaps as a hostile witness to try and prove that the Medina burglary did NOT occur on the 26th as they said it did. The prosecution couldn't use them to tell their story of seeing Scott doing something suspicious on the night of the 24th, because it would be countered with the truck driver saying he saw him at or near the bay.

Plus I don't think it would be an easy story to swallow IMO that he and Pearce were riding around on the 24th looking for a house that appeared empty to rob, and then came back on the 26th to rob it.
Besides the choice of houses to rob (the Medinas) wasn't empty on the 24th! How would he explain that?

IMO he was a proven liar with a rap sheet as long as your arm, so how could anything he said benefit either one - Distaso or Geragos?

[ekg]

You honestly believe that men who "love and adore" their women cheat on them and lie to them?

How sad.

believing it and putting up with it are 2 different things CW....

But I do believe that what ppl allow or don't allow is their buisness and not for me to judge how sad or not they are...

[ekg]

Sometimes people have sex without love, but married people who love their spouses do not cheat, lie to and betray them.

BTW: Do you have any evidence that LACI believed that "sex is not love"?


why would I need evidence she thought that.... I said I THINK that..



"I think a man or a woman can cheat on their spouse and still love them....... sex is not love"


meaning... I THINK..... IMO....MOO... not "Laci thought"..

[adnoid]

I think a man or a woman can cheat on their spouse and still love them....... sex is not love...

It's not the sex, it's the disrespect. I know you and I will get nowhere with this, so I'm not going to try. But Scott and Amber wasn't a drunken roll in the sack that Scott was sorry about, it was a separate relationship that took away from his marriage. Laci alone going to a party at their friends house convinced Scott was with his boss while Scott is 100 miles south at a party with Amber (who he has told is his only one) and her friends is not just sex. It's one hell of a lot more than that. That night, among others, he put Amber before his wife and child. That's not just sex.

You may think it's all fine and dandy, but I do not. Perhaps I'm in a minority, but I don't care. I didn't realize there were people who admired Scott's infidelity and frankly I'm not so happy to discover there are. I will never be one of them. Scott's actions speak to his lack of character, and the lack of character is consistent with a man who would murder his family.

[adnoid]

...and adnoid, I am sorry I made that comment today...

What comment?

[woohoo]

believing it and putting up with it are 2 different things CW....

But I do believe that what ppl allow or don't allow is their buisness and not for me to judge how sad or not they are...

I try not to judge people's personal relationships. I do know that there are some women who know their husband's cheat and still don't let it effect the marriage. One such lady remarked:
"am I suppose to give up my marriage and my life as I like it just because of his flavor of the month?"

I do know one thing - seems like everytime a married man is caught with his britches down he always says "but I love my wife."LOL

[ekg]

It's not the sex, it's the disrespect. I know you and I will get nowhere with this, so I'm not going to try. But Scott and Amber wasn't a drunken roll in the sack that Scott was sorry about, it was a separate relationship that took away from his marriage. Laci alone going to a party at their friends house convinced Scott was with his boss while Scott is 100 miles south at a party with Amber (who he has told is his only one) and her friends is not just sex. It's one hell of a lot more than that. That night, among others, he put Amber before his wife and child. That's not just sex.

You may think it's all fine and dandy, but I do not. Perhaps I'm in a minority, but I don't care. I didn't realize there were people who admired Scott's infidelity and frankly I'm not so happy to discover there are. I will never be one of them. Scott's actions speak to his lack of character, and the lack of character is consistent with a man who would murder his family.

I do not admire it.. and I never said I did..

I do not believe that just b/c a man cheats on his wife that it's in him to also kill her...the statistic of men cheating and not killing are probably pretty high, I don't have the numbers, this is just my own opinion...

and any time a man or a women cheats they are away from their family, so I don't know what point you are trying to make with that..

no we will never agree on this issue... and I believe I was called morally lacking the last time this was brought up(not by you)....I do not look down upon Laci or anyone else who sticks with their spouse after catching them cheating.... as I said, what ppl put up with it is their own business and not for me to judge.......if that makes me morally lacking then so be it:shrug:

well, unless we're talking physical abuse... I do not understand women who will stay thru that..... and while I don't look down on them, I do feel sorry for them and hope they get out asap...

[ekg]

What comment?

check your PM

[ekg]

I try not to judge people's personal relationships. I do know that there are some women who know their husband's cheat and still don't let it effect the marriage. One such lady remarked:
"am I suppose to give up my marriage and my life as I like it just because of his flavor of the month?"

I do know one thing - seems like everytime a married man is caught with his britches down he always says "but I love my wife."LOL

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/image.php?u=107249&dateline=1184819935

Best avatar for a nic that I have ever seen..........

http://www.websophist.com/Laughing_RoflSmileyLJ.gif

[woohoo]

I do not admire it.. and I never said I did..

I do not believe that just b/c a man cheats on his wife that it's in him to also kill her...the statistic of men cheating and not killing are probably pretty high, I don't have the numbers, this is just my own opinion...

and any time a man or a women cheats they are away from their family, so I don't know what point you are trying to make with that..

no we will never agree on this issue... and I believe I was called morally lacking the last time this was brought up(not by you)....I do not look down upon Laci or anyone else who sticks with their spouse after catching them cheating.... as I said, what ppl put up with it is their own business and not for me to judge.......if that makes me morally lacking then so be it:shrug:

well, unless we're talking physical abuse... I do not understand women who will stay thru that..... and while I don't look down on them, I do feel sorry for them and hope they get out asap...

* clapping icon* I agree ekg. And it reinforces my belief that Scott Peterson was truly convicted of adultery. Solidly! No questions asked - and no explanations given by me. I don't understand what his game was, I cannot explain the phone calls (well I have SOME opinions on that) but I don't believe they would have continued if he had murder on his mind.

For "all things Amber" he was guilty. But there was nothing in the prosecution's case that made me even come close to making the leap to murder. That's just MOO

[adnoid]

well, unless we're talking physical abuse... I do not understand women who will stay thru that...

Curious - your response sounds like mine, although with different criteria. Why would physical abuse bother you? If the woman stays she must be OK with it, using the same logic. She must accept it, right?

I'm serious here. Using logic alone, and your statement that what people decide to put up with they must accept, perhaps even enjoy and look forward to, why would a woman staying with a man that shoves her head through the door be bothersome to you?

I'll tell you that it's really bothersome to me, and I feel I am consistent. The behavior is disrespectful, whether it's infidelity, dishonesty, or violence. I am bothered by all three, not just the last one. I feel all three reflect poorly on the man involved and give me insight into his character, not just the last one.

Help me out here.

[woohoo]

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/image.php?u=107249&dateline=1184819935

Best avatar for a nic that I have ever seen..........

http://www.websophist.com/Laughing_RoflSmileyLJ.gif

:lol: I've had a long day. My eyes look just like my avatar!
G'night

PS Come to think about it the TOES look sorta familiar too!:eek:

[ekg]

Curious - your response sounds like mine, although with different criteria. Why would physical abuse bother you? If the woman stays she must be OK with it, using the same logic. She must accept it, right?

I'm serious here. Using logic alone, and your statement that what people decide to put up with they must accept, perhaps even enjoy and look forward to, why would a woman staying with a man that shoves her head through the door be bothersome to you?

I'll tell you that it's really bothersome to me, and I feel I am consistent. The behavior is disrespectful, whether it's infidelity, dishonesty, or violence. I am bothered by all three, not just the last one. I feel all three reflect poorly on the man involved and give me insight into his character, not just the last one.

Help me out here.

thats a good question...... and I can't give you a great answer but I will try and give you the only one I can..

I guess it's just that ones violent and the other isn't....

Sex is non-violent and b/t 2 consenting adults.....

physical abuse isn't.....It's about a man beating the hell out of his wife against her will...(now I know some women like this, and I'm not talking about them)

When you are physically abused, I think something happens to your inner self.. I think you believe you deserve it, that you did something wrong, that next time you'll do it right and he won't hurt you..you are usually separated from your friends and loved ones and you have it beaten into you that HE is the only thing you have...He beats you and you don't like it or agree with it, but you no longer have the will or are afraid, to leave and do anything about it...... add to that you are in serious danger of being beaten to death......

but if you love the guy and by all accounts when he is with you he's the most loving and considerate man alive.... doting on you,giving into you, giving you everything you could ever want,making a successful life for you and him......... but on occasion he steps out with another woman?

I don't know, it's just easier to overlook IMO...

I can't say that a man who beats his wife loves her...But I can say a man who cheats can love his wife also..

I'm sorry I can't explain it any better than that...

[cookiewench]

I do not believe that just b/c a man cheats on his wife that it's in him to also kill her...the statistic of men cheating and not killing are probably pretty high, I don't have the numbers, this is just my own opinion...




But the statistics of men who murder their wives also being involved in cheating at that time are very, very high.

So, although not all men who cheat on their wives murder them, most men who murder their wives are cheating on them.

Scott was both a murdering cheater, and a cheating murderer.

[ekg]

:lol: I've had a long day. My eyes look just like my avatar!
G'night

PS Come to think about it the TOES look sorta familiar too!:eek:

I've had a long one too.......

it's been brutally hot this week and its only going to get worse..98 with 100% humidity with a heat index of 106...:eek: If it was drier it would be so much better...... there's nothing worse than walking out to your car at 7am and being drenched with sweat before you can get the car started and the a/c on...

even right now it's 82 with 75% humidity for a heat index of 88 and it's 1am... and it won't get any cooler.... LOL

ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hate the florida summers...

http://msn.mess.be/data/thumbnails/384/33.gif http://www.brassmonkeycooling.co.uk/images/sweating.gif

[Miss Bootsie]

I do not admire it.. and I never said I did..

I do not believe that just b/c a man cheats on his wife that it's in him to also kill her...the statistic of men cheating and not killing are probably pretty high, I don't have the numbers, this is just my own opinion...

and any time a man or a women cheats they are away from their family, so I don't know what point you are trying to make with that..

no we will never agree on this issue... and I believe I was called morally lacking the last time this was brought up(not by you)....I do not look down upon Laci or anyone else who sticks with their spouse after catching them cheating.... as I said, what ppl put up with it is their own business and not for me to judge.......if that makes me morally lacking then so be it:shrug:

well, unless we're talking physical abuse... I do not understand women who will stay thru that..... and while I don't look down on them, I do feel sorry for them and hope they get out asap...

Men who continuously cheat are inflicting mental abuse.
MB is just as destructive as physical abuse.
The knowledge of the infidelity breaks down a woman's self esteem just as much or more so than physical abuse.

I agree with Adnoid. Scott's interest in Amber was not all about sex.

[adnoid]

thats a good question...... and I can't give you a great answer but I will try and give you the only one I can..

I guess it's just that ones violent and the other isn't....

Sex is non-violent and b/t 2 consenting adults.....

physical abuse isn't.....It's about a man beating the hell out of his wife against her will...(now I know some women like this, and I'm not talking about them)

When you are physically abused, I think something happens to your inner self.. I think you believe you deserve it, that you did something wrong, that next time you'll do it right and he won't hurt you..you are usually separated from your friends and loved ones and you have it beaten into you that HE is the only thing you have...He beats you and you don't like it or agree with it, but you no longer have the will or are afraid, to leave and do anything about it...... add to that you are in serious danger of being beaten to death......

but if you love the guy and by all accounts when he is with you he's the most loving and considerate man alive.... doting on you,giving into you, giving you everything you could ever want,making a successful life for you and him......... but on occasion he steps out with another woman?

I don't know, it's just easier to overlook IMO...

I can't say that a man who beats his wife loves her...But I can say a man who cheats can love his wife also..

I'm sorry I can't explain it any better than that...

I understand what you wrote but I still don't see the logic.

Your point about infidelity is that it's between two people, and outside parties looking at the relationship have no place to judge either person because we don't know what goes on or what they like.

Why does that principal apply to some things and not others in your opinion?

Every reason you gave for a woman staying with a man who beats her can be used for a woman whose man lies to her and cheats on her. In my opinion all intentional hurtful behavior is an indictment of a man's character. In your opinion some intentional hurtful behavior is OK and some is not. I'm trying to understand where you draw the line and why. We are thinking, loving beings, and the deepest cuts do not always come from the point of a knife.

To say one is "easier to overlook" means that you consider both of them wrong, but since one doesn't come to your attention it can be ignored. But in being ignored it does not cease to be wrong.

And to be clear, I do not feel murder is the consequent of infidelity. I feel the two have a common root in Scott's case.

[attorneywan2be]

Curious - your response sounds like mine, although with different criteria. Why would physical abuse bother you? If the woman stays she must be OK with it, using the same logic. She must accept it, right?

Snip




No, IMO, we cannot use the same logic..for example, a woman who stays after being physically abused doesn't mean she's ok with it or accepting it.. simply because "FEAR" could be a factor in her decision to stay with her abusive husband---> "afraid he might harm her even more if she leaves him" ...on the other hand, IMO, a wife who stays with a husband that cheats must be accepting it, otherwise, she would have left, nothing prevents her from doing so... maybe she decides that she is better off staying with him for whatever reason..: she loves him..she knows that he loves her but has a weakness and decides to work things out....etc..etc..

[caphill]

I try not to judge people's personal relationships. I do know that there are some women who know their husband's cheat and still don't let it effect the marriage. One such lady remarked:
"am I suppose to give up my marriage and my life as I like it just because of his flavor of the month?"

I do know one thing - seems like everytime a married man is caught with his britches down he always says "but I love my wife."LOL


I agree. Out of the last 9 presidents there is at least 6 that were known for their dalliances outside their marraiges. FDR,Ike,Kennedy,Johnson, Bush 42,Clinton, and who knows what "W' was doing during his days of youthful indiscretions. The wives were very aware their husbands had cheated and stayed in the marriage.

These examples are of very high profile people but there is infidelity going on every day in ordinary peoples lives. It doesn't make it right but it makes it a glaring reality that infidelity runs rampant.

If one stopped to think how many people in their families, their friends, their churches, their governments etc that they know that has had adultery issues?

It was certainly poor timing that Laci was abducted around the time Scott had started a fling. Since each marriage is facing a 50% chance of a divorce, does that mean married people that happens to have a spouse disappear or murdered are likely the murderer?

This case is the first one of have heard that the husband killed his wife because he was having an affair. LOL. I have heard of love triangles where the spurred spouse or the jealous lover have taken matters in their own hands.........

Of course I can't see Scott's fling with a single welfare mother was a motive to kill his wfe who was coming into a rather large inheritance,

[accordn2me]

I don't see any reason Geragos would want to call Todd, except perhaps as a hostile witness to try and prove that the Medina burglary did NOT occur on the 26th as they said it did. The prosecution couldn't use them to tell their story of seeing Scott doing something suspicious on the night of the 24th, because it would be countered with the truck driver saying he saw him at or near the bay.

Plus I don't think it would be an easy story to swallow IMO that he and Pearce were riding around on the 24th looking for a house that appeared empty to rob, and then came back on the 26th to rob it.
Besides the choice of houses to rob (the Medinas) wasn't empty on the 24th! How would he explain that?

IMO he was a proven liar with a rap sheet as long as your arm, so how could anything he said benefit either one - Distaso or Geragos?What truck driver?

The way I see it....if MG would have called Todd and questioned him as to plant a seed that possibly the burglars were there on the 24th, in the morning when Laci went missing, and followed it up with Aponte and/or Mr. R..... BAM! there's your reasonable doubt....except the defense was totally prepared for it and like the rest of the defense's case....nothing, nada, zip was there to point to anyone other than SLP committing this crime.

[accordn2me]

I do not admire it.. and I never said I did..

I do not believe that just b/c a man cheats on his wife that it's in him to also kill her...the statistic of men cheating and not killing are probably pretty high, I don't have the numbers, this is just my own opinion...

and any time a man or a women cheats they are away from their family, so I don't know what point you are trying to make with that..

no we will never agree on this issue... and I believe I was called morally lacking the last time this was brought up(not by you)....I do not look down upon Laci or anyone else who sticks with their spouse after catching them cheating.... as I said, what ppl put up with it is their own business and not for me to judge.......if that makes me morally lacking then so be it:shrug:

well, unless we're talking physical abuse... I do not understand women who will stay thru that..... and while I don't look down on them, I do feel sorry for them and hope they get out asap... I don't know if I ever told you....but I really enjoyed reading your post when you opened up and told us your point of view on this. You didn't have to do it but you did and it was a brave thing. You did say some things that gave me pause....like something to the effect of the understanding that you have with your husband that should a one night stand occur it wouldn't be the end of your marriage but you wouldn't tolerate another relationship...and more than one night is a relationship. I thought then.......WHOA sistah! You just gave him a free pass! Even if you feel that way, don't tell him! :punch: Anyway, I don't pass judgment on you for that....but some people might have.

:seeya:

[accordn2me]

I agree. Out of the last 9 presidents there is at least 6 that were known for their dalliances outside their marraiges. FDR,Ike,Kennedy,Johnson, Bush 42,Clinton, and who knows what "W' was doing during his days of youthful indiscretions. The wives were very aware their husbands had cheated and stayed in the marriage.

These examples are of very high profile people but there is infidelity going on every day in ordinary peoples lives. It doesn't make it right but it makes it a glaring reality that infidelity runs rampant.

If one stopped to think how many people in their families, their friends, their churches, their governments etc that they know that has had adultery issues?

It was certainly poor timing that Laci was abducted around the time Scott had started a fling. Since each marriage is facing a 50% chance of a divorce, does that mean married people that happens to have a spouse disappear or murdered are likely the murderer?

This case is the first one of have heard that the husband killed his wife because he was having an affair. LOL. I have heard of love triangles where the spurred spouse or the jealous lover have taken matters in their own hands.........

Of course I can't see Scott's fling with a single welfare mother was a motive to kill his wfe who was coming into a rather large inheritance,Reporting posts is not my style. If I could speak freely to you I would tell you just how ignorant and disrespectful you sound. But I would get a citation from Freshwater if I did that. So I'm going to ignore you.

[caphill]

What truck driver?

The way I see it....if MG would have called Todd and questioned him as to plant a seed that possibly the burglars were there on the 24th, in the morning when Laci went missing, and followed it up with Aponte and/or Mr. R..... BAM! there's your reasonable doubt....except the defense was totally prepared for it and like the rest of the defense's case....nothing, nada, zip was there to point to anyone other than SLP committing this crime.


IIRC, the Prosecution was to bring Todd from the Modesta jail to Redwood City to testify. Oops, when the Prosecution didn't make arrangments for the sheriff to drive Todd to Redwood City, MG was galloping back in forth in the Judge's chamber. You seem to have forgotten how MG was beside himself that day. The Prosecution outsmarted him with leading him to believe Todd was going to brought to testify and he would then get his chance to cross examine him.

BTW, MG didn't know about Aponte until after the verdict. He made a motion for a mistrial based on what he believed was a discovery violation. I believe this is another issue that will be added to many appellate issues.

[TopGunner]

as I said.... IMO Crier used them for her source.... but since she would look foolish using them as a source, she used 'artist-whatever-its-called' and changed it to reading it in an LE report...

IMO anyway..:shrug:



on 2 ppl reported anything like that...... The Globe 1st and then Crier...I can't prove it..... it's just my take on it..

Good Morning! Glad to see everyone's still here, LOL.

ekg.........I read Criers book inside out and upside down last night. Read her index, went forward, backward and round and round.

Not a single reference to The Globe. Not a one, and I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure if she covered up Globe information by stating she read it in a police report, she'd be in big SERIOUS trouble, so I'm going with no Globe info leaked into her book.:patriot:

[Hey Paula]

It's not the sex, it's the disrespect. I know you and I will get nowhere with this, so I'm not going to try. But Scott and Amber wasn't a drunken roll in the sack that Scott was sorry about, it was a separate relationship that took away from his marriage. Laci alone going to a party at their friends house convinced Scott was with his boss while Scott is 100 miles south at a party with Amber (who he has told is his only one) and her friends is not just sex. It's one hell of a lot more than that. That night, among others, he put Amber before his wife and child. That's not just sex.

You may think it's all fine and dandy, but I do not. Perhaps I'm in a minority, but I don't care. I didn't realize there were people who admired Scott's infidelity and frankly I'm not so happy to discover there are. I will never be one of them. Scott's actions speak to his lack of character, and the lack of character is consistent with a man who would murder his family.

I agree with you completely. Everything about Scott's "relationship" with Amber displayed his blatant disrespect and disregard for Laci and Conner. He didn't even respect them after he murdered them, and couldn't resist calling Amber from the vigil. As others shed their tears for Laci and Conner, Scott was full of glee as he announced he was at the Eiffel Tower.

Some make light of Scott's relationship with Amber as merely lust. But the number of the telecons exchanged and their duration , many emanating from Scott, belie this.

If a man truly loves and respects his wife, he may look, but he will never touch.

IMO

[Miss Bootsie]

*Snipped*

physical abuse isn't.....It's about a man beating the hell out of his wife against her will...(now I know some women like this, and I'm not talking about them)

When you are physically abused, I think something happens to your inner self.. I think you believe you deserve it, that you did something wrong, that next time you'll do it right and he won't hurt you..you are usually separated from your friends and loved ones and you have it beaten into you that HE is the only thing you have...He beats you and you don't like it or agree with it, but you no longer have the will or are afraid, to leave and do anything about it...... add to that you are in serious danger of being beaten to death......

but if you love the guy and by all accounts when he is with you he's the most loving and considerate man alive.... doting on you,giving into you, giving you everything you could ever want,making a successful life for you and him......... but on occasion he steps out with another woman?

*Snipped*


I really don't understand your comment, "now, I know some women that like it"? I realize there are women that like rough sex, but I've never heard of a woman that enjoyed being beat.:confused:

Your comments on physical abuse also apply to the psychological damage inflicted on women that have husbands that continuously cheat. It's called mental abuse.
The woman begins to feel inadequate and blames the infidelity on herself. She questions her self worth. What am I doing wrong? Maybe if I were more attractive, he wouldn't cheat. I don't fulfill him sexually.
Maybe I'm not doing this or that right. If I do it better next time, he won't cheat.

They just accept it because they don't want to give up their life???? Nah, I don't believe that.
Over time, this mental abuse slowly breaks down a woman's self esteem and she no longer has the will to leave. The damage can be just as devastating as physical abuse.
Only difference is, you can't see the bruises.

[adnoid]

Of course I can't see Scott's fling with a single welfare mother...

Good Lord, there's ANOTHER side salad? What's this one's name?

[adnoid]

check your PM

I did. The last two are from FW and we're not supposed to discuss that on the board - are you just trying to rub it in?

[frydaddy]

ah well, after getting a warning and getting called on the board for not providing links or the "IMO" tag, I wasn't sure if I'd be able to stay on here or be asked to leave..... ya never know what's going to happen when those tempers are up and reports are a flyin..

So I wanted to make sure I got to atleast say a good-bye to ya, just in case..:)


" you were THE most objective SNG I can recall posting with and I appreciate that. "


Thank you for that..... I try to look at each side. I know it seems like I don't and some of my 'reasons' or explanations may be fanciful to some, but I do try to be as honest about them as I can..... even with the stuff that I find 'guilty'....as I have also seen you do a number of times.... IMO,I think things could progress much easier and with less hostility if both sides could objectively say "it doesn't all have to mean he's guilty/innocent" to every single piece of anything...

IMO some things just are...



and yes, of course it was good for me....:tongue:

Thanks for clarifying...I sometimes miss the point when my attention isn't undivided. Obviously and fortunately, there was no need to say any goodbye's, so that's a good thing. As for discussion of guilt or innocence, I doubt a single mind that's been made up for a couple years now is gonna change, so our debate is an exercise in futility for the most part. And when someone partakes in a futile effort, there's bound to be frustration, anger, resentment, etc. I think we've all been there and done that. At the end of the day though, I just gauge people who are genuine and try to extend those folks a little latitude. It's like lawyers who battle all day and then end up elbow to elbow in a saloon laughing off the day, I suppose.

As for that last line...the only fitting response I can think of is this icon...:hat:. I never really understood when to use it or even if it fits here, but it feels like if there's ever been a time to, this is it. LOL

[frydaddy]

I think a man or a woman can cheat on their spouse and still love them....... sex is not love

my g/parents celebrated the 59th anniversary today....... He was in WWII and Korea.. he was away from my g/ma for many many months at a time... She accepted that he may do things a soldier fighting in a war may do....b/c it didn't mean he didn't love her..:shrug:

for all we know Laci looked the other way on Scotts affairs as many women do..... Not that she didn't want to have sex, but some women just chose to ignore it...... we know she knew about one for sure and while she was pissed, it didn't break them up... since that's all we can go by, IMO she was the kind of woman who chose to ignore her husbands predilections for other women..


can you tell me how you got "Laci didn't like sex" out of anything I said tho?

OH wait, you were thinking I meant his she ignored his "favors" as in sex??

LOL, no I meant his fondness of other women

I am unsure why your opinion is that Laci would ignore Scott's tendencies towards forbidden fruit. I also am unfamiliar with her knowing about any previous affairs that he had. And I certainly could provide hundreds of examples of reasons/excuses or situations I've heard about that "justifies" infidelity to some people. For me and me alone, there is NO justification for it and in my view, those who justify it being done to them have sacrificed a part of themselves that they will never get back. And, those who justify others have merely become numb to a fading morality and casually accept that as the sign o' the times. That pains me dearly.

The bottom line for me is...based on Scott's behaviors and things he said, I am convinced that Laci did not know that Scott had an affair with Amber. She may have been suspicious...even felt he was capable...but she did not strike me as the type who would look the other way if she had confirmation. My opinion, based on what we know.

I could however use some of the examples mentioned above to create a profile of Laci that would justify her looking the other way, she didn't work, wanted nicer house, it would have been difficult to leave with a new baby and no job. But Laci had support nearby and was accomplished enough to get through that stuff. The photo of her at the party didn't give the appearance of a power broker wife who was willing to forgive a little straying by her husband in order to have preserve an otherwise normal life. She looked like a wife who was trying to trust that her husband was genuinely committed and happy, but yet unsure why he wasn't there proving it.

[adnoid]

No, IMO, we cannot use the same logic...

If your response surprised me, I'd say your response surprises me.

[adnoid]

I am unsure why your opinion is that Laci would ignore Scott's tendencies towards forbidden fruit...

I'd almost forgotten about Victor!

[frydaddy]

Do you think cops like raking criminals over the coals? I know some do. And many can smell a lie a mile away. I'm sure some cops...probably more than one....got to sharpen and hone skills by raking these hoodlums back and forth over every inch of their story and timelines. I bet the thieves were scared to bits. Do you have any indications or feeling that LE covered up, or didn't properly check the thugs out? I believe they were thoroughly checked inside (polygraph] and out and cross-referenced with each other until they were sick! And do you really believe that one of them wouldn't have squealed on the others for all that reward money? Like Mr. R....what's with this code name :shrug: ......I think for, what was it...half a mil.....I'd give my name, collect the money and hire some protection if I was a fraidy cat.

All that to ask: How can it be used as ineffective counsel?

Far too much logic here! Residential burglars are not known for their intelligence now, are they? Would they be petty thieves if they were smart? Would they be third strikers if they had the intelligence to pass a polygraph? Would they be smart enough to BOTH trick the machine, but dumb enough to keep the evidence laying around AND talking about their crime? It defies any common sense.

There were seven people that could have testified to some portion of the burglary story. NONE testified...does that not send a clear and concise message? For the love!!!

[frydaddy]

It's not the sex, it's the disrespect. I know you and I will get nowhere with this, so I'm not going to try. But Scott and Amber wasn't a drunken roll in the sack that Scott was sorry about, it was a separate relationship that took away from his marriage. Laci alone going to a party at their friends house convinced Scott was with his boss while Scott is 100 miles south at a party with Amber (who he has told is his only one) and her friends is not just sex. It's one hell of a lot more than that. That night, among others, he put Amber before his wife and child. That's not just sex.

You may think it's all fine and dandy, but I do not. Perhaps I'm in a minority, but I don't care. I didn't realize there were people who admired Scott's infidelity and frankly I'm not so happy to discover there are. I will never be one of them. Scott's actions speak to his lack of character, and the lack of character is consistent with a man who would murder his family.

I should have read all the catch up material before posting, as my post is similar to this. You and I are on the exact same page here boss!

[adnoid]

There is a new theory. They have moved on from the buglars. Ready for this? It had to have been a mob hit. oy!!!! :chicken: John Gotti must be turning in his grave.

Mob hits avoid, and never directly target, innocent family members. In addition, since Mob hits are done to send a message, they are generally pretty unambiguous. Gangs are different - maybe that will be next.

[adnoid]

I should have read all the catch up material before posting, as my post is similar to this. You and I are on the exact same page here boss!

Careful - some will interpret that to mean that we can't think independently!

Of course, those people don't matter to me, so what do I care.

[frydaddy]

thats a good question...... and I can't give you a great answer but I will try and give you the only one I can..

I guess it's just that ones violent and the other isn't....

Sex is non-violent and b/t 2 consenting adults.....

physical abuse isn't.....It's about a man beating the hell out of his wife against her will...(now I know some women like this, and I'm not talking about them)

When you are physically abused, I think something happens to your inner self.. I think you believe you deserve it, that you did something wrong, that next time you'll do it right and he won't hurt you..you are usually separated from your friends and loved ones and you have it beaten into you that HE is the only thing you have...He beats you and you don't like it or agree with it, but you no longer have the will or are afraid, to leave and do anything about it...... add to that you are in serious danger of being beaten to death......

but if you love the guy and by all accounts when he is with you he's the most loving and considerate man alive.... doting on you,giving into you, giving you everything you could ever want,making a successful life for you and him......... but on occasion he steps out with another woman?

I don't know, it's just easier to overlook IMO...

I can't say that a man who beats his wife loves her...But I can say a man who cheats can love his wife also..

I'm sorry I can't explain it any better than that...

Is it possible that because infidelity is more palatable to most (and usually not witnessed first hand) to most, relative to physical abuse, that it appears to be less offensive, less of a violation in a marriage? Make no mistake, men who hit women are scourge that the Earth could do without. But cheating is no less a violation of the marriage, IMO.

Love is important in a marriage, but I don't think love alone gets it done for me. A marriage is defined by commitment, devotion, respect, sacrifice, humility. It's about putting your spouse on a pedestal, before all others, including yourself. Both physical abuse and infidelity are violations of these things and while one appears more extreme to the senses, I'd bet that a smack to the noodle doesn't hurt nearly as much or nearly as long as walking in on a meaningless betrayal of a union.

Just food for thought! ;)

[frydaddy]

I'd almost forgotten about Victor!

:D Now that's just not playing fair!

[frydaddy]

Mob hits avoid, and never directly target, innocent family members. In addition, since Mob hits are done to send a message, they are generally pretty unambiguous. Gangs are different - maybe that will be next.

We Italians get brought up anytime there is a death somewhere. What's the world got against us?

Unless, of course, it was another nationality's mob, then they may proceed as they wish!

[aingael]

I agree. Out of the last 9 presidents there is at least 6 that were known for their dalliances outside their marraiges. FDR,Ike,Kennedy,Johnson, Bush 42,Clinton, and who knows what "W' was doing during his days of youthful indiscretions. The wives were very aware their husbands had cheated and stayed in the marriage.

These examples are of very high profile people but there is infidelity going on every day in ordinary peoples lives. It doesn't make it right but it makes it a glaring reality that infidelity runs rampant.

If one stopped to think how many people in their families, their friends, their churches, their governments etc that they know that has had adultery issues?

It was certainly poor timing that Laci was abducted around the time Scott had started a fling. Since each marriage is facing a 50% chance of a divorce, does that mean married people that happens to have a spouse disappear or murdered are likely the murderer?

This case is the first one of have heard that the husband killed his wife because he was having an affair. LOL. I have heard of love triangles where the spurred spouse or the jealous lover have taken matters in their own hands.........

Of course I can't see Scott's fling with a single welfare mother was a motive to kill his wfe who was coming into a rather large inheritance,

Cheating on one’s spouse is not about sex; it is about so much more. It shows that the person thinks only of themselves not their spouse not the person they are having the affair with and not about anyone around them. It shows selfishness because it is about them and them alone. They get what they want and when they want it, no matter who gets hurt. It’s about ego addiction and having their ego stroked because not only do they have their spouse but they have the other person too, in essence fighting for them, both telling them they are wonderful.

Cheating isn’t for just the sex and it isn’t about the sex; if it were then that person is saying sex is more important than anything or any relationship.
Minimizing affairs is wrong, in essence those who do are saying the same that the perpetrator is, sex is more important than relationships, commitment, love, honesty and trust.

Does Scott's affairs have any bearing on his guilt. In essence yes, only because it shows his character for what it is. A spoiled child who gets everything he wants no matter what, who is the golden child who can do no wrong. He placed himself above everyone else including his child. The reaction of his parents to the affair reinforces it all, he was entitled, it was nothing and he was just being a man. Real men stay committed; at times it is harder to do, to choose infidelity is really easy.

If more people voiced their opinion on how ~wrong~ it is, maybe people wouldn't have affairs so readily as you say.

[frydaddy]

Careful - some will interpret that to mean that we can't think independently!

Of course, those people don't matter to me, so what do I care.

:beer: I totally agree! Good point!

:D

[adnoid]

...Love is important in a marriage, but I don't think love alone gets it done for me. A marriage is defined by commitment, devotion, respect, sacrifice, humility. It's about putting your spouse on a pedestal, before all others, including yourself...

“Love is when the other person's happiness is more important than your own.”

-- H. Jackson Brown

[adnoid]

...Cheating isn’t for just the sex and it isn’t about the sex; if it were then that person is saying sex is more important than anything or any relationship...

Here's an exercise for those who claim Amber was just sex: Take all we know about the relationship - the courtship, the dinners, the cooking, the hikes, the parties, etc. - and remove all the episodes of "hide the salami". Does the relationship NOW show honor and respect toward Laci? I'd say it's just as objectionable, and just as demonstrative of Scott's desire NOT to be what he had become - married with a son on the way.

[adnoid]

If my husband every cheated on me, he would be kicked to the curb so fast it would make his head spin...

If I cheated on Mrs. Adnoid I would expect the same.

[frydaddy]

“Love is when the other person's happiness is more important than your own.”

-- H. Jackson Brown

Is that the gentlement who sings "Somebody's Baby"? Either way... he's brilliant!

[frydaddy]

What truck driver?

The way I see it....if MG would have called Todd and questioned him as to plant a seed that possibly the burglars were there on the 24th, in the morning when Laci went missing, and followed it up with Aponte and/or Mr. R..... BAM! there's your reasonable doubt....except the defense was totally prepared for it and like the rest of the defense's case....nothing, nada, zip was there to point to anyone other than SLP committing this crime.

I believe this is in reference to a National Enquirer article that covered a witness named Mike Maghoney, truck driver for Costco, who claims to have seen Scott and his boat and something wrapped in a blue tarp on his way to the bay around 3:30 a.m. Having said that...just an effort to be clever is my guess.

[frydaddy]

If I cheated on Mrs. Adnoid I would expect the same.

Two words...John Wayne Bobbitt! Nuff said!

[adnoid]

Two words...John Wayne Bobbitt! Nuff said!

That's just wrong no matter how you slice it. Cut it out!

[adnoid]

We Italians get brought up anytime there is a death somewhere. What's the world got against us?...

Nothing. Stop killing people and that will change!

Hold on, there's someone at the door....

[woohoo]

What truck driver?

The way I see it....if MG would have called Todd and questioned him as to plant a seed that possibly the burglars were there on the 24th, in the morning when Laci went missing, and followed it up with Aponte and/or Mr. R..... BAM! there's your reasonable doubt....except the defense was totally prepared for it and like the rest of the defense's case....nothing, nada, zip was there to point to anyone other than SLP committing this crime.
From crimenews2000 -newspaper reports, & pre-lim testimony

Midnight–6:00 a.m. According to one of the men later identified as a burglar working the La Loma neighborhood, Scott Peterson is "doing something suspicious" around 3:00 a.m. According to Det. Al Brocchini's preliminary hearing testimony, Scott Peterson is seen driving his truck on Interstate 580 in the direction of the Berkeley Marina at 3:00 a.m. He is pulling his boat, and there is a "bundle" in the boat, wrapped up in a blanket with a Mexican motif. According to a truck driver, a truck and boat matching the description of Scott Peterson's are seen near the Berkeley Marina at about 3:30 a.m. Susan Medina sees Scott Peterson's truck in his driveway at about 5:00 a.m.

[frydaddy]

Nothing. Stop killing people and that will change!

Hold on, there's someone at the door....

It's either the pizza guy or my uncle. Come to think of it, they could be one in the same! Land shark!

[frydaddy]

That's just wrong no matter how you slice it. Cut it out!


What's that old saying, one in the hand beats one in the (neighbor's) bush? Or one in the neighbor's yard? Driveway? Shoot, I'm all confused now!

[woohoo]

I believe this is in reference to a National Enquirer article that covered a witness named Mike Maghoney, truck driver for Costco, who claims to have seen Scott and his boat and something wrapped in a blue tarp on his way to the bay around 3:30 a.m. Having said that...just an effort to be clever is my guess.

You guessed wrong. I don't read nor quote the NE.

[attorneywan2be]

If your response surprised me, I'd say your response surprises me.

This is the post you replied to:

No, IMO, we cannot use the same logic..for example, a woman who stays after being physically abused doesn't mean she's ok with it or accepting it.. simply because "FEAR" could be a factor in her decision to stay with her abusive husband---> "afraid he might harm her even more if she leaves him" ...on the other hand, IMO, a wife who stays with a husband that cheats must be accepting it, otherwise, she would have left, nothing prevents her from doing so... maybe she decides that she is better off staying with him for whatever reason..: she loves him..she knows that he loves her but has a weakness and decides to work things out....etc..etc..

The discussion was not about whether or not the act of cheating on the wife is ok....the discussion was about comparing the situation of a wife deciding to stay with her husband who physically abuses her..to a wife deciding to stay with her husband who cheats on her...so if we would interpret that the wife's decision to stay with her cheating husband means she is accepting it..we simply cannot apply the same interpretation in regards to the wife's decision to stay with her physically abusive husband..why? simply because FEAR could be a factor in her decision to stay with him...

[woohoo]

Here's an exercise for those who claim Amber was just sex: Take all we know about the relationship - the courtship, the dinners, the cooking, the hikes, the parties, etc. - and remove all the episodes of "hide the salami". Does the relationship NOW show honor and respect toward Laci? I'd say it's just as objectionable, and just as demonstrative of Scott's desire NOT to be what he had become - married with a son on the way.

It could also be demonstrative of a guy who wanted to prove he still had "it" and chose to have an affair rather than get rid of his wife.

[TopGunner]

This is the post you replied to:



The discussion was not about whether or not the act of cheating on the wife is ok....the discussion was about comparing the situation of a wife deciding to stay with her husband who physically abuses her..to a wife deciding to stay with her husband who cheats on her...so if we would interpret that the wife's decision to stay with her cheating husband means she is accepting it..we simply cannot apply the same interpretation in regards to the wife's decision to stay with her physically abusive husband..why? simply because FEAR could be a factor in her decision to stay with him...



I beg to differ AW2B - if a woman stays with a cheating husband, I believe fear is also involved. Fear of others finding out (humiliation), fear of being alone, fear of not being able to take care of themselves, fear for children not having a father, etc.

I cannot think of any reason, un-fear related, of why a woman would stay with a cheating husband unless of course she is also cheating and is of like-mind.

[woohoo]

This is the post you replied to:



The discussion was not about whether or not the act of cheating on the wife is ok....the discussion was about comparing the situation of a wife deciding to stay with her husband who physically abuses her..to a wife deciding to stay with her husband who cheats on her...so if we would interpret that the wife's decision to stay with her cheating husband means she is accepting it..we simply cannot apply the same interpretation in regards to the wife's decision to stay with her physically abusive husband..why? simply because FEAR could be a factor in her decision to stay with him...

There are so many variables that go into a decision as to "what to do" when faced with infidelity or physical abuse by a husband. It's easy to say "I'd kick him out" but for some that's easier said than done. And how can you know what you would do until faced with the situation?

Many times finances, children, self esteem, in addition to fear are added into the mix. Sometimes, even having a place to go is a roadblock.Also attempts at counseling and working through it are acceptable to many women. I still say it's a personal choice and no one can rightfully judge it.

[frydaddy]

You guessed wrong. I don't read nor quote the NE.

So if you quote a site that uses the NE for some of the information contained on it, that's different? Especially IF the info you brought here from said site came from the NE?

[TopGunner]

from Sharon's book

pg 113
Brent told reporters that Scott loved Laci and that he was suffering more than anyone. All of us agreed that we thought Scott had nothing to do with Laci's disappearance

pg 122
"And I think, well, could he have done something to Laci? But then I think about them, how they were so loving with each other, and I go, no way. "


pg 135
"Again, I stayed up with Lissa and made more Before and After lists—how Scott treated Laci before Decem*ber 24 and how he acted after then. The Scott from the Before list was considerate, thoughtful, and loving"


IMO, Scott loved and adored her....

ekg - all of these statements are null and void. None of them would have been spoken if they knew the TRUTH, and they did not. I think a lot of people are great together, but I don't live with them, I can only go by the behavior they choose to show me.

[woohoo]

Do you think cops like raking criminals over the coals? I know some do. And many can smell a lie a mile away. I'm sure some cops...probably more than one....got to sharpen and hone skills by raking these hoodlums back and forth over every inch of their story and timelines. I bet the thieves were scared to bits. Do you have any indications or feeling that LE covered up, or didn't properly check the thugs out? I believe they were thoroughly checked inside (polygraph] and out and cross-referenced with each other until they were sick! And do you really believe that one of them wouldn't have squealed on the others for all that reward money? Like Mr. R....what's with this code name :shrug: ......I think for, what was it...half a mil.....I'd give my name, collect the money and hire some protection if I was a fraidy cat.

All that to ask: How can it be used as ineffective counsel?

"And many can smell a lie a mile away." IMO the cops should have smelled something based on the following:
Information From crimenews2000 & reports from the local newspaper, ModBee by Garth Stapley
December 24 According to Todd & Pearce they observe Scott doing "something" suspicious around 3:00 AM while they were canvassing the neighborhood looking for a house to rob.
December 25 According to Glen Pearce, Steven Todd visits Rudy and Susan Medina's home several times in preparation for the burglary of it the following morning. Todd determines that the couple is out of town
December 26 By their own account, around 6:30 a.m., Glen Pearce and Steven Todd burglarize the home of Rudy and Susan Medina, across the street from Scott and Laci Peterson's home. According to Todd, the two men carry a safe containing $50,000 worth of jewelry and other items out the front door and onto the front lawn. According to Pearce, he waits in the car as Todd uses a dolly to move the safe. Their movements are not noticed by the reporters now encamped around Scott and Laci Peterson's home, just across the street. The Medinas will later state they do not believe the robbery occurs on this date. End

IMO this is just one example of their story that would be considered "smelling a lie 101" to any law officer.
Example: You drive around on the 24th looking for a house where no one is home - to come back on the 26th to rob it. First of all, to come back to rob it is absurd. And second the Medinas were home the early morning of the 24th.

So you come back on the 25th with the HUGE search effort that is being conducted at the Peterson home, plus any number of police cars clearly visible and decide the Medina's home - right across the street is the one to hit.

So you wait still another day, come back on the 26th, when the search effort has already attracted nationwide attention with police cars and media trucks & equipment present- and you break in and roll a safe right out on the front lawn hoping to get it to a waiting car. There's a strong chance your face is recognizeable by officers based on your prior arrests, and the police are already aware that the Medinas are out-of-town. With all the police, media, & friends and family at Covena, I doubt there was even a parking place for that "waiting car."

And you're saying that the police didn't see anything wrong with that picture? And it was checked out backwards and forwards?:confused:

[attorneywan2be]

I beg to differ AW2B - if a woman stays with a cheating husband, I believe fear is also involved. Fear of others finding out (humiliation), fear of being alone, fear of not being able to take care of themselves, fear for children not having a father, etc.



I understand your point..but, IMO, the examples of fear you cited would also mean that she is accepting that situation because it is more advantageous for her to stay...she is not forced to stay...in those situations, I think it is a matter of choice..however, the "FEAR" I was referring to is the fear of him harming her if she would leave him..in other words, she feels she is forced to stay...to me, there is a difference..!

[Miss Bootsie]

This is the post you replied to:



The discussion was not about whether or not the act of cheating on the wife is ok....the discussion was about comparing the situation of a wife deciding to stay with her husband who physically abuses her..to a wife deciding to stay with her husband who cheats on her...so if we would interpret that the wife's decision to stay with her cheating husband means she is accepting it..we simply cannot apply the same interpretation in regards to the wife's decision to stay with her physically abusive husband..why? simply because FEAR could be a factor in her decision to stay with him...

Well Yes, we can apply the same interpretation.
Fear is also a factor when women stay with men that cheat.
Fear of the unknown....fear of being alone...fear of change.

[TopGunner]

I understand your point..but, IMO, the examples of fear you cited would also mean that she is accepting that situation because it is more advantageous for her to stay...she is not forced to stay...in those situations, I think it is a matter of choice..however, the "FEAR" I was referring to is the fear of him harming her if she would leave him..in other words, she feels she is forced to stay...to me, there is a difference..!

Well AW2B, I fear my fear is the same as your fear. She stays because she's afraid to go. That was my point about my fear being the same as your fear.:patriot:

[adnoid]

The discussion was not about whether or not the act of cheating on the wife is ok...

What I was trying to do is at a higher level of abstraction: Can we establish as a valid construct the concept that there are no absolutes about right or wrong, and we cannot judge whether the way a husband treats his wife is indicative of his level of respect for her based on our view of the behavior within the framework of our own points of reference.

I believe there are absolute rights and wrongs. I believe that beating your spouse is absolutely wrong. I believe infidelity to your spouse is absolutely wrong. I believe dishonesty is absolutely wrong. Any one of these, and other things, are indicative of a defective character, and it takes someone with a defective character to murder their family.

Now, to argue consistently, you must take the position that Scott's infidelity is not indicative of a character defect of any sort. To do this you must take the position that hurtful behavior is not subject to judgment of anyone except the people involved. To be consistent with THAT position, you MUST agree that we are also not in a position to say that a man beating his wife black and blue is unacceptable, because for all we know it is acceptable to them in the context of their relationship.

In my view this is absurd. From your response I gather you think it is absurd as well.

In that case, what you are saying is that there is a line. On one side of the line there are behaviors that are absolutely bad (such as physical abuse) if we observe them and the "victim" stays in the relationship, but on the other side of that line there are some behaviors that are not absolutely bad (emotional abuse through infidelity) if we observe them and the "victim" stays in the relationship. So now we're arguing on which side of the line Scott's behavior belongs and what conclusions we draw therefrom.

Would you agree that if there were a history of Scott physically beating Laci it would influence your opinion on his capability to murder her?

[adnoid]

ekg - all of these statements are null and void. None of them would have been spoken if they knew the TRUTH, and they did not...

Yes. It is INSANITY to stick to a position in light of new information that calls into question your previous conclusions.

Just this morning I'm dealing with a situation where I gave someone a bit of advice about an employee that they wanted to hire - I dug up some background information on him, and I said the guy would drive their business into the ground based on his track record, no matter how good a friend they were in their personal life. The person I knew got pissed off at me, said he wasn't going to take the information I came up with into account, hired the guy anyway, and stopped talking to me. He called two days ago, looking for my help, because his "buddy" has cost him about $9,000,000 loss in valuation of his business by doing exactly what he had done in the past at other companies he had worked for.

Laci's family supported the Scott they knew. They learned new information that the Scott they knew was not the real Scott. They changed their opinion of him, and rightly so. The new information was not trivial. "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, did you enjoy the play?"

[TopGunner]

"And many can smell a lie a mile away." IMO the cops should have smelled something based on the following:
Information From crimenews2000 & reports from the local newspaper, ModBee by Garth Stapley
December 24 According to Todd & Pearce they observe Scott doing "something" suspicious around 3:00 AM while they were canvassing the neighborhood looking for a house to rob.
December 25 According to Glen Pearce, Steven Todd visits Rudy and Susan Medina's home several times in preparation for the burglary of it the following morning. Todd determines that the couple is out of town
December 26 By their own account, around 6:30 a.m., Glen Pearce and Steven Todd burglarize the home of Rudy and Susan Medina, across the street from Scott and Laci Peterson's home. According to Todd, the two men carry a safe containing $50,000 worth of jewelry and other items out the front door and onto the front lawn. According to Pearce, he waits in the car as Todd uses a dolly to move the safe. Their movements are not noticed by the reporters now encamped around Scott and Laci Peterson's home, just across the street. The Medinas will later state they do not believe the robbery occurs on this date. End

IMO this is just one example of their story that would be considered "smelling a lie 101" to any law officer.
Example: You drive around on the 24th looking for a house where no one is home - to come back on the 26th to rob it. First of all, to come back to rob it is absurd. And second the Medinas were home the early morning of the 24th.

So you come back on the 25th with the HUGE search effort that is being conducted at the Peterson home, plus any number of police cars clearly visible and decide the Medina's home - right across the street is the one to hit.

So you wait still another day, come back on the 26th, when the search effort has already attracted nationwide attention with police cars and media trucks & equipment present- and you break in and roll a safe right out on the front lawn hoping to get it to a waiting car. There's a strong chance your face is recognizeable by officers based on your prior arrests, and the police are already aware that the Medinas are out-of-town. With all the police, media, & friends and family at Covena, I doubt there was even a parking place for that "waiting car."

And you're saying that the police didn't see anything wrong with that picture? And it was checked out backwards and forwards?:confused:


I know the burglars were checked out backward and forward, including taking and passing lie detector tests. ISP REFUSED to take one early on. He lied to everyone about why. Had the burglars also refused, I know it would have gotten my attention, but the cooperated. That said, do I believe the burglars told the complete truth? Heck no. I think they were scared shirtless when realized a woman disappeared around the same time they were robbing a neighbor. So much so that they ran and turned themselves and the goods they stole in. While they were turning themselves in and taking the LD test, ISP was wearing baseball hats, refusing to allow photo's of he and Laci together to be released to the press, refusing to take the LD test, refusing to beg for her return, and partying in Paris with his lover.

I am on TEAM BURGLARS.:tongue:

[Lavindar]

“Love is when the other person's happiness is more important than your own.”

-- H. Jackson Brown
Quoting you cuz it's an important thing to say

[Lavindar]

Two words...John Wayne Bobbitt! Nuff said!
roflmao I think Bobbitt-ing is a fair punishment for married men who cheat on their wives.
JMHO of course

[Lavindar]

Here's an exercise for those who claim Amber was just sex: Take all we know about the relationship - the courtship, the dinners, the cooking, the hikes, the parties, etc. - and remove all the episodes of "hide the salami". Does the relationship NOW show honor and respect toward Laci? I'd say it's just as objectionable, and just as demonstrative of Scott's desire NOT to be what he had become - married with a son on the way.

When did the sex end? Long before he stopped corresponding with her. HE was still trying to communicate with her from jail and that was in April or May, I believe. Long after she said her goodbyes to him

[Lavindar]

From crimenews2000 -newspaper reports, & pre-lim testimony

Midnight–6:00 a.m. According to one of the men later identified as a burglar working the La Loma neighborhood, Scott Peterson is "doing something suspicious" around 3:00 a.m. According to Det. Al Brocchini's preliminary hearing testimony, Scott Peterson is seen driving his truck on Interstate 580 in the direction of the Berkeley Marina at 3:00 a.m. He is pulling his boat, and there is a "bundle" in the boat, wrapped up in a blanket with a Mexican motif. According to a truck driver, a truck and boat matching the description of Scott Peterson's are seen near the Berkeley Marina at about 3:30 a.m. Susan Medina sees Scott Peterson's truck in his driveway at about 5:00 a.m.

Sorry, tips not used cannot be considered in appeal UNLESS they prove his innocence. This sure doesn't

[Lavindar]

It could also be demonstrative of a guy who wanted to prove he still had "it" and chose to have an affair rather than get rid of his wife.
Of course it does. He goes and buys a freshwater boat that he keeps at his WORK, not at home and on the spur of the moment on a cold, blustery day deciides to test out his FRESHWATER boat on salt water.

Hmmmmmm

[adnoid]

When did the sex end? Long before he stopped corresponding with her. HE was still trying to communicate with her from jail and that was in April or May, I believe. Long after she said her goodbyes to him

Exactly. If all he wanted was sex, he knew that was over. He wanted more.

I've heard the argument that his pursuing her was his way of being a "gentleman" and letting her down easy. Talk about absurd.

[Lavindar]

"And many can smell a lie a mile away." IMO the cops should have smelled something based on the following:
Information From crimenews2000 & reports from the local newspaper, ModBee by Garth Stapley
December 24 According to Todd & Pearce they observe Scott doing "something" suspicious around 3:00 AM while they were canvassing the neighborhood looking for a house to rob.
December 25 According to Glen Pearce, Steven Todd visits Rudy and Susan Medina's home several times in preparation for the burglary of it the following morning. Todd determines that the couple is out of town
December 26 By their own account, around 6:30 a.m., Glen Pearce and Steven Todd burglarize the home of Rudy and Susan Medina, across the street from Scott and Laci Peterson's home. According to Todd, the two men carry a safe containing $50,000 worth of jewelry and other items out the front door and onto the front lawn. According to Pearce, he waits in the car as Todd uses a dolly to move the safe. Their movements are not noticed by the reporters now encamped around Scott and Laci Peterson's home, just across the street. The Medinas will later state they do not believe the robbery occurs on this date. End

IMO this is just one example of their story that would be considered "smelling a lie 101" to any law officer.
Example: You drive around on the 24th looking for a house where no one is home - to come back on the 26th to rob it. First of all, to come back to rob it is absurd. And second the Medinas were home the early morning of the 24th.

So you come back on the 25th with the HUGE search effort that is being conducted at the Peterson home, plus any number of police cars clearly visible and decide the Medina's home - right across the street is the one to hit.

So you wait still another day, come back on the 26th, when the search effort has already attracted nationwide attention with police cars and media trucks & equipment present- and you break in and roll a safe right out on the front lawn hoping to get it to a waiting car. There's a strong chance your face is recognizeable by officers based on your prior arrests, and the police are already aware that the Medinas are out-of-town. With all the police, media, & friends and family at Covena, I doubt there was even a parking place for that "waiting car."

And you're saying that the police didn't see anything wrong with that picture? And it was checked out backwards and forwards?:confused:
can you supply the links to those articles please, as I recall it did NOT say Todd and Pearce observed scott at 3am at all. Pearce didn't even know about the burglary until AFTER the fact.

The burglary occured in THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT and the house was broken into from the BACK not the front.

The media trucks were there, but not manned during the night. I believe only one media truck was there at that point anyway. Remember I was in the area at the time, and I recall empty media trucks at night.

The burglar occured NOT at 6:30, but much earlier. 6:30 was when they put the safe in the car. It was still dark out at that time.

Any media people would have been focused on the Peterson house with their backs to the Medinas. I've been there when the media was there and they could have used a MOVING VAN at the Medinas and the rporters (who were not there yet) would not have noticed

[attorneywan2be]

Well AW2B, I fear my fear is the same as your fear. She stays because she's afraid to go. That was my point about my fear being the same as your fear.:patriot:


LOL...I fear that your fear is not the same as my fear...since the fear I was referring to is the fear of her husband harming her if she leaves him...as in possibly killing her....

[I'mSun]

Exactly. If all he wanted was sex, he knew that was over. He wanted more.

I've heard the argument that his pursuing her was his way of being a "gentleman" and letting her down easy. Talk about absurd.And such a gentleman he was... Was he letting Laci down easy by killing her? Absurd indeed :cuss:

[I'mSun]

LOL...I fear that your fear is not the same as my fear...since the fear I was referring to is the fear of her husband harming her if she leaves him...as in possibly killing her...
There is more of a chance of that happening if she stays with him.

[Lavindar]

Very absurd the excuses to condone his behavior. :cuss:

I agree - and that ANYONE would condone cheating for ANY REASON. Obviously Scott never heard of masturbation.

[woohoo]

What I was trying to do is at a higher level of abstraction: Can we establish as a valid construct the concept that there are no absolutes about right or wrong, and we cannot judge whether the way a husband treats his wife is indicative of his level of respect for her based on our view of the behavior within the framework of our own points of reference.

I believe there are absolute rights and wrongs. I believe that beating your spouse is absolutely wrong. I believe infidelity to your spouse is absolutely wrong. I believe dishonesty is absolutely wrong. Any one of these, and other things, are indicative of a defective character, and it takes someone with a defective character to murder their family.

Now, to argue consistently, you must take the position that Scott's infidelity is not indicative of a character defect of any sort. To do this you must take the position that hurtful behavior is not subject to judgment of anyone except the people involved. To be consistent with THAT position, you MUST agree that we are also not in a position to say that a man beating his wife black and blue is unacceptable, because for all we know it is acceptable to them in the context of their relationship.

In my view this is absurd. From your response I gather you think it is absurd as well.

In that case, what you are saying is that there is a line. On one side of the line there are behaviors that are absolutely bad (such as physical abuse) if we observe them and the "victim" stays in the relationship, but on the other side of that line there are some behaviors that are not absolutely bad (emotional abuse through infidelity) if we observe them and the "victim" stays in the relationship. So now we're arguing on which side of the line Scott's behavior belongs and what conclusions we draw therefrom.

Would you agree that if there were a history of Scott physically beating Laci it would influence your opinion on his capability to murder her?

Interesting reasoning. You say "you believe dishonesty is absolutely wrong."
Do you believe there are degrees or finite definitions of dishonesty? i.e. false excuse or political spin?

[woohoo]

Sorry, tips not used cannot be considered in appeal UNLESS they prove his innocence. This sure doesn't

I have no idea why you responded to this in this way.:confused:

My response as you quoted was in answer to the question:
"what truck driver?"

[woohoo]

Originally Posted by woohoo

My post:
It could also be demonstrative of a guy who wanted to prove he still had "it" and chose to have an affair rather than get rid of his wife.

Your post:
Of course it does. He goes and buys a freshwater boat that he keeps at his WORK, not at home and on the spur of the moment on a cold, blustery day deciides to test out his FRESHWATER boat on salt water.

Hmmmmmm
********************************
make that a double hmmmmm!

[woohoo]

can you supply the links to those articles please, as I recall it did NOT say Todd and Pearce observed scott at 3am at all. Pearce didn't even know about the burglary until AFTER the fact.
I've already supplied the source for this statement. There were NUMEROUS reports of them supposedly observing Scott. You must have missed that

The burglary occured in THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT and the house was broken into from the BACK not the front..

I didn't say anything about it being broken in to from the FRONT

I've been there when the media was there and they could have used a MOVING VAN at the Medinas and the rporters (who were not there yet) would not have noticed

This is not only just your opinion, it isn't a reasonable statement IMO

[Lavindar]

I've already supplied the source for this statement. There were NUMEROUS reports of them supposedly observing Scott. You must have missed that



I didn't say anything about it being broken in to from the FRONT



This is not only just your opinion, it isn't a reasonable statement IMO

You did not give me a source for TODD and PEARCE observing scott at all - you said the Modesto Bee. Since this information (about Todd and Pearce did not surface until January, I am wondering how the Bee KNEW they observed this - and how PEARCE knew this when he wasn't even there. And the reports I saw said that a burglar. They did not name names. Yet you have assumed that the buglar was Todd and Pearce. That is why I asked for a source as I saw NO SOURCE that named them.

You are right about my opinion on the last statement. But as I said, the focus was on the PETERSON house by the media, NOT the Medina house. Do you dispute that?
My point about the entry being from the back of the Medina house is that a media truck in front would not see it

[frydaddy]

Interesting reasoning. You say "you believe dishonesty is absolutely wrong."
Do you believe there are degrees or finite definitions of dishonesty? i.e. false excuse or political spin?

Or waxing indignant about reading or quoting a tabloid, then quoting a site that gets the information from that tabloid, then not answering the question about it? :shrug:

[Lavindar]

I've already supplied the source for this statement. There were NUMEROUS reports of them supposedly observing Scott. You must have missed that



I didn't say anything about it being broken in to from the FRONT



This is not only just your opinion, it isn't a reasonable statement IMO


I asked for a LINK. you said you gave me one - you did not - you said the Modesto Bee. I want to see the article itself. I believe you misquoted the article.

[Riviera]

I've already supplied the source for this statement. There were NUMEROUS reports of them supposedly observing Scott. You must have missed that


snip


Please read the TOS -

You Are Responsible For What You Post
You are entirely responsible and liable for all activities conducted through your sessions. It is required that when making a factual statement you provide a source for that information otherwise you must use IMO IMHO etc.. to advise others that the post is your opinion only. Exceptions are made for common knowledge like definitions, etc...

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?p=8907053#post8907053

Thank you.

[woohoo]

Or waxing indignant about reading or quoting a tabloid, then quoting a site that gets the information from that tabloid, then not answering the question about it? :shrug:

I have no knowledge of crime news getting information from tabloids. Do you? My statement was "I don't read or quote the NE." And I don't!

And I don't know of any question I have not answered.

The information about the "burglars" saying they had seen Scott doing something suspicious was from a newspaper report and was common knowledge in the early days of the trial. I'll be glad to hunt it down but it may take me awhile.

I have no problem whatsoever with sourcing my statements. List any you think I haven't answered and I'll be glad to do so. My dish is down and I am currently on dialup so I am slow but definitely able to do so.

[Lavindar]

I have no knowledge of crime news getting information from tabloids. Do you? My statement was "I don't read or quote the NE." And I don't!

And I don't know of any question I have not answered.

The information about the "burglars" saying they had seen Scott doing something suspicious was from a newspaper report and was common knowledge in the early days of the trial. I'll be glad to hunt it down but it may take me awhile.

I have no problem whatsoever with sourcing my statements. List any you think I haven't answered and I'll be glad to do so. My dish is down and I am currently on dialup so I am slow but definitely able to do so.

You posted this earlier:

i]Midnight–6:00 a.m. According to one of the men later identified as a burglar working the La Loma neighborhood, Scott Peterson is "doing something suspicious" around 3:00 a.m. According to Det. Al Brocchini's preliminary hearing testimony, Scott Peterson is seen driving his truck on Interstate 580 in the direction of the Berkeley Marina at 3:00 a.m. He is pulling his boat, and there is a "bundle" in the boat, wrapped up in a blanket with a Mexican motif. According to a truck driver, a truck and boat matching the description of Scott Peterson's are seen near the Berkeley Marina at about 3:30 a.m. Susan Medina sees Scott Peterson's truck in his driveway at about 5:00 a.m.[/I] NOWHERE does it say TODD and PEARCE, in fact it says BURGLAR (singular) and the LaLoma area is very large. Just as I suspected, you put in TODD and PEARCE for "burglar." It does not say that at all.

Yes, the "burglar" tip was well known. However, you seem to be the only one thinking that the burglar was TODD AND PEARCE. Could have been any burglar cruising the LaLoma area.

[TopGunner]

LOL...I fear that your fear is not the same as my fear...since the fear I was referring to is the fear of her husband harming her if she leaves him...as in possibly killing her....


There are different kinds of death AW2B. (i.e., there are different kinds of losses Amber). :biggrin:

[frydaddy]

What truck driver?

*SNIPPED FOR RELEVANCE*



I believe this is in reference to a National Enquirer article that covered a witness named Mike Maghoney, truck driver for Costco, who claims to have seen Scott and his boat and something wrapped in a blue tarp on his way to the bay around 3:30 a.m. Having said that...just an effort to be clever is my guess.

From crimenews2000 -newspaper reports, & pre-lim testimony

Midnight–6:00 a.m. According to one of the men later identified as a burglar working the La Loma neighborhood, Scott Peterson is "doing something suspicious" around 3:00 a.m. According to Det. Al Brocchini's preliminary hearing testimony, Scott Peterson is seen driving his truck on Interstate 580 in the direction of the Berkeley Marina at 3:00 a.m. He is pulling his boat, and there is a "bundle" in the boat, wrapped up in a blanket with a Mexican motif. According to a truck driver, a truck and boat matching the description of Scott Peterson's are seen near the Berkeley Marina at about 3:30 a.m. Susan Medina sees Scott Peterson's truck in his driveway at about 5:00 a.m.

You guessed wrong. I don't read nor quote the NE.

So if you quote a site that uses the NE for some of the information contained on it, that's different? Especially IF the info you brought here from said site came from the NE?

Now, perhaps you got confused about the subject, due the dial up/sat issue and whatnot. Nothing I have posted on this issue relates to the burglars. This is about the truck driver.

The question is, did you get the truck driver information from CN2000, newspaper articles, or prelim testimony? The follow up question is, IF CN2000 sourced this info from the NE and you obviously quoted CN2000, then isn't that the same as quoting the NE?

[woohoo]

You posted this earlier:

i]Midnight–6:00 a.m. According to one of the men later identified as a burglar working the La Loma neighborhood, Scott Peterson is "doing something suspicious" around 3:00 a.m. According to Det. Al Brocchini's preliminary hearing testimony, Scott Peterson is seen driving his truck on Interstate 580 in the direction of the Berkeley Marina at 3:00 a.m. He is pulling his boat, and there is a "bundle" in the boat, wrapped up in a blanket with a Mexican motif. According to a truck driver, a truck and boat matching the description of Scott Peterson's are seen near the Berkeley Marina at about 3:30 a.m. Susan Medina sees Scott Peterson's truck in his driveway at about 5:00 a.m.[/I] NOWHERE does it say TODD and PEARCE, in fact it says BURGLAR (singular) and the LaLoma area is very large. Just as I suspected, you put in TODD and PEARCE for "burglar." It does not say that at all.

Yes, the "burglar" tip was well known. However, you seem to be the only one thinking that the burglar was TODD AND PEARCE. Could have been any burglar cruising the LaLoma area.

It could have been ANY burglar but it wasn't was it? The information I posted from crimenews was a recap of events. Not an on the scene report.

[TopGunner]

It could have been ANY burglar but it wasn't was it? The information I posted from crimenews was a recap of events. Not an on the scene report.


I believe their recap is incorrect.

[woohoo]

Now, perhaps you got confused about the subject, due the dial up/sat issue and whatnot. Nothing I have posted on this issue relates to the burglars. This is about the truck driver.

The question is, did you get the truck driver information from CN2000, newspaper articles, or prelim testimony? The follow up question is, IF CN2000 sourced this info from the NE and you obviously quoted CN2000, then isn't that the same as quoting the NE?

No I didn't get confused. I was asked "what truck driver?" And before I could respond, you answered saying it was from a NE article. As I said my quote was from CN2000, which mentioned no name.

And you seem to think they get/got their information from NE. I don't that to be true.

My responses concerning the burglary/burglars/Todd & Pearce were in response to a post saying the "police had questioned them backwards and forwards and could smell a lie." It had nothing to do with your post. And I don't know what Lavindar's post is all about. I wasn't responding to anything she had said. However, her posts seem to have gotten in the mix.

The question to you is: Do you know for a fact that CN200 is just a subsidiary or parrot of NE?

[TopGunner]

Of course it does. He goes and buys a freshwater boat that he keeps at his WORK, not at home and on the spur of the moment on a cold, blustery day deciides to test out his FRESHWATER boat on salt water.

Hmmmmmm

But Lavindar, as you well know, it was too COLD to golf......so, oh hey, gotta go SOMEWHERE on Christmas Eve day, let's shoot over to the balmy bay. :(

[ekg]

I understand what you wrote but I still don't see the logic.

Your point about infidelity is that it's between two people, and outside parties looking at the relationship have no place to judge either person because we don't know what goes on or what they like.

Why does that principal apply to some things and not others in your opinion?

Every reason you gave for a woman staying with a man who beats her can be used for a woman whose man lies to her and cheats on her. In my opinion all intentional hurtful behavior is an indictment of a man's character. In your opinion some intentional hurtful behavior is OK and some is not. I'm trying to understand where you draw the line and why. We are thinking, loving beings, and the deepest cuts do not always come from the point of a knife.

To say one is "easier to overlook" means that you consider both of them wrong, but since one doesn't come to your attention it can be ignored. But in being ignored it does not cease to be wrong.

And to be clear, I do not feel murder is the consequent of infidelity. I feel the two have a common root in Scott's case.



I just don't have the vocabulary to explain it to you....

while I don't pass judgment on what anyone does in their own house.... I just can't help but draw that line at violence..... it is hypocritical of me, as you have pointed out, but like I said 2 ppl having sex is consensual, being beaten isn't...:shrug:

the consent of one and the violence of the other are what makes them different to me somehow....

I guess it's also b/c he could still be an amazing man,husband and father even if he's cheated....... where as he can only be a scum-bag if he beats..

but why I feel this way? I just don't have the words to explain it...hopefully someone will come along and say something that will make more sense then I ever could..

[frydaddy]

No I didn't get confused. I was asked "what truck driver?" And before I could respond, you answered saying it was from a NE article. As I said my quote was from CN2000, which mentioned no name.

And you seem to think they get/got their information from NE. I don't that to be true.

My responses concerning the burglary/burglars/Todd & Pearce were in response to a post saying the "police had questioned them backwards and forwards and could smell a lie." It had nothing to do with your post. And I don't know what Lavindar's post is all about. I wasn't responding to anything she had said. However, her posts seem to have gotten in the mix.

The question to you is: Do you know for a fact that CN200 is just a subsidiary or parrot of NE?

Did I say for a fact that CN2000 is a parrot or subsidiary of the NE? I believe I said IF in regards to this info. I believe I provided ample opportunity for you to provide backup or corroboration. It's not that difficult to surf around there and see all the references to the Enquirer. It's an information site, some of their info is accurate, some is likely not. I don't think they discriminated much on where the info came from, they left it up to the reader to determine what's fact and what's rumor. Best to do your homework before posting anything from there as fact.

I thought maybe you had independent sources to corroborate the preliminary hearing testimony of Brocchini mentioned in that article or perhaps a newspaper article where the witness was interviewed. I guess what struck a chord was your indignation regarding the NE and then you posting something that appears to be no more reliable, if it's not from the NE directly to begin with. Just seemed a little inconsistent is all.

Not sure if you saw the WHO portion of that site, but it contains a link to the "Other Anonymous Important Persons". Look up "The Truck Driver". If they cross referenced their WHO and their WHEN, then it appears that the info may have come from the NE.

[aingael]

I just don't have the vocabulary to explain it to you....

while I don't pass judgment on what anyone does in their own house.... I just can't help but draw that line at violence..... it is hypocritical of me, as you have pointed out, but like I said 2 ppl having sex is consensual, being beaten isn't...:shrug:

the consent of one and the violence of the other are what makes them different to me somehow....

I guess it's also b/c he could still be an amazing man,husband and father even if he's cheated....... where as he can only be a scum-bag if he beats..

but why I feel this way? I just don't have the words to explain it...hopefully someone will come along and say something that will make more sense then I ever could..

It is mental abuse or mental violence if you will. Emotional scars don’t heal for a very long time and when someone you LOVE cheats on you in essence is saying you are worth nothing, you are not worth my best, I can make love to someone else other than you and it makes me happy.
Maybe a person who cheats can be as wonderful as you say but can they truly be when they are giving a great portion of themselves to someone who is not their family, when they spend hard earned money on the other person while the family scrimps and saves? When holidays and special occasions are spent with their mind on the other person rather than their family?
Case in point, Scott going to the party with Amber and not Laci. Laci got the short end of the stick while Scot had a grand old time with a woman who was NOT his wife. He spent not only the time but the money for the trip and cloths instead of being with his wife who just happened to be pregnant with his baby.
On another note, a physical abuser can be a terrific spouse too. Their spouse can and often does say how wonderful they are when they are not beating them. Friends and family rarely know that they are an abuser.
Makes no difference mental or physical abuse is abuse.

Would you feel the same way between physical and mental abuse if it was a member of your family or a friend? Somehow I can't imagine you saying "Oh he is only cheating on you, at least he isn't hitting you so it's okay."

[Lavindar]

Did I say for a fact that CN2000 is a parrot or subsidiary of the NE? I believe I said IF in regards to this info. I believe I provided ample opportunity for you to provide backup or corroboration. It's not that difficult to surf around there and see all the references to the Enquirer. It's an information site, some of their info is accurate, some is likely not. I don't think they discriminated much on where the info came from, they left it up to the reader to determine what's fact and what's rumor. Best to do your homework before posting anything from there as fact.

I thought maybe you had independent sources to corroborate the preliminary hearing testimony of Brocchini mentioned in that article or perhaps a newspaper article where the witness was interviewed. I guess what struck a chord was your indignation regarding the NE and then you posting something that appears to be no more reliable, if it's not from the NE directly to begin with. Just seemed a little inconsistent is all.

Not sure if you saw the WHO portion of that site, but it contains a link to the "Other Anonymous Important Persons". Look up "The Truck Driver". If they cross referenced their WHO and their WHEN, then it appears that the info may have come from the NE.
Here ya go, Fry - from the prelim and it wasn't at 3:30 like posted,


9 A. On January 9th, we received a tip from a Marietta
10 Wallace, who reported to us that a coworker of hers, she
11 gave us the first name of David, had been driving his truck
12 on westbound 580 on Christmas Eve about 0300 hours, or 3:00
13 in the morning, and Wallace told -- I mean, David told
14 Wallace that he had seen a large bundle wrapped in a blue
15 blanket, like a Mexican-motif-type blanket, in the back of a
16 small boat that David said looked like Scott's truck and
17 boat with this bundle in the back.
18 And so I followed up by figuring out who David was, and
19 I had him down for a couple of interviews.
20 Q. Okay. So you followed up on that tip?
21 A. Yes, I did.

obviously it turned out to be nothing.

Still can't figure how how A BURGLAR became TODD and PEARCE - morphing?

[Lavindar]

It could have been ANY burglar but it wasn't was it? The information I posted from crimenews was a recap of events. Not an on the scene report.



The Posted by woohoo
"And many can smell a lie a mile away." IMO the cops should have smelled something based on the following:
Information From crimenews2000 & reports from the local newspaper, ModBee by Garth Stapley
December 24 According to Todd & Pearce they observe Scott doing "something" suspicious around 3:00 AM while they were canvassing the neighborhood looking for a house to rob.

fact is that somehow you got from a burglar to Todd and Pearce in your statement.

[Lavindar]

It could have been ANY burglar but it wasn't was it? The information I posted from crimenews was a recap of events. Not an on the scene report.


You seem to think that was Todd and Pearce. Other than your changinging it, you have no proof. How about the link to Crime news cuz I sure can't find what you are talking about on that site

[woohoo]

You seem to think that was Todd and Pearce. Other than your changinging it, you have no proof. How about the link to Crime news cuz I sure can't find what you are talking about on that site

Yes I do believe it was Todd & Pearce or Todd OR Pearce. Why do I believe that? Because they were the only "burglars" arrested for the Medina break-in.
And because their names were widely reported. Many of the older files are unavailable now BUT>>>>here are a few links.
MODESTO, Calif. -- A suspected burglar allegedly casing Laci and Scott Peterson's neighborhood in the early morning hours the day the pregnant Modesto woman was killed may be a key prosecution witness in the case, Fox News and other sources said Monday.

According to the reports, one of two men arrested for a Dec. 26 burglary in the neighborhood -- Donald Pearce or Steven Todd -- has told police while casing the neighborhood he saw Scott Peterson doing something suspicious at around 3 a.m. on Dec. 24.
http://www.ktvu.com/news/2196960/detail.html

According to the reports, one of two men arrested for a Dec. 26 burglary in the neighborhood -- Donald Pearce or Steven Todd -- has told police while casing the neighborhood he saw Scott Peterson doing something suspicious at around 3 a.m. on Dec. 24. ...snipped....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/909849/posts?page=51

May 12 Fox News reports that one of the suspected burglars allegedly casing Laci and Scott Peterson's neighborhood in the early morning hours of December 24, 2002, may be a key prosecution witness in the case. According to the story, one of the burglars saw Scott Peterson "doing something suspicious" around 3:00 a.m. that day.
http://www.crimenews2000.com/lacipeterson/when/when0305.htm


Steven Wayne Todd and Donald Glenn Pearce were burglarizing a nearby home and say while they were committing their crime, they saw Scott Peterson "doing something suspicious" around 3:00 AM.
http://www.Vance Holmes.com


MODESTO, Calif. -- A suspected burglar allegedly casing Laci and Scott Peterson's neighborhood in the early morning hours the day the pregnant Modesto woman was killed may be a key prosecution witness in the case, Fox News and other sources said Monday.

According to the reports, one of two men arrested for a Dec. 26 burglary in the neighborhood -- Donald Pearce or Steven Todd -- has told police while casing the neighborhood he saw Scott Peterson doing something suspicious at around 3 a.m. on Dec. 24.
http://www.ktvu.com/news/2196960/detail.html
KTVU.com
TED ROWLANDS, KTVU-TV: Well, apparently a burglar was in the area where Scott and Laci lived
on Covina on the 24th earlier in the morning. This individual was casing the area for a burglary that
took place on the 26th across the street from the Peterson home. And he, according to sources, is
telling police that he may have seen Scott Peterson outside his home doing something in the early
morning hours.
http://www.findlaci2003.us/lkl-may12-03.html

[frydaddy]

Here ya go, Fry - from the prelim and it wasn't at 3:30 like posted,


9 A. On January 9th, we received a tip from a Marietta
10 Wallace, who reported to us that a coworker of hers, she
11 gave us the first name of David, had been driving his truck
12 on westbound 580 on Christmas Eve about 0300 hours, or 3:00
13 in the morning, and Wallace told -- I mean, David told
14 Wallace that he had seen a large bundle wrapped in a blue
15 blanket, like a Mexican-motif-type blanket, in the back of a
16 small boat that David said looked like Scott's truck and
17 boat with this bundle in the back.
18 And so I followed up by figuring out who David was, and
19 I had him down for a couple of interviews.
20 Q. Okay. So you followed up on that tip?
21 A. Yes, I did.

obviously it turned out to be nothing.

Still can't figure how how A BURGLAR became TODD and PEARCE - morphing?

Well done my friend! Nice to know someone checks out a story and posts the backup information accurately. I have no problem with people bashing the Enquirer, it's a rag, I just like for people to remain consistent with their standards. It's obvious that the tip was bogus, who can see a blue tarp and Mexican style motif in a boat that small on the highway, in the dark? It was yet another example of someone seeing something suspicious and then waiting two weeks to call, in this particular case. And this deal, if true, would have helped the prosecution.

[frydaddy]

Yes I do believe it was Todd & Pearce or Todd OR Pearce. Why do I believe that? Because they were the only "burglars" arrested for the Medina break-in.
And because their names were widely reported. Many of the older files are unavailable now BUT>>>>here are a few links.
MODESTO, Calif. -- A suspected burglar allegedly casing Laci and Scott Peterson's neighborhood in the early morning hours the day the pregnant Modesto woman was killed may be a key prosecution witness in the case, Fox News and other sources said Monday.

According to the reports, one of two men arrested for a Dec. 26 burglary in the neighborhood -- Donald Pearce or Steven Todd -- has told police while casing the neighborhood he saw Scott Peterson doing something suspicious at around 3 a.m. on Dec. 24.
http://www.ktvu.com/news/2196960/detail.html

According to the reports, one of two men arrested for a Dec. 26 burglary in the neighborhood -- Donald Pearce or Steven Todd -- has told police while casing the neighborhood he saw Scott Peterson doing something suspicious at around 3 a.m. on Dec. 24. ...snipped....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/909849/posts?page=51

May 12 Fox News reports that one of the suspected burglars allegedly casing Laci and Scott Peterson's neighborhood in the early morning hours of December 24, 2002, may be a key prosecution witness in the case. According to the story, one of the burglars saw Scott Peterson "doing something suspicious" around 3:00 a.m. that day.
http://www.crimenews2000.com/lacipeterson/when/when0305.htm


Steven Wayne Todd and Donald Glenn Pearce were burglarizing a nearby home and say while they were committing their crime, they saw Scott Peterson "doing something suspicious" around 3:00 AM.
http://www.Vance Holmes.com


MODESTO, Calif. -- A suspected burglar allegedly casing Laci and Scott Peterson's neighborhood in the early morning hours the day the pregnant Modesto woman was killed may be a key prosecution witness in the case, Fox News and other sources said Monday.

According to the reports, one of two men arrested for a Dec. 26 burglary in the neighborhood -- Donald Pearce or Steven Todd -- has told police while casing the neighborhood he saw Scott Peterson doing something suspicious at around 3 a.m. on Dec. 24.
http://www.ktvu.com/news/2196960/detail.html
KTVU.com
TED ROWLANDS, KTVU-TV: Well, apparently a burglar was in the area where Scott and Laci lived
on Covina on the 24th earlier in the morning. This individual was casing the area for a burglary that
took place on the 26th across the street from the Peterson home. And he, according to sources, is
telling police that he may have seen Scott Peterson outside his home doing something in the early
morning hours.
http://www.findlaci2003.us/lkl-may12-03.html

On to the burglar issue! What is the point of the burglar portion? Is this about why the prosecution was going to call Todd or why they didn't? Just want to be clear what the issue is.

[Lavindar]

Steven Wayne Todd and Donald Glenn Pearce were burglarizing a nearby home and say while they were committing their crime, they saw Scott Peterson "doing something suspicious" around 3:00 AM.
http://www.Vance Holmes.com

This link does not work for me.

[Lavindar]

Yes I do believe it was Todd & Pearce or Todd OR Pearce. Why do I believe that? Because they were the only "burglars" arrested for the Medina break-in.
And because their names were widely reported. Many of the older files are unavailable now BUT>>>>here are a few links.
MODESTO, Calif. -- A suspected burglar allegedly casing Laci and Scott Peterson's neighborhood in the early morning hours the day the pregnant Modesto woman was killed may be a key prosecution witness in the case, Fox News and other sources said Monday.

According to the reports, one of two men arrested for a Dec. 26 burglary in the neighborhood -- Donald Pearce or Steven Todd -- has told police while casing the neighborhood he saw Scott Peterson doing something suspicious at around 3 a.m. on Dec. 24.
http://www.ktvu.com/news/2196960/detail.html

According to the reports, one of two men arrested for a Dec. 26 burglary in the neighborhood -- Donald Pearce or Steven Todd -- has told police while casing the neighborhood he saw Scott Peterson doing something suspicious at around 3 a.m. on Dec. 24. ...snipped....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/909849/posts?page=51

May 12 Fox News reports that one of the suspected burglars allegedly casing Laci and Scott Peterson's neighborhood in the early morning hours of December 24, 2002, may be a key prosecution witness in the case. According to the story, one of the burglars saw Scott Peterson "doing something suspicious" around 3:00 a.m. that day.
http://www.crimenews2000.com/lacipeterson/when/when0305.htm


Steven Wayne Todd and Donald Glenn Pearce were burglarizing a nearby home and say while they were committing their crime, they saw Scott Peterson "doing something suspicious" around 3:00 AM.
http://www.Vance Holmes.com


MODESTO, Calif. -- A suspected burglar allegedly casing Laci and Scott Peterson's neighborhood in the early morning hours the day the pregnant Modesto woman was killed may be a key prosecution witness in the case, Fox News and other sources said Monday.

According to the reports, one of two men arrested for a Dec. 26 burglary in the neighborhood -- Donald Pearce or Steven Todd -- has told police while casing the neighborhood he saw Scott Peterson doing something suspicious at around 3 a.m. on Dec. 24.
http://www.ktvu.com/news/2196960/detail.html
KTVU.com
TED ROWLANDS, KTVU-TV: Well, apparently a burglar was in the area where Scott and Laci lived
on Covina on the 24th earlier in the morning. This individual was casing the area for a burglary that
took place on the 26th across the street from the Peterson home. And he, according to sources, is
telling police that he may have seen Scott Peterson outside his home doing something in the early
morning hours.
http://www.findlaci2003.us/lkl-may12-03.html
AND and OR mean two separate things

[woohoo]

The question is, did you get the truck driver information from CN2000, newspaper articles, or prelim testimony? The follow up question is, IF CN2000 sourced this info from the NE and you obviously quoted CN2000, then isn't that the same as quoting the NE?

I don't know that the information from CN2000 was sourced from NE. There very well could be such a notice or source listed. When I said I don't quote NE I meant I don't post anything directly from the NE because I don't read it.

However, to answer your question, I did use CN2000 as the source for the "truck driver" information. Is the NE article and the CN2000 information one and the same? I don't know. I didn't see a name listed for the truck driver in the CN2000 article. If I had read "According to NE..." I wouldn't have posted it.

My point was not offering it for the truth, it was to show the 2 conflicting stories in the reports of seeing Scott. IMO Neither were true.

[ekg]

I don't know if I ever told you....but I really enjoyed reading your post when you opened up and told us your point of view on this. You didn't have to do it but you did and it was a brave thing. You did say some things that gave me pause....like something to the effect of the understanding that you have with your husband that should a one night stand occur it wouldn't be the end of your marriage but you wouldn't tolerate another relationship...and more than one night is a relationship. I thought then.......WHOA sistah! You just gave him a free pass! Even if you feel that way, don't tell him! :punch: Anyway, I don't pass judgment on you for that....but some people might have.

:seeya:



Hiya A2M....... I've missed ya..

Yes.. I remember the post you are talking about.... it was one of my 1st on here...and oddly enough, it was to adnoid.....LOL

I basically said the truth is more important to me than the fidelity

I'm in my marriage for the long haul so I'm willing to overlook a stupid mistake, just don't lie about it....I can forgive the stoopidity, I just can't forgive the intentional lie after..

and 2nd...... sex is sex, a one-nigter is a one-nighter but the 2nd night is a problem...

I've had other ppl say "oooooo you are so asking for trouble"... but I can say it's never been an issue..and I think it's b/c of who I married... I didn't marry Don Juan who must bed every woman in the world before he dies....I married the one guy in the world who can, but who never would..

B/c of my who I am and how comfortable I am with myself, I also say that if the occasion presents itself and all participants are in agreement then why not... Life is too short to pass up an opportunity...

once again, I did not marry a man who this would be a ever-lasting issue with either..You don't marry Don Juans, you just play with them...... HA!

IMO... I chose reality more than tradition.... and after 16 yrs.. I can say that is the absolute least of our problems....LOL

and yes, I'm very aware of the judgment ppl will pass on me.. they will say how terrible it is that I feel that this should be normal and they will think I am either a S-lut or my husband is a dog..but if they knew us, they would know it's so not the case...

the older I get the more I look bad and say .... "damnitman!why didn't I do that back then"... I think it's something we all ask ourselves sometimes...and b/c I was saying this at 20, b/c I missed amazing opportunities at 16 that would have benefited me.. I made up my mind early on not to say "I wish I would have" over too many things in my life....

Fun and Laughing are just 2 of those things...:shrug:

my rules or philosophy if you want to call it that, are not for everyone... but that's the beauty of this one life we have.... we're not all the same and don't have to follow what someone else thinks we should follow b/c they wouldn't.... we only have to follow what we can and want to follow;)

[frydaddy]

The question is, did you get the truck driver information from CN2000, newspaper articles, or prelim testimony? The follow up question is, IF CN2000 sourced this info from the NE and you obviously quoted CN2000, then isn't that the same as quoting the NE?

I don't know that the information from CN2000 was sourced from NE. There very well could be such a notice or source listed. When I said I don't quote NE I meant I don't post anything directly from the NE because I don't read it.

However, to answer your question, I did use CN2000 as the source for the "truck driver" information. Is the NE article and the CN2000 information one and the same? I don't know. I didn't see a name listed for the truck driver in the CN2000 article. If I had read "According to NE..." I wouldn't have posted it.

My point was not offering it for the truth, it was to show the 2 conflicting stories in the reports of seeing Scott. IMO Neither were true.

Finally, we arrive at the end of the tale. You were being clever, just as I guessed. It wasn't meant as an insult. And my response that it was an Enquirer story was not meant as a shot at you. For someone to take two stories they believe to be false to negate both is clever, even if some don't agree with the premise.

The Enquirer had this story and many dismissed it as typical rag mag stuff. But Brocchini did talk to a witness about this, so there was some truth to the story. Ultimately, the reason it was dismissed by most, is it made no sense, not because it was in the tabloids. My main goal here is to eliminate the indignation from one side towards the other (both directions) on the tabloids or where the info came from. Had you not made the statement about the NE or had you posted the prelim stuff in lieu of the CN2000, I'd have said nothing.

At any rate, I still have comments on the burglary, because we disagree. But, it'll have to wait for another time! Peace!

[adnoid]

I just don't have the vocabulary to explain it to you...

I don't think it's a vocabulary issue, there's a conflict that difficult to resolve.

...while I don't pass judgment on what anyone does in their own house.... I just can't help but draw that line at violence...<snip>...the consent of one and the violence of the other are what makes them different to me somehow...

So you do, indeed, pass judgment. That's not wrong.

My point is that with the infidelity, because you would tolerate it, you see it as tolerable for others while the violence you do not because you would not. If we accept as a universal doctrine that if a woman does not leave a relationship due to X because X is acceptable we get into absurd situations depending on the value of X.

Instead, we have our knowledge and experience to tell us that the nature of X is vital to our determination of whether a woman standing for it is reasonable. To get back on topic, the jury would look at Scott's conduct of behavior (that being the X above) and decide whether Laci's knowledge of that behavior could reasonable be reconciled with her not dumping Scott's sorry behind. Since we cannot use an absolute test of "any woman whose man does it must completely accept it", instead the jury looked at in and (I surmise) found Scott's conduct to be mistreatment of his wife that is not inconsistent with the mindset needed to discard her.

It's not proof of murder, but it supports guilt more than it does innocence to the great majority of people, even if it does not to you.

...I guess it's also b/c he could still be an amazing man,husband and father even if he's cheated....... where as he can only be a scum-bag if he beats..

And I see it differently. Infidelity and dishonesty are antithetical to being a wonderful anything.

Suppose you can choose between two men - identical twins with the same personalities, incomes, dreams, sense of humor, etc. One is a known, unabashed philanderer and the other is not. Which one would you honestly choose?

(Please excuse my poor grammar as I have had the benefit of a cocktail or two this evening.)

[ekg]

Good Morning! Glad to see everyone's still here, LOL.

ekg.........I read Criers book inside out and upside down last night. Read her index, went forward, backward and round and round.

Not a single reference to The Globe. Not a one, and I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure if she covered up Globe information by stating she read it in a police report, she'd be in big SERIOUS trouble, so I'm going with no Globe info leaked into her book.:patriot:

why would she be in trouble....

and would she in more trouble for doing that or for printing sealed reports?

[ekg]

I really don't understand your comment, "now, I know some women that like it"? I realize there are women that like rough sex, but I've never heard of a woman that enjoyed being beat.:confused:

Your comments on physical abuse also apply to the psychological damage inflicted on women that have husbands that continuously cheat. It's called mental abuse.
The woman begins to feel inadequate and blames the infidelity on herself. She questions her self worth. What am I doing wrong? Maybe if I were more attractive, he wouldn't cheat. I don't fulfill him sexually.
Maybe I'm not doing this or that right. If I do it better next time, he won't cheat.

They just accept it because they don't want to give up their life???? Nah, I don't believe that.
Over time, this mental abuse slowly breaks down a woman's self esteem and she no longer has the will to leave. The damage can be just as devastating as physical abuse.
Only difference is, you can't see the bruises.

I disagree with you...... I do not think Hilary Clinton has any self-esteem issues..... why do I think that? B/c she's running for the highest office in the land and she couldn't do that with self-esteem issues..

I think ppl like her decided "Cheating" was a non-issue..


and no, I meant that there are women who enjoy being beaten......

[ekg]

I did. The last two are from FW and we're not supposed to discuss that on the board - are you just trying to rub it in?


huh?

you asked me...... I told you...I alerted you to the PM..how am I remotely rubbing anything in?

that's twice now I've been asked something and had my wrist-slapped when I answer..:confused:

[ekg]

I am unsure why your opinion is that Laci would ignore Scott's tendencies towards forbidden fruit. I also am unfamiliar with her knowing about any previous affairs that he had. And I certainly could provide hundreds of examples of reasons/excuses or situations I've heard about that "justifies" infidelity to some people. For me and me alone, there is NO justification for it and in my view, those who justify it being done to them have sacrificed a part of themselves that they will never get back. And, those who justify others have merely become numb to a fading morality and casually accept that as the sign o' the times. That pains me dearly.

The bottom line for me is...based on Scott's behaviors and things he said, I am convinced that Laci did not know that Scott had an affair with Amber. She may have been suspicious...even felt he was capable...but she did not strike me as the type who would look the other way if she had confirmation. My opinion, based on what we know.

I could however use some of the examples mentioned above to create a profile of Laci that would justify her looking the other way, she didn't work, wanted nicer house, it would have been difficult to leave with a new baby and no job. But Laci had support nearby and was accomplished enough to get through that stuff. The photo of her at the party didn't give the appearance of a power broker wife who was willing to forgive a little straying by her husband in order to have preserve an otherwise normal life. She looked like a wife who was trying to trust that her husband was genuinely committed and happy, but yet unsure why he wasn't there proving it.


I don't think it has to be a power broker type... I think the 'stay at home' type probably puts up with it more...

I think she knew about the one in college and she kept it to herself and moved on from it...... I believe others have said there were other women after that one, and IMO Laci probably knew about them also.... but looked the other way for whatever reason..

no link to any of this tho..... b/c it's JMO...

[ekg]

If my husband every cheated on me, he would be kicked to the curb so fast it would make his head spin. Of course he wouldn't because he loves and respects me. Sad the woman who adore murderers don't respect themselves. That is why they have been cheated on and they believe this is normal.


in your opinion..

not mine...not in the least...

[accordn2me]

Hiya A2M....... I've missed ya..

Yes.. I remember the post you are talking about.... it was one of my 1st on here...and oddly enough, it was to adnoid.....LOL

I basically said the truth is more important to me than the fidelity

I'm in my marriage for the long haul so I'm willing to overlook a stupid mistake, just don't lie about it....I can forgive the stoopidity, I just can't forgive the intentional lie after..

and 2nd...... sex is sex, a one-nigter is a one-nighter but the 2nd night is a problem...

I've had other ppl say "oooooo you are so asking for trouble"... but I can say it's never been an issue..and I think it's b/c of who I married... I didn't marry Don Juan who must bed every woman in the world before he dies....I married the one guy in the world who can, but who never would..

B/c of my who I am and how comfortable I am with myself, I also say that if the occasion presents itself and all participants are in agreement then why not... Life is too short to pass up an opportunity...

once again, I did not marry a man who this would be a ever-lasting issue with either..You don't marry Don Juans, you just play with them...... HA!

IMO... I chose reality more than tradition.... and after 16 yrs.. I can say that is the absolute least of our problems....LOL

and yes, I'm very aware of the judgment ppl will pass on me.. they will say how terrible it is that I feel that this should be normal and they will think I am either a S-lut or my husband is a dog..but if they knew us, they would know it's so not the case...

the older I get the more I look bad and say .... "damnitman!why didn't I do that back then"... I think it's something we all ask ourselves sometimes...and b/c I was saying this at 20, b/c I missed amazing opportunities at 16 that would have benefited me.. I made up my mind early on not to say "I wish I would have" over too many things in my life....

Fun and Laughing are just 2 of those things...:shrug:

my rules or philosophy if you want to call it that, are not for everyone... but that's the beauty of this one life we have.... we're not all the same and don't have to follow what someone else thinks we should follow b/c they wouldn't.... we only have to follow what we can and want to follow;)
Hey :seeya: I've missed y'all too! I'm probably fixin' to disappear again for a while. Getting back to the mainland with my emotional support/assist animal in tow is causing me emotional stress! :cuss: And I have a lot of other stuff that needs tending to.

Looking back....I see most of the regrets I have....and they are very few...but they stem from things I didn't do, rather than things I did.

[ekg]

Well Yes, we can apply the same interpretation.
Fear is also a factor when women stay with men that cheat.
Fear of the unknown....fear of being alone...fear of change.

I disagree....

again, I do not think Hilary fits that mold at all...

[ekg]

Yes I do believe it was Todd & Pearce or Todd OR Pearce. Why do I believe that? Because they were the only "burglars" arrested for the Medina break-in.
And because their names were widely reported. Many of the older files are unavailable now BUT>>>>here are a few links.
MODESTO, Calif. -- A suspected burglar allegedly casing Laci and Scott Peterson's neighborhood in the early morning hours the day the pregnant Modesto woman was killed may be a key prosecution witness in the case, Fox News and other sources said Monday.

According to the reports, one of two men arrested for a Dec. 26 burglary in the neighborhood -- Donald Pearce or Steven Todd -- has told police while casing the neighborhood he saw Scott Peterson doing something suspicious at around 3 a.m. on Dec. 24.
http://www.ktvu.com/news/2196960/detail.html

According to the reports, one of two men arrested for a Dec. 26 burglary in the neighborhood -- Donald Pearce or Steven Todd -- has told police while casing the neighborhood he saw Scott Peterson doing something suspicious at around 3 a.m. on Dec. 24. ...snipped....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/909849/posts?page=51

May 12 Fox News reports that one of the suspected burglars allegedly casing Laci and Scott Peterson's neighborhood in the early morning hours of December 24, 2002, may be a key prosecution witness in the case. According to the story, one of the burglars saw Scott Peterson "doing something suspicious" around 3:00 a.m. that day.
http://www.crimenews2000.com/lacipeterson/when/when0305.htm


Steven Wayne Todd and Donald Glenn Pearce were burglarizing a nearby home and say while they were committing their crime, they saw Scott Peterson "doing something suspicious" around 3:00 AM.
http://www.Vance Holmes.com


MODESTO, Calif. -- A suspected burglar allegedly casing Laci and Scott Peterson's neighborhood in the early morning hours the day the pregnant Modesto woman was killed may be a key prosecution witness in the case, Fox News and other sources said Monday.

According to the reports, one of two men arrested for a Dec. 26 burglary in the neighborhood -- Donald Pearce or Steven Todd -- has told police while casing the neighborhood he saw Scott Peterson doing something suspicious at around 3 a.m. on Dec. 24.
http://www.ktvu.com/news/2196960/detail.html
KTVU.com
TED ROWLANDS, KTVU-TV: Well, apparently a burglar was in the area where Scott and Laci lived
on Covina on the 24th earlier in the morning. This individual was casing the area for a burglary that
took place on the 26th across the street from the Peterson home. And he, according to sources, is
telling police that he may have seen Scott Peterson outside his home doing something in the early
morning hours.
http://www.findlaci2003.us/lkl-may12-03.html

Thank you WooHoo for posting this to back up your statement....:seeya:

[ekg]

Hey :seeya: I've missed y'all too! I'm probably fixin' to disappear again for a while. Getting back to the mainland with my emotional support/assist animal in tow is causing me emotional stress! :cuss: And I have a lot of other stuff that needs tending to.

Looking back....I see most of the regrets I have....and they are very few...but they stem from things I didn't do, rather than things I did.


egg-zactly...

I never want to say "I wish I had the nerve to do that when I could have"

[TopGunner]

why would she be in trouble....

and would she in more trouble for doing that or for printing sealed reports?


I believe she'd lose all credibility with readers, but even more importantly, had she lied about her references, especially saying she read something in a police report, when in fact, it was from The Globe, she would lose all respect and connections with her peers.

I do not believe she lied about her sources, nor did I recognize anything in her book from a story in The Globe. In the four years her books been in print, nobody has come foward from The Globe, or elsewhere, stating they were her sources either.

Not sure where this came from originally, but sounds petty made up to me.

[Otter]

I don't think it has to be a power broker type... I think the 'stay at home' type probably puts up with it more...

I think she knew about the one in college and she kept it to herself and moved on from it...... I believe others have said there were other women after that one, and IMO Laci probably knew about them also.... but looked the other way for whatever reason..

no link to any of this tho..... b/c it's JMO...

I disagree....

again, I do not think Hilary fits that mold at all...

Really? I could ask for a link about the "'stay at home' type" putting up with DV, and I consider serial cheating DV, but that's just MO. I'm not talking about a link specifying Laci because of course there's no link to what she thought about her cheating husband -- who knew who he was? I really dislike blanket statements. Same as you dislike the blanket statment that all cheating husbands murder their wives.

Hillary has two L's. But then ... it depends on the meaning of an "L" I guess. You don't think she was humilated? And her behavior shows, IMO a total lack of self esteem simply because she did put up with it and then had a pat statement that bordered on pathetic. I agree with Elizabeth Edwards' assessment of Ms. Rodham-Clinton, but then this isn't the polictics board is it? :)

[TopGunner]

Yes I do believe it was Todd & Pearce or Todd OR Pearce. Why do I believe that? Because they were the only "burglars" arrested for the Medina break-in.
And because their names were widely reported. Many of the older files are unavailable now BUT>>>>here are a few links.
MODESTO, Calif. -- A suspected burglar allegedly casing Laci and Scott Peterson's neighborhood in the early morning hours the day the pregnant Modesto woman was killed may be a key prosecution witness in the case, Fox News and other sources said Monday.

According to the reports, one of two men arrested for a Dec. 26 burglary in the neighborhood -- Donald Pearce or Steven Todd -- has told police while casing the neighborhood he saw Scott Peterson doing something suspicious at around 3 a.m. on Dec. 24.
http://www.ktvu.com/news/2196960/detail.html

According to the reports, one of two men arrested for a Dec. 26 burglary in the neighborhood -- Donald Pearce or Steven Todd -- has told police while casing the neighborhood he saw Scott Peterson doing something suspicious at around 3 a.m. on Dec. 24. ...snipped....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/909849/posts?page=51

May 12 Fox News reports that one of the suspected burglars allegedly casing Laci and Scott Peterson's neighborhood in the early morning hours of December 24, 2002, may be a key prosecution witness in the case. According to the story, one of the burglars saw Scott Peterson "doing something suspicious" around 3:00 a.m. that day.
http://www.crimenews2000.com/lacipeterson/when/when0305.htm


Steven Wayne Todd and Donald Glenn Pearce were burglarizing a nearby home and say while they were committing their crime, they saw Scott Peterson "doing something suspicious" around 3:00 AM.
http://www.Vance Holmes.com


MODESTO, Calif. -- A suspected burglar allegedly casing Laci and Scott Peterson's neighborhood in the early morning hours the day the pregnant Modesto woman was killed may be a key prosecution witness in the case, Fox News and other sources said Monday.

According to the reports, one of two men arrested for a Dec. 26 burglary in the neighborhood -- Donald Pearce or Steven Todd -- has told police while casing the neighborhood he saw Scott Peterson doing something suspicious at around 3 a.m. on Dec. 24.
http://www.ktvu.com/news/2196960/detail.html
KTVU.com
TED ROWLANDS, KTVU-TV: Well, apparently a burglar was in the area where Scott and Laci lived
on Covina on the 24th earlier in the morning. This individual was casing the area for a burglary that
took place on the 26th across the street from the Peterson home. And he, according to sources, is
telling police that he may have seen Scott Peterson outside his home doing something in the early
morning hours.
http://www.findlaci2003.us/lkl-may12-03.html



Hey Woo - thanks for posting this, and I take back what I said (that I thought it was incorrect reporting). If I ever read this, I totally forgot about it. Ultimately WAS it incorrect reporting, or the burglars lying? I would think the prosecution would have used this big time, but it seems like it just disappeared. ???

[ekg]

I believe she'd lose all credibility with readers, but even more importantly, had she lied about her references, especially saying she read something in a police report, when in fact, it was from The Globe, she would lose all respect and connections with her peers.

I do not believe she lied about her sources, nor did I recognize anything in her book from a story in The Globe. In the four years her books been in print, nobody has come foward from The Globe, or elsewhere, stating they were her sources either.

Not sure where this came from originally, but sounds petty made up to me.


it comes from my opinion that's all......... only 2 ppl have printed this story that I am aware of, The Globe 1st and then CC... and IMO thats where she got it from..... and IMO since it's not a 100% factually book, but only 'based on a true story' she can distort anything she wants..:shrug:

[ekg]

Really? I could ask for a link about the "'stay at home' type" putting up with DV, and I consider serial cheating DV, but that's just MO.

well you could ask, but since I can't give you a link to my brain I can't help you... HA!



I'm not talking about a link specifying Laci because of course there's no link to what she thought about her cheating husband -- who knew who he was? I really dislike blanket statements. Same as you dislike the blanket statment that all cheating husbands murder their wives.

yep, but I've been seeing alot of blanket statements the last cpl pages..



Hillary has two L's. But then ... it depends on the meaning of an "L" I guess. You don't think she was humilated? And her behavior shows, IMO a total lack of self esteem simply because she did put up with it and then had a pat statement that bordered on pathetic. I agree with Elizabeth Edwards' assessment of Ms. Rodham-Clinton, but then this isn't the polictics board is it? :)

Thanks for correcting my spelling...Humiliated has 2 "I"'s btw, I know this b/c I always miss the 2nd "I" myself..LOL my spelling and grammar are horrible, always have been...LOL


Humiliated? Sure.... who wouldn't be.. but I think that's only b/c the entire world was watching it on TV,reading it the news, and hearing about it on the radio.... not to mention the congressional hearing....or late night jokes

had it been private tho? IMO,not as much humiliation...

Nope, I do not think you can have self-esteem issue and then run for president.....I do know think you could give speeches, make extreme pressure decisions, or confront other world leaders if you had a problem with esteem...and I will just disagree with pretty much everything Elizabeth had to say, except what she said about Ann C... and I'll just leave it at that also...
:seeya:

[TopGunner]

it comes from my opinion that's all......... only 2 ppl have printed this story that I am aware of, The Globe 1st and then CC... and IMO thats where she got it from..... and IMO since it's not a 100% factually book, but only 'based on a true story' she can distort anything she wants..:shrug:

Oh.......OK, I misunderstood. I thought someone actually stated (as fact) that her sources were The Globe.

I personally found her book to be 100% factual, nothing distorted, and when I tell you I've read it more times than I can count, I mean - serious reading, like well over 20 times, I found NOTHING distorted or untrue. Nothing, and I've crossed referenced that book with a multitude of other sources, it's pretty amazing how accurate it is.

[Miss Bootsie]

I disagree with you...... I do not think Hilary Clinton has any self-esteem issues..... why do I think that? B/c she's running for the highest office in the land and she couldn't do that with self-esteem issues..

I think ppl like her decided "Cheating" was a non-issue..


and no, I meant that there are women who enjoy being beaten......

People like her.
You are aware, as I am,Hillary is not the average woman.
Hillary set political goals early on in the marriage.
Bill was her access to power.

Do you know what their relationship is now?
Is she really with Bill in mind and spirit?
There has been a lot of speculation about whether they are really together or not.

As you know, what we hear and see in the Media is often not how it is. Especially in the world of politicians.

Just because there was not a legal dissolution of the marriage in no way means Hillary has accepted Bill's infidelity- or that it is a non-issue.

From everything I have read about Jacqueline Kennedy. She never accepted John's infidelity.
His extramarital relationships caused her enormous emotional pain.

[adnoid]

...Do you know what their relationship is now?...

Yes. With Hillary out of the house on the campaign trail Bill no longer has to sleep alone.

[I'mSun]

Yes. With Hillary out of the house on the campaign trail Bill no longer has to sleep alone.LOL! LOL!! It would be even funnier if it wasn't true. :lol: :D

[Lavindar]

I disagree....

again, I do not think Hilary fits that mold at all...

Maybe she just doesn't care about her husband any more

[Miss Bootsie]

Yes. With Hillary out of the house on the campaign trail Bill no longer has to sleep alone.

ROFL :tongue:

[Miss Bootsie]

I disagree....

again, I do not think Hilary fits that mold at all...

I don't think Hillary is a good comparison on the issue of adultery and what it does to a woman's self esteem.

For the average family, spouses are not the only ones to suffer a self-esteem blow when one cheats.



Self Esteem


Infidelity hurts one’s partner, because it may attack their self-esteem. One begins to question their value and worth against their partner’s lover. What is it that he/she has that I don’t have? Are they younger, slimmer, more handsome? Self-analysis easily transpires into self-criticism.


Self-destructive criticism manifests into a self-fulfilling prophecy. One who feels ugly, sometimes becomes ugly. Depression is a highly plausible result of destructive self-criticism. Depression literally depresses drives and motivation. The desire to care for one’s physical appearance begins to decline, and then disappear. The infidelous partner uses this as an excuse for their infidelity. In actuality they have directly contributed to it. Low self-esteem in one’s partner can manifest in any ways other than depression. It can cause the offended partner to become adulterous, themselves.


Partners and spouses are not the only ones to suffer a self-esteem blow when one cheats. Children begin to question their worth when they witness a parent’s infidelity. Many may blame themselves for the parent’s absence. They may feel that they are not good enough, or behave well enough for the parent to want to be with them. They may feel that they have driven the parent away.


These can lead to anxieties in a child such as perfectionist behavior or obsessive-compulsive disorder. Girls who grow up with an adulterous father may develop trust issues with men when they grow up. Or she may have hostile feelings towards men because of what she witnessed her mother endure, when she was a child.
Boys who witness infidelity may have low respect for women as their father did for their mother. They may feel that being a man is equal to being adulterous. If their mother is the adulterous one, he may view women as immoral and have issues of trust or resentment towards them.

http://http://www.essortment.com/lifestyle/effectsinfideli_tvtx.htm

[Miss Bootsie]

Maybe she just doesn't care about her husband any more

On the issue of accepting,I think there is a difference in a woman who truly cares, and a woman that is using the marriage for gain.

[woohoo]

Finally, we arrive at the end of the tale. You were being clever, just as I guessed. It wasn't meant as an insult. And my response that it was an Enquirer story was not meant as a shot at you. For someone to take two stories they believe to be false to negate both is clever, even if some don't agree with the premise.

The Enquirer had this story and many dismissed it as typical rag mag stuff. But Brocchini did talk to a witness about this, so there was some truth to the story. Ultimately, the reason it was dismissed by most, is it made no sense, not because it was in the tabloids. My main goal here is to eliminate the indignation from one side towards the other (both directions) on the tabloids or where the info came from. Had you not made the statement about the NE or had you posted the prelim stuff in lieu of the CN2000, I'd have said nothing.

At any rate, I still have comments on the burglary, because we disagree. But, it'll have to wait for another time! Peace!

Sorry I didn't see this sooner. I truly am so tired of fooling with this dialup and the constant cyberdumps. Thank you for the post. I appreciate it. Even though I don't see myself as clever, you're right - I don't believe either. And having read in the early days of the investigation that TODD had stated that Scott had been seen that night, I wondered how was Distaso planning to use his testimony with the report of a truck driver placing Scott somewhere else.

And even though some reporting of this listed "burglar" (singular) it seemed to me that it could safely be assumed that it meant BOTH since they were reported to be together.
I didn't realize that CN2000 information was closely tied to NE. I haven't read there much, but with the time passing it now seems like the news reports are dried up and everything on the web regarding the Peterson case is from CN2000 or SII. At least that's IMO.
And yes, peace!:biggrin:

[woohoo]

Hey Woo - thanks for posting this, and I take back what I said (that I thought it was incorrect reporting). If I ever read this, I totally forgot about it. Ultimately WAS it incorrect reporting, or the burglars lying? I would think the prosecution would have used this big time, but it seems like it just disappeared. ???

Thank you. Yes it does seem like it disappeared. I did read 1 short article about Todd being moved to the jail in Redwood City by the DA during the trial. But he was never called. I can find that link also, but I don't have it at the ready.
Again, thanks:biggrin:

[Wearing A Halo]

well you could ask, but since I can't give you a link to my brain I can't help you... HA!




yep, but I've been seeing alot of blanket statements the last cpl pages..




Thanks for correcting my spelling...Humiliated has 2 "I"'s btw, I know this b/c I always miss the 2nd "I" myself..LOL my spelling and grammar are horrible, always have been...LOL


Humiliated? Sure.... who wouldn't be.. but I think that's only b/c the entire world was watching it on TV,reading it the news, and hearing about it on the radio.... not to mention the congressional hearing....or late night jokes

had it been private tho? IMO,not as much humiliation...

Nope, I do not think you can have self-esteem issue and then run for president.....I do know think you could give speeches, make extreme pressure decisions, or confront other world leaders if you had a problem with esteem...and I will just disagree with pretty much everything Elizabeth had to say, except what she said about Ann C... and I'll just leave it at that also...
:seeya:

Once again you are wrong in your thinking.

http://spot.colorado.edu/~mcguire/BARBERSC.html

http://academic.regis.edu/jriley/414%20presidential_character.htm

http://homepages.udayton.edu/~aherndaw/char1.htm

:seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

Remembering Laci And Connor

http://www.youtube.com/watch_fullscreen?video_id=fgyQPEdSCpw&l=332&t=OEgsToPDskKpuZhvpZx-4UP7-RUvksNW&soff=1&sk=4mvBAVmMOyns0EJRpgjb-AC&fs=1&title=Remembering%20Laci%20And%20Connor

[I'mSun]

On the issue of accepting, I think there is a difference in a woman who truly cares, and a woman that is using the marriage for gain.I agree with this, Miss B. I have never met a woman who is accepting of their husband's infidelity. Some stay with their husbands for whatever reason, but that doesn't mean they're OK with it.

[woohoo]

I disagree....

again, I do not think Hilary fits that mold at all...
Hi ekg!
I have mixed feelings about Hillary. BUT.....in the midst of all the Monica, Monica, I wrote a note to Hillary. I really did! I felt so sorry for her during that time, having, what I called personal and private, spread all over the world in explicit detail.

I told her that this would one day pass, and she would survive to be stronger, just like many women before her and the many yet to follow. And that she was not alone.


AND SHE WROTE ME BACK! Very polite and thanking me for thinking of her. Personally signed! I saved it for my future grandchildren's "show and tell.":patriot:

[Miss Bootsie]

*Snipped*


and no, I meant that there are women who enjoy being beaten......

*Snipped*



ekg, I'm not quite following you on this. Are you saying there are women that stay in abusive relationships because they enjoy being beat?

[One2Snoop]

I disagree with you...... I do not think Hilary Clinton has any self-esteem issues..... why do I think that? B/c she's running for the highest office in the land and she couldn't do that with self-esteem issues..

I think ppl like her decided "Cheating" was a non-issue..


and no, I meant that there are women who enjoy being beaten......

ekg, I'm not quite following you on this. Are you saying there are women that stay in abusive relationships because they enjoy being beat?

I think you read that right Miss Bootsie, they use it as a sympathy ploy. It does exist. A very long time ago (in my early 20's) I went to a support group called "Women Who Love Too Much" and it wasn't because I was being beaten, but more mental abuse involved and couldn't let go for some reason. After spending every single saturday for about 2 months listening (thats all I did) to these women, I thought to myself, my problem was minor compared to theirs. They talked about their abusive relationships (both mental and physical) almost as if they were proud of them.

I guess I had to go to enough of those meetings to really realize my breakup with a mentally abusive boyfriend wasn't that bad after all. It sure did open my eyes though and made me think seriously about any future relationship I might have. I met my husband shortly thereafter and we've been together for a very long time! :beer:

Edited to add - forgot to say, I also learned that 65% of the women who belonged had been going to this same meeting every saturday morning for 5 years or longer. :eek:

I honestly believe its a sickness for some women.

[ekg]

ekg, I'm not quite following you on this. Are you saying there are women that stay in abusive relationships because they enjoy being beat?


no I'm saying some women like to be beaten...


It has nothing to do with abusive relationships....... some women(and some men) like to be beaten..

S & M bondage (sadism and masochism)
Definition:
Sadism, or the "s" in s and m bondage, is deriving pleasure by inflicting pain on or humiliating another.

Definition:
Masochism, or the "m" in s and m bondage, is deriving pleasure from being humiliated or from having pain inflicted upon oneself.


I was not including them in my opinion

[ekg]

I think you read that right Miss Bootsie, they use it as a sympathy ploy. It does exist. A very long time ago (in my early 20's) I went to a support group called "Women Who Love Too Much" and it wasn't because I was being beaten, but more mental abuse involved and couldn't let go for some reason. After spending every single saturday for about 2 months listening (thats all I did) to these women, I thought to myself, my problem was minor compared to theirs. They talked about their abusive relationships (both mental and physical) almost as if they were proud of them.

I guess I had to go to enough of those meetings to really realize my breakup with a mentally abusive boyfriend wasn't that bad after all. It sure did open my eyes though and made me think seriously about any future relationship I might have. I met my husband shortly thereafter and we've been together for a very long time! :beer:

Edited to add - forgot to say, I also learned that 65% of the women who belonged had been going to this same meeting every saturday morning for 5 years or longer. :eek:

I honestly believe its a sickness for some women.

yes, she read it right...... but no, I'm not talking about what you describe...

thank you for trying to explain tho.. I didn't know women would use that as a 'sympathy ploy'

[One2Snoop]

yes, she read it right...... but no, I'm not talking about what you describe...

thank you for trying to explain tho.. I didn't know women would use that as a 'sympathy ploy'

Oh, http://i14.tinypic.com/4zelwcg.gif ok, I thought we were talking about mentally abusive relationships and thats why Laci put up with Scott. I'll pay better attention next time. :punch:

[accordn2me]

Hi ekg!
I have mixed feelings about Hillary. BUT.....in the midst of all the Monica, Monica, I wrote a note to Hillary. I really did! I felt so sorry for her during that time, having, what I called personal and private, spread all over the world in explicit detail.

I told her that this would one day pass, and she would survive to be stronger, just like many women before her and the many yet to follow. And that she was not alone.


AND SHE WROTE ME BACK! Very polite and thanking me for thinking of her. Personally signed! I saved it for my future grandchildren's "show and tell.":patriot:
Thank you for sharing this poignant Hillary story. It just makes me want to vote for her twice....and since I have two names....and did 2 jury duties last spring/summer....maybe I can! :patriot:

And I won't mention my very own personal "emotional support/assist animal" and multiple personalities..... :chicken:

[Miss Bootsie]

no I'm saying some women like to be beaten...


It has nothing to do with abusive relationships....... some women(and some men) like to be beaten..

S & M bondage (sadism and masochism)
Definition:
Sadism, or the "s" in s and m bondage, is deriving pleasure by inflicting pain on or humiliating another.

Definition:
Masochism, or the "m" in s and m bondage, is deriving pleasure from being humiliated or from having pain inflicted upon oneself.


I was not including them in my opinion

Well yes, I know this type thing exists. This is what I meant by "people that like rough sex".

They derive sexual gratification by having pain inflicted.

There are different levels of masochism and beating is just one of the many ways pain is inflicted.

You're right, this has nothing to do with abusive relationships.:shrug:

[Lavindar]

I think you read that right Miss Bootsie, they use it as a sympathy ploy. It does exist. A very long time ago (in my early 20's) I went to a support group called "Women Who Love Too Much" and it wasn't because I was being beaten, but more mental abuse involved and couldn't let go for some reason. After spending every single saturday for about 2 months listening (thats all I did) to these women, I thought to myself, my problem was minor compared to theirs. They talked about their abusive relationships (both mental and physical) almost as if they were proud of them.

I guess I had to go to enough of those meetings to really realize my breakup with a mentally abusive boyfriend wasn't that bad after all. It sure did open my eyes though and made me think seriously about any future relationship I might have. I met my husband shortly thereafter and we've been together for a very long time! :beer:

Edited to add - forgot to say, I also learned that 65% of the women who belonged had been going to this same meeting every saturday morning for 5 years or longer. :eek:

I honestly believe its a sickness for some women.

We used to call stuff like that "war stories" MINE is always worse than yours

[ekg]

Oh, http://i14.tinypic.com/4zelwcg.gif ok, I thought we were talking about mentally abusive relationships and thats why Laci put up with Scott. I'll pay better attention next time. :punch:

no, adnoid asked me to explain why I judged wife-beaters differently than I judged 'cheaters'...... and I said that the cheating isn't violent and is b/t 2 consenting adults....

whereas......

physical abuse isn't.....It's about a man beating the hell out of his wife against her will...(now I know some women like this, and I'm not talking about them)

which is part of what MB quoted when she 1st asked what I meant when I said that...

no prob on missing it...:)

[Miss Bootsie]

no, adnoid asked me to explain why I judged wife-beaters differently than I judged 'cheaters'...... and I said that the cheating isn't violent and is b/t 2 consenting adults....

whereas......



which is part of what MB quoted when she 1st asked what I meant when I said that...

no prob on missing it...:)

ekg, your comment being brought into the subject of discussion is what was confusing.imo

[I'mSun]

Oh, http://i14.tinypic.com/4zelwcg.gif ok, I thought we were talking about mentally abusive relationships and thats why Laci put up with Scott. I'll pay better attention next time. :punch:

Don't feel like the only one who was confused, Snoop. I thought ekg was talking about physical violence too, when I read her posts stating "and no, I meant that there are women who enjoy being beaten." etc. In fact, there have been comments about this, but it wasn't until that last post where she NOW says she was talking about S & M. :eek:

[accordn2me]

no, adnoid asked me to explain why I judged wife-beaters differently than I judged 'cheaters'...... and I said that the cheating isn't violent and is b/t 2 consenting adults....

<snipped>..:)What about the third person? The one that's not consenting to having their trust shattered, the marriage violated. In SLPs case....Amber was just as unsuspecting....maybe more so than Laci. One way to describe this: destructive cheating.

Laci's dead, her family devastated. Amber was thrust into the spotlight were her "friends" betrayed her and every mistake she ever made was printed and discussed ad nauseum. She wasn't consenting either!

[ekg]

ekg, your comment being brought into the subject of discussion is what was confusing.imo

I'm not sure what was so confusing about it......IMO it was pretty direct and to the point, But I am sorry for the confusion.

[ekg]

Don't feel like the only one who was confused, Snoop. I thought ekg was talking about physical violence too, when I read her posts stating "and no, I meant that there are women who enjoy being beaten." etc. In fact, there have been comments about this, but it wasn't until that last post where she NOW says she was talking about S & M. :eek:


again, I said


physical abuse isn't.....It's about a man beating the hell out of his wife against her will...(now I know some women like this, and I'm not talking about them)


the ones I am not talking about, are those who allow it..... I am only talking about the one who are beaten against their will and why I am against it...

I still cannot see the dilemma in understanding the point..

[Lavindar]

again, I said




the ones I am not talking about, are those who allow it..... I am only talking about the one who are beaten against their will and why I am against it...

I still cannot see the dilemma in understanding the point..

I think the confusion is in the beating and allowing it. S&M means that both people get some (perverse imo) pleasure out of it. Beating is not the same thing.

[adnoid]

What about the third person? The one that's not consenting to having their trust shattered, the marriage violated. In SLPs case....Amber was just as unsuspecting....maybe more so than Laci. One way to describe this: destructive cheating.

Laci's dead, her family devastated. Amber was thrust into the spotlight were her "friends" betrayed her and every mistake she ever made was printed and discussed ad nauseum. She wasn't consenting either!

Don't you remember - this has been pointed out by Scott's supporters: Amber was once involved with a married man, so she was seeking out married men and knew Scott was married before she even met him!

[attorneywan2be]

I agree with this, Miss B. I have never met a woman who is accepting of their husband's infidelity. Some stay with their husbands for whatever reason, but that doesn't mean they're OK with it.


I'm not saying that a wife accepts that her husband would go on cheating on her..or that it is ok with her that he cheats on her..

I'm saying that IMO:

A wife accepts her husband's infidelity = she stays with him and works things out..

A wife doesn't accept her husband's infidelity = she leaves him and asks for a divorce..

[attorneywan2be]

again, I said




the ones I am not talking about, are those who allow it..... I am only talking about the one who are beaten against their will and why I am against it...

I still cannot see the dilemma in understanding the point..


ekg...I totally understand your point..