Scott Peterson's appeal

[TopGunner]

What are you talking about?!!!..that conversation has been going on for couple of days..and I have posted about it ..you can go look for my posts regarding the subject..


Well, I've been jumping in and out of this conversation, but mostly out because it's gone into area's that I feel have nothing to do with Laci Peterson. It is my opinion that when JI barged in on them during the early days of their marriage, ISP lied his way out of it, most likely telling Laci that JI was a weirdo who was stalking him, and she believed him. He certainly has a knack for not just lying but for being completely unaffected by another's feelings. She believed him when he said he didn't steal any money (from the job he was fired from). Who doesn't want to believe the person they're in love with, let alone their new spouce.

I don't get the feeling that Laci believed he cheated but choose to stay. Never did. IMO

[attorneywan2be]

Well, I've been jumping in and out of this conversation, but mostly out because it's gone into area's that I feel have nothing to do with Laci Peterson. It is my opinion that when JI barged in on them during the early days of their marriage, ISP lied his way out of it, most likely telling Laci that JI was a weirdo who was stalking him, and she believed him. He certainly has a knack for not just lying but for being completely unaffected by another's feelings. She believed him when he said he didn't steal any money (from the job he was fired from). Who doesn't want to believe the person they're in love with, let alone their new spouce.

I don't get the feeling that Laci believed he cheated but choose to stay. Never did. IMO


What do you mean by she believed that he didn't steal any money from the job he was fired from..are you saying that Scott stole money from a job he was fired from???? do you have a link for this?

He might have explained his way out regarding JI..but the point is, IMO, Laci wanted to believe him..she wanted to stay with him...that's what I call accepting the problem and try to work it out...

[accordn2me]

Laci didn't know he was cheating. I believe she would have kicked him out if she found out. I don't know any woman who would stay.
imo

I'm off to the beach for weekend. Have a nice weekend.

:seeya:I think she may have known and told him that after the holidays she was going to divorce his sorry ass. So he killed her.

[attorneywan2be]

Don't have a hizzy. You stated you weren't going to be here for days. Then you just popped in as if you were already part of the recent discussion. It was in your wording.

Why so sensitive? :rolleyes:


I stated no such thing..! read my post again..it's on "Conner's gestational age" thread!

[Riviera]

Let's get back on topic please -----> Scott Peterson's appeal

Thank you.

[TopGunner]

What do you mean by she believed that he didn't steal any money from the job he was fired from..are you saying that Scott stole money from a job he was fired from???? do you have a link for this?

He might have explained his way out regarding JI..but the point is, IMO, Laci wanted to believe him..she wanted to stay with him...that's what I call accepting the problem and try to work it out...

It's in Sharon's book - that Scott was fired from a job for stealing, but Laci called it a "misunderstanding", afterall, she said "why would he lie?". And of course, now we know, that's all he ever did.

No link obviously.

[attorneywan2be]

Let's get back on topic please -----> Scott Peterson's appeal

Thank you.

Thank you..

[Miss Bootsie]

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, follow the comments.:) In my reply to you, did I not state "I know there are women that like rough sex"?

Then you reply, No, I mean there are are women that like being beaten.

Rough sex falls into the category of Masochism, and beating is just one of the many methods used to inflict discomfort and pain.
Yet, you replied No, I mean there are women that like being beaten.
So, I assumed your comment was all about beating, and had nothing to do with sex.

So, my conclusion was, you meant women remain in physically abusive relationships because they like to be beat.

:shrug:


Originally posted by ekg: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)

Originally posted by Miss Bootsie:I really don't understand your comment, "now, I know some women that like it"? I realize there are women that like rough [B]sex[B]but I've never heard of a woman that enjoyed being beat.
Originally posted by ekg:and no, I meant that there are women who enjoy being beaten......

Originally posted by Miss Bootsie: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?

Just trying to explain why I was confused about your meaning.

[attorneywan2be]

It's in Sharon's book - that Scott was fired from a job for stealing, but Laci called it a "misunderstanding", afterall, she said "why would he lie?". And of course, now we know, that's all he ever did.

No link obviously.

Thanks for the info..but I don't consider her book reliable..that's my opinion..

[Miss Bootsie]

Thanks for the info..but I don't consider her book reliable..that's my opinion..

May I ask why?

[accordn2me]

Thanks for the info..but I don't consider her book reliable..that's my opinion..
I can understand why you wouldn't consider Sharon's book "reliable." It's probably the same reason SLP's parents were useless as defense witnesses.

[ekg]

ekg, follow the comments.:) In my reply to you, did I not state "I know there are women that like rough sex"?

Then you reply, No, I mean there are are women that like being beaten.

Rough sex falls into the category of Masochism, and beating is just one of the many methods used to inflict discomfort and pain.
Yet, you replied No, I mean there are women that like being beaten.
So, I assumed your comment was all about beating, and had nothing to do with sex.

So, my conclusion was, you meant women remain in physically abusive relationships because they like to be beat.

:shrug:









Just trying to explain why I was confused about your meaning.

my statement stays as I plainly stated it... there are women who like to be beaten... I used the S&M as an example of these types of women. I don't consider this rough sex, rough sex IMO is different...it is when the actual act of sex is rough or violent in some way...... but someone who likes to be beaten, might not actually want the actual act of sex..b/c they are gratified without it..... IMO 'sickening' opinion anyway..

I am getting asked to keep explaining myself by some, which is fine..... and I'm am being slammed for explaining myself by some, which is fine....and some are doing both...so this will be last post on trying to explain it.. I was asked to explain why my opinion is this way, but I think I will just pass on those kinds of question from now on... as I obviously can't win either way..


none of this relates in any way to Laci and Scott..... IMO she falls in the other category, that knows about her husbands affair and does not divorce him b/c of it..I do not believe these types of women are sad,lonely, sick, or anything that has been said about them either...and as this is my opinion, I have no link to back it up.

[TopGunner]

Thanks for the info..but I don't consider her book reliable..that's my opinion..


Haha........you're joking right? We're now going to add Sharon to the mile long list of liars out to get the liar? :no:

[enlightenme]

my statement stays as I plainly stated it... there are women who like to be beaten... I used the S&M as an example of these types of women. I don't consider this rough sex, rough sex IMO is different...it is when the actual act of sex is rough or violent in some way...... but someone who likes to be beaten, might not actually want the actual act of sex..b/c they are gratified without it..... IMO 'sickening' opinion anyway..

I am getting asked to keep explaining myself by some, which is fine..... and I'm am being slammed for explaining myself by some, which is fine....and some are doing both...so this will be last post on trying to explain it.. I was asked to explain why my opinion is this way, but I think I will just pass on those kinds of question from now on... as I obviously can't win either way..


none of this relates in any way to Laci and Scott..... IMO she falls in the other category, that knows about her husbands affair and does not divorce him b/c of it..I do not believe these types of women are sad,lonely, sick, or anything that has been said about them either...and as this is my opinion, I have no link to back it up.

You are entitled to your opinion.

I think that SOME women in that situation may have self esteem issues. Or feel stuck in their marriage because of financial or even abuse plus cheating and feeling there is no way out, at least for the time being.

We still have no idea what Scott told Laci about Janet Isle. If she believed he strayed, she may have blamed it on them living apart at the time. We have no evidence to say for sure because Laci is dead and apparently didn't confide the details to family or friends. Although there was evidence she told one friend that "Scott was not acting like a married man."

We have no evidence that Laci knew about the second affair, the woman who realized Scott was married at his graduation ceremony.

We have no evidence (other than Scott's words) that he told Laci about his affair with Amber "because it was the right thing to do". He still continued to see Amber after he supposedly told Laci and admitted that that was "not the right thing to do".

LOL! Scott has NO credibility IMO. None.

[Mysteri]

I can understand why you wouldn't consider Sharon's book "reliable." It's probably the same reason SLP's parents were useless as defense witnesses.


And yet it would be easily traceable if Scott was sacked for stealing. I'm sure Sharon knew his employer would speak up if she had it wrong. Whether he stole or not, his employer thought he did and he was terminated for it.

I read it in another source but can't recall where at the moment.
Such an incident would influence his appeals as well, showing he wasn't trustworthy. Perhaps his employer pressed charges.






imo

[enlightenme]

I mailed my Crier book to someone after I read it once. I should purchase another copy because I want to reference some parts that I remember.

Anyone who has her book, could you look for something that Laci's friend said? I think it violates Laci's privacy but is important too.

Laci told her friend that she was not interested in sex in the last stages of pregnancy but she was "still pleasuring her husband". TMI (too much info), I know, but if this is true, Laci was trying to compensate for her lack of desire and still keep her husband satisfied and perhaps NOT straying. I think Laci really loved Scott and it was a shock to her when he killed her. So sad!

JMO, but I'm pretty sure that is in Crier's book somewhere.

[TopGunner]

I mailed my Crier book to someone after I read it once. I should purchase another copy because I want to reference some parts that I remember.

Anyone who has her book, could you look for something that Laci's friend said? I think it violates Laci's privacy but is important too.

Laci told her friend that she was not interested in sex in the last stages of pregnancy but she was "still pleasuring her husband". TMI (too much info), I know, but if this is true, Laci was trying to compensate for her lack of desire and still keep her husband satisfied and perhaps NOT straying. I think Laci really loved Scott and it was a shock to her when he killed her. So sad!

JMO, but I'm pretty sure that is in Crier's book somewhere.


Hey EnL - :seeya:

You have a great memory, what you said is in CC's book, exactly as you stated it.

[adnoid]

May I ask why?

I'd love to know as well.

[accordn2me]

And yet it would be easily traceable if Scott was sacked for stealing. I'm sure Sharon knew his employer would speak up if she had it wrong. Whether he stole or not, his employer thought he did and he was terminated for it.

I read it in another source but can't recall where at the moment.
Such an incident would influence his appeals as well, showing he wasn't trustworthy. Perhaps his employer pressed charges.


imoUnless the employer were going to press charges, they may not have a paper trail of the real reason SLP was terminated. But this is the very first I've heard on this subject so I probably should stay out of the discussion about it.

I was just stating that I can see why the OP would say they didn't find Sharon's book "reliable."

When I look at that shockingly short list of defense witnesses and two of the 14 are SLP's parents.....I'm like....WTH!? Parents of a child facing the DP don't make credible witnesses, IMO. How could anyone give more than ZERO weight to anything they say on the stand during the guilt-phase of a capital case against their son?

Sharon, on the other hand, had nothing to gain....or lose...by her statements.

[attorneywan2be]

I can understand why you wouldn't consider Sharon's book "reliable." It's probably the same reason SLP's parents were useless as defense witnesses.

Hi A2M..

I do not consider her book reliable...this is just my opinion and I will not elaborate further...anyhow, IMO, her book will have no bearing on Scott's appeal or second trial...

[I'mSun]

I'd love to know as well.
Looks like she isn't telling. :shrug:

[Lavindar]

And yet it would be easily traceable if Scott was sacked for stealing. I'm sure Sharon knew his employer would speak up if she had it wrong. Whether he stole or not, his employer thought he did and he was terminated for it.

I read it in another source but can't recall where at the moment.
Such an incident would influence his appeals as well, showing he wasn't trustworthy. Perhaps his employer pressed charges.






imo


The rumor was that the employer was paid off by Lee not to prosecute. Notice I claim it is a rumor, not a fact.

[cookiewench]

I don't believe that Laci knew about Scott's cheating.

I think he talked his way out of getting busted by JI with some story about how he had been nice to JI and she turned out to be some nut who started stalking him & fantasizing a relationship between them.

[adnoid]

I don't believe that Laci knew about Scott's cheating.

I think he talked his way out of getting busted by JI with some story about how he had been nice to JI and she turned out to be some nut who started stalking him & fantasizing a relationship between them.

If true, that WOULD classify her as a nut.

[Mysteri]

Unless the employer were going to press charges, they may not have a paper trail of the real reason SLP was terminated. But this is the very first I've heard on this subject so I probably should stay out of the discussion about it.

I was just stating that I can see why the OP would say they didn't find Sharon's book "reliable."

When I look at that shockingly short list of defense witnesses and two of the 14 are SLP's parents.....I'm like....WTH!? Parents of a child facing the DP don't make credible witnesses, IMO. How could anyone give more than ZERO weight to anything they say on the stand during the guilt-phase of a capital case against their son?

Sharon, on the other hand, had nothing to gain....or lose...by her statements.


How very true. She lost her only daughter in such a tragic and gruesome double murder ! Noting that he was also a thief didn't make a ripple compared to the enormity of his other crimes.

In Anne Bird's book she expresses horror that he knew Karen Smart who disappeared permanently.

imo

[Otter]

Hi A2M..

I do not consider her book reliable...this is just my opinion and I will not elaborate further...anyhow, IMO, her book will have no bearing on Scott's appeal or second trial...

Why would it? As an appeal issue I mean, I read it as a tribute to Laci. It was written from her heart, the mother of a murdered daughter. Her book had absolutely nothing to do with an appeal. IMO.

And she's a liar too? What even compelled you to make this post? Sometimes one should simply sit on one's hands.

There's a big difference in what you're talking about here. What do you mean that Mrs. Rocha's book isn't reliable? That Laci wasn't an adorable two year old? Is that what you mean?

In your opinion only of course.

[Otter]

AW2B, I've been thinking about my post to you. And by doing that, your post has upset me more than when I first read it.

this is just my opinion and I will not elaborate further

How very easy an out you try for! You tread lightly but show your hand with your utter disdain for the mother of murder victim. Get those digs in at a woman who in the bottom of her grief showed complete dignity.

And you have to stick a fork in her, at least that's not as bad as your "innocent" person kicking her so hard in her ribs that two of them broke.

IMO, you should have sat on your hands, and I won't elaborate further and this is just my opinion.

[Miss Bootsie]

It's in Sharon's book - that Scott was fired from a job for stealing, but Laci called it a "misunderstanding", afterall, she said "why would he lie?". And of course, now we know, that's all he ever did.

No link obviously.

For Laci (pg.37) Sharon Rocha


After I pressed her for more details, she said that the problem involved missing cash, but the club's owners didn't want to pursue it and Scott agreed to leave. He wasn't going to work there again. (and he didn't).
I wish I knew more about what really happened. Excusing it as a misunderstanding doesn't sound credible now, and it didn't ring true when Laci told me then. I remember thinking that Scott was covering up the truth or not telling the whole truth.

[Miss Bootsie]

I'd love to know as well.

There is an editorial on a site we are all familiar with.
This is an excerpt.
First, let's look at possible distortion of Sharon Rocha's memory. ... and, in turn, what role those false memories had in convicting Scott Peterson. ...

[TopGunner]

snip:

attorneywan2be;8917589]Hi A2M..

I do not consider her book reliable...this is just my opinion and I will not elaborate further...

Who said anything about her book being used in the appeal?

IMO, the fact that you won't (can't) elaborate further tells me you have no reason what-so-ever to disregard what she wrote in her book. In fact, her book has been out for 2 years now - not a single soul has come forward to say she mistated anything. Speaks for itself.

[TopGunner]

That dreadful website is full of distortion and someone should tell the defiler over there that Mrs. Rocha's memories had little to nada to do with Scott's conviction.

Mrs. J. Peterson had more to do with the conviction because if the driver's license and Jackie car deal and country club membership hadn't played a telling role, he may have walked. As Shakey said, 'She doth protest too much.'

imo


I agree once again Mysteri - JP caused way more damage to ISP case than she did good. It appears none of them know when (or how) to clamp it.:cuss:

[I'mSun]

At the end of the day, Sharon Rocha is admired and respected by more people than you will collectively ever come in to contact with in your entire life. She inspires people, not because of her opinions of Scott Peterson, but because she took the loss of her daughter and used it for the benefit of others in the future. I am certain that if she knew that a poster, who spends a great deal of her life in chat rooms in support of Scott Peterson, was speaking in negative terms of her or her book, she would simply smile gracefully as she often does, and continue touching people's lives in a positive way. It's what people with class and elegance do. It wouldn't hurt you to take some notes from her, a lot of them!I'm sure Sharon would be very touched if she read this. Kudos to you, Frydaddy :beer:

[accordn2me]

AW2B, I've been thinking about my post to you. And by doing that, your post has upset me more than when I first read it.



How very easy an out you try for! You tread lightly but show your hand with your utter disdain for the mother of murder victim. Get those digs in at a woman who in the bottom of her grief showed complete dignity.

And you have to stick a fork in her, at least that's not as bad as your "innocent" person kicking her so hard in her ribs that two of them broke.

IMO, you should have sat on your hands, and I won't elaborate further and this is just my opinion.
And it bears repeating....thanks for posting, Otter. :rose:

[accordn2me]

At the end of the day, Sharon Rocha is admired and respected by more people than you will collectively ever come in to contact with in your entire life. She inspires people, not because of her opinions of Scott Peterson, but because she took the loss of her daughter and used it for the benefit of others in the future. I am certain that if she knew that a poster, who spends a great deal of her life in chat rooms in support of Scott Peterson, was speaking in negative terms of her or her book, she would simply smile gracefully as she often does, and continue touching people's lives in a positive way. It's what people with class and elegance do. It wouldn't hurt you to take some notes from her, a lot of them!You, my friend, .....I don't know how to express it....you are so spot on here....and once again I'm blown away by your expressions...and keep in mind I read this after the unrelated...sort of...PM I sent.

You, adnoid, TG, Sun, Snoop, Ms. Bootsie, Enl, JMO....I know I'll be red-faced when I realize who I've forgotten.....:o and even a few of you misguided souls on "the other side" whom I haven't given up on saving yet...speakin' of.... HAS ANYONE HEARD FROM WUDGE?

NEway...I have thoroughly enjoyed this ride with the most of you...but I must warn...it's about to come to a close...as all good things do....:seeya:

[enlightenme]

There is an editorial on a site we are all familiar with.
This is an excerpt.

First, let's look at possible distortion of Sharon Rocha's memory. ... and, in turn, what role those false memories had in convicting Scott Peterson. ...

First Sharon was called a "bald faced liar" by this person and later that was deleted and was called "false memory".

Duh! We know what this person really thinks about Sharon!

[enlightenme]

Thanks for the info..but I don't consider her book reliable..that's my opinion..

Just read the reviews on Amazon.com and you will find that the majority of people DO consider her book reliable. As well as many other great, positive adjectives.

What happened to your claim that Amber's taping of Scott would be a huge appellate issue since she was "an agent of LE and did not read him his Miranda rights".? That was a HUGE point with you and now you don't mention it at all? Did someone finally convince you of the legality of it and that you were wrong?

Just wondering.....

[Lavindar]

Thanks for the info..but I don't consider her book reliable..that's my opinion..In In MY opinion, that is a nasty slam on a victim, You are saying that her book is not reliable and cannot be considered in an appeal. Neither can many things that you state are "truths."

I had much more typed to say, but decided that I will sit on my hands rather than say what I want to.

[attorneywan2be]

Just read the reviews on Amazon.com and you will find that the majority of people DO consider her book reliable. As well as many other great, positive adjectives.

What happened to your claim that Amber's taping of Scott would be a huge appellate issue since she was "an agent of LE and did not read him his Miranda rights".? That was a HUGE point with you and now you don't mention it at all? Did someone finally convince you of the legality of it and that you were wrong?

Just wondering.....


It doesn't matter what the reviews stated about her book..I do not consider it reliable..that's my firm opinion..

To stay on topic..

IMO, Amber's tape will be an appeal issue for several reasons...the main reason being they were highly prejudicial with ZERO evidentiary value and the judge erred by allowing them into evidence....as to Amber being an agent of the police it is not a clear cut as I thought it would be based on CA code...

[TopGunner]

It doesn't matter what the reviews stated about her book..I do not consider it reliable..that's my firm opinion..

To stay on topic..

IMO, Amber's tape will be an appeal issue for several reasons...the main reason being they were highly prejudicial with ZERO evidentiary value and the judge erred by allowing them into evidence....as to Amber being an agent of the police it is not a clear cut as I thought it would be based on CA code...


AW2B, it's a bit distressful (and disrespectful), to make such a blanket statement without backing it up.

I think ISP murdered Kristin Smart too.

Blanket statement.

The tapes clearly showed his state of mind and character. They'll never help his appeal, only RE-destroy any hope he has of walking.

[attorneywan2be]

AW2B, it's a bit distressful (and disrespectful), to make such a blanket statement without backing it up.

I think ISP murdered Kristin Smart too.

Blanket statement.

The tapes clearly showed his state of mind and character. They'll never help his appeal, only RE-destroy any hope he has of walking.

IMO, there was no confession on those tapes..nothing he said on those tapes had any evidentiary value as to the murder...those tapes were basically inflammatory and provided no evidence as to the murder..

Re-destory his hope??

[Mysteri]

I agree once again Mysteri - JP caused way more damage to ISP case than she did good. It appears none of them know when (or how) to clamp it.:cuss:

Really, TG !

Of course she wanted to 'help' him avoid punishment. She seemed to have a lot of contempt for Laci who she woefully compared with Minnie Mouse ( personally I love Minnie ! ) [That's in Anne Bird's book.] Albeit she could have defended Scott with testimony so much more convincing than those trite and vaguely contrived excuses she spieled off with so little conviction.

imo

[Otter]

It doesn't matter what the reviews stated about her book..I do not consider it reliable..that's my firm opinion..

To stay on topic..

~Snip~

IIRC, you turned Mrs. Rocha's book into an issue for appeal, so its O/T, IMO.

What do you not consider reliable? Have you read it and do you have it handy to enumerate the points you where consider her to be lying?

AW2B, I've found you to be a thoughtful and considerate poster, and this is the first time, IMO, you've intentionally and needlessly brought up Mrs. Rocha in what I can only conclude was to provoke the G's here.

I'm very curious as to what IYO is unreliable. Sharon's states her POV in the last paragraph of the Author's Note:

"I'd give anything to go back in time for one more minute with her. She loved Scott. All of us did. Not only did I lose Laci and Conner, I also lost my son-in-law. The Scott Peterson the world came to know is not the Scott Peterson we knew before December 24, 2002. We learned about that person through police investigations and in court, in the papers and on television, the same as everyone else. Prior to that, he was different. All of us were.

"For Laci", by Sharon Rocha (page xv)

So what's her agenda to write anything that is not true? What was IYO her motive for writing this book?

[Miss Bootsie]

IMO, there was no confession on those tapes..nothing he said on those tapes had any evidentiary value as to the murder...those tapes were basically inflammatory and provided no evidence as to the murder..

Re-destory his hope??


Do you believe Scott's Attorneys will be able to show the Court a reasonable possibility why the outcome of the trial would have been different if the trial court had excluded the tapes?

[Mysteri]

Scott couldn't resist talking by the hour to Amber. He plainly derived immense pleasure from pouring out his chilling soul to her. From cataloguing to her his favorite people, songs, books, poems, films et al, to expressing his wildest dreams of gaudy nights in European capitols, executive positions in multiple companies, walking in the footsteps of G.W. Bush as far as having a father with a holiday spot in Kennebunkport, becoming an adventurer in isolated regions of Alaska; he described himself from HIS perspective, ALL from the comfort of his cushy armchair.

His every phrase and nuance to her screamed of the suffocation he felt with a perpetual wife; displaying how passionately he desired to be fancy free and by assuring Amber emphatically that his wife was history he signaled that he had removed that wife permanently from impeding his rightful life style of riches, pleasure and travel.

He confessed she had been eliminated ( lost irretrievably ) and he was now stone cold free to make romantic overtures whenever he wished and promise his future to another damsel. Not that I ever believed he intended to settle down for good, she was merely a port in his latest storm.

The conversations relayed by Amber's taping amounted to the most detailed and most blatant confession ever rendered in the annals of murder. They equated to his testimony and admission.

They help to guarantee that his wretched appeals will FAIL.

imo

[woohoo]

Hi AW2B,
Maybe you can help me understand something - I've been out of the loop on information regarding what has happened in this case since the trial.

Things I know: First there was a motion for a new trial. Was that denied? Who rules on that motion?

And I know death penalty cases have automatic appeals - so is that where the Peterson case is now?

[Mysteri]

Sharon's daughter and child died in a horribly dramatic fashion. Poe couldn't have invented a more foul demise for them and their heartbreaking remains. How they met that fate was bizarre in the extreme. She had no need or wish to embellish her recollections. If anything, she would need to downplay the sheer terror, deceit and malice.

Her book is factual and won't influence appeals simply because it portrays Scott Lee Peterson as the slithery spineless poisonous wonder he is. He and his own family have guaranteed that the prosecution's case is airtight by emphasizing the icewater that trickles through his veins.


imo

[woohoo]

*snip* to expressing his wildest dreams of gaudy nights in European capitols, executive positions in multiple companies, walking in the footsteps of G.W. Bush as far as having a father with a holiday spot in Kennebunkport, becoming an adventurer in isolated regions of Alaska; he described himself from HIS perspective, ALL from the comfort of his cushy armchair.

His every phrase and nuance to her screamed of the suffocation he felt with a perpetual wife; displaying how passionately he desired to be fancy free and by assuring Amber emphatically that his wife was history he signaled that he had removed that wife permanently from impeding his rightful life style of riches, pleasure and travel.

He confessed she had been eliminated ( lost irretrievably ) and he was now stone cold free to make romantic overtures whenever he wished and promise his future to another damsel. Not that I ever believed he intended to settle down for good, she was merely a port in his latest storm.

*snipped for space*

They help to guarantee that his wretched appeals will FAIL.

imo

If it is decided that the court did NOT err in allowing all these conversations, (which IMO it was error) it would seem that ALL could be deemed fantasy in the mind of Scott Peterson. It seems you are saying In other words all his lies and fantasies proved a "truth" - that he murdered his wife. So on this point IMO an appeal would not fail.

[enlightenme]

IMO, there was no confession on those tapes..nothing he said on those tapes had any evidentiary value as to the murder...those tapes were basically inflammatory and provided no evidence as to the murder..

Re-destory his hope??

So you have backed off the position that they were illegal.

The judge, someone way more educated and skilled in the law than an attorney want to be, decided they were more probative than prejudicial. They proved Scott's state of mind right after his glorious wife DISAPPEARED.

MG had some phone taps played too.

IF Scott had confessed on those tapes, he probably would have pleaded instead of having a jury trial.

JMO

[woohoo]

So you have backed off the position that they were illegal.

The judge, someone way more educated and skilled in the law than an attorney want to be, decided they were more probative than prejudicial. They proved Scott's state of mind right after his glorious wife DISAPPEARED.

MG had some phone taps played too.

IF Scott had confessed on those tapes, he probably would have pleaded instead of having a jury trial.

JMO

I think he was offered a plea before he was even charged wasn't he?

[Mysteri]

IIRC, you turned Mrs. Rocha's book into an issue for appeal, so its O/T, IMO.

What do you not consider reliable? Have you read it and do you have it handy to enumerate the points you where consider her to be lying?

AW2B, I've found you to be a thoughtful and considerate poster, and this is the first time, IMO, you've intentionally and needlessly brought up Mrs. Rocha in what I can only conclude was to provoke the G's here.

I'm very curious as to what IYO is unreliable. Sharon's states her POV in the last paragraph of the Author's Note:

"I'd give anything to go back in time for one more minute with her. She loved Scott. All of us did. Not only did I lose Laci and Conner, I also lost my son-in-law. The Scott Peterson the world came to know is not the Scott Peterson we knew before December 24, 2002. We learned about that person through police investigations and in court, in the papers and on television, the same as everyone else. Prior to that, he was different. All of us were.

"For Laci", by Sharon Rocha (page xv)

So what's her agenda to write anything that is not true? What was IYO her motive for writing this book?



Just astrounding anyone would suggest that Sharon's book is less than honest !

Thanks for the wonderful quotation !

Sharon's endless agony speaks volumes of WHY Scott will never leave Q except in a box. Automatic appeals are nothing more than going through the futile motions.


imo

[enlightenme]

If it is decided that the court did NOT err in allowing all these conversations, (which IMO it was error) it would seem that ALL could be deemed fantasy in the mind of Scott Peterson. It seems you are saying In other words all his lies and fantasies proved a "truth" - that he murdered his wife. So on this point IMO an appeal would not fail.


:shrug:

What?

I don't understand your opinion here.

[enlightenme]

I think he was offered a plea before he was even charged wasn't he?

I really doubt you can be offered a plea before you are officially charged. :rolleyes:

[woohoo]

:shrug:

What?

I don't understand your opinion here.

I know - it wasn't very clear. Sorry. What I was trying to say in reading the post it seemed as though the conversations on Scott's end were all fantasies. Yet they proved he murdered his wife. Fantasy is fantasy. Not proof of murder. IMO

[Hey Paula]

If it is decided that the court did NOT err in allowing all these conversations, (which IMO it was error) it would seem that ALL could be deemed fantasy in the mind of Scott Peterson. In other words all his lies and fantasies proved a "truth" - that he murdered his wife. So on this point IMO an appeal would not fail.

Once Scott turned those "lies and fantasies" into truth and reality, he became a confessed murderer just as surely as if he had confessed to LE and had taken them to the site of where he disposed of Laci's body.

Scott Peterson convicted himself. He was the State's star witness. His words are not impeachable because the evidence proved them to be factual. I don't believe he will ever win an appeal. The best/worst (depending upon how he views his existence in SQ) he can hope for is for the 9th Circuit Court to reduce/increase his sentence to LWOP.

IMO

[Mysteri]

If it is decided that the court did NOT err in allowing all these conversations, (which IMO it was error) it would seem that ALL could be deemed fantasy in the mind of Scott Peterson. It seems you are saying In other words all his lies and fantasies proved a "truth" - that he murdered his wife. So on this point IMO an appeal would not fail.

Judge Dilucci's long experience told him Scott's vocal tapes were admissable. MPD was following correct procedure in taping them. There was never a question of impeachment.

Scott said his wife was dead long before it was found to be fact. The fantasy was entwined with reality, which is notable. The most practiced liars are known to include grains of truth to bolster their tales.

We know he wasn't in Paris but he was at the Berkeley Marina and so forth.


imo

[woohoo]

IMO In the beginning Scott continued to talk to Amber for mixed reasons. 1) to keep her and any knowledge of the affair quiet. 2) He possibly could have thought Laci would return and no one would be the wiser. Why tell the police and family now and complicate matters. 3) I think as time went by Amber was the ONLY one, other than family that he COULD talk to. I think he was totally alone and despised by the world, and he thought she was a friend if nothing else.

But I do think it was a mistake to continue to talk to her. And had he murdered Laci I don't believe he would have.

But the only relevance of these tapes to the murder case was that he never confessed to murder and continued to deny it. Therein lies the prejudicial value of the tapes because that is rarely if ever mentioned or even considered. Just my opinion.

[attorneywan2be]

IIRC, you turned Mrs. Rocha's book into an issue for appeal, so its O/T, IMO.

Snip




Otter..(please read my previous posts regarding this issue..thanks) I stated the exact opposite....I stated that whatever in that book would have no bearing on the appeal or a second trial..the only reason I mentioned my opinion of that book is when it was used as a source to support a post about an issue regarding Scott stealing money from a former employer...

Anyhow, IMO, the appeal would be based on the trial record not on books..for example, was the evidence sufficient to support the verdict?..did the judge make a mistake in allowing certain evidence?..was their misconduct on the part of the jury? etc..etc..

[woohoo]

I really doubt you can be offered a plea before you are officially charged. :rolleyes:

Really??

(CNN) — Investigators in the Laci Peterson case offered Scott Peterson a plea bargain less than a month after his wife's disappearance and three months before he was charged, according to documents filed Tuesday.
http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/080603_plea_cnn.html

[adnoid]

...His every phrase and nuance to her screamed of the suffocation he felt with a perpetual wife; displaying how passionately he desired to be fancy free and by assuring Amber emphatically that his wife was history he signaled that he had removed that wife permanently from impeding his rightful life style of riches, pleasure and travel...

Yes. I hear people argue against the tapes as being nothing more than the lies a "gentleman philanderer" tells to women he considers lower than himself and that's OK with them. But if you are able to reason beyond the actual words, to the motivation behind the words, you will see it is as you describe.

Scott did not kill Laci to be with Amber as a long-term partner. Scott killed Laci because she was the cause of his pain - his inability to be the man he imagined himself being. And Amber was not the object of his undying lifelong affection - that was reserved for himself. Amber was someone for the moment - without a doubt she was getting 100% of his attention for that moment, but I's sure as soon as she became in the future what Laci was to him today she'd be gone as well.

I can see why Scott's supporters hope and pray he will be tried again and the tapes will be excluded. I see his appeal being heard at about 3:1 against. I see a second trial as an extreme long shot, and even in that case exclusion of the tapes has a probability approaching zero.

[Mysteri]

IMO In the beginning Scott continued to talk to Amber for mixed reasons. 1) to keep her and any knowledge of the affair quiet. 2) He possibly could have thought Laci would return and no one would be the wiser. Why tell the police and family now and complicate matters. 3) I think as time went by Amber was the ONLY one, other than family that he COULD talk to. I think he was totally alone and despised by the world, and he thought she was a friend if nothing else.

But I do think it was a mistake to continue to talk to her. And had he murdered Laci I don't believe he would have.

But the only relevance of these tapes to the murder case was that he never confessed to murder and continued to deny it. Therein lies the prejudicial value of the tapes because that is rarely if ever mentioned or even considered. Just my opinion.

Alone and depised !??! Try telling that to Janey, Lee, Jackie and the wretched women who wrote him fan mail ! He was still supported by the Rochas during his affair. AND having neighors round to meals and doing pub crawls, golfing with buds, dining with Laci's friends...

He does confess on those tapes if you listen with an open mind. He says Laci is gone. She was.


imo

[adnoid]

...There was never a question of impeachment...

No matter how brutal or savage.

[attorneywan2be]

Hi AW2B,
Maybe you can help me understand something - I've been out of the loop on information regarding what has happened in this case since the trial.

Things I know: First there was a motion for a new trial. Was that denied? Who rules on that motion?

And I know death penalty cases have automatic appeals - so is that where the Peterson case is now?

Hi woohoo..

The motion for a new trial was denied by judge Delucchi

Unfortunately, IMO the appeal process takes years..so I do not expect any new development any time soon...unless the real killers are caught...!

[adnoid]

...He was still supported by the Rochas during his affair. AND having neighors round to meals and doing pub crawls, golfing with buds, dining with Laci's friends...

Don't forget the "grief counseling" in the Sierras (there must be some bar named "Sierras" in San Diego, because that statement wasn't made "to or about Amber" which would make the lie not a lie).

[attorneywan2be]

Do you believe Scott's Attorneys will be able to show the Court a reasonable possibility why the outcome of the trial would have been different if the trial court had excluded the tapes?

I think Scott's attorneys will be able to show that those tapes were highly prejudicial with zero evidentiary value..and they will be able to show that allowing those tapes into evidence was NOT a HARMLESS error

[caphill]

Scott couldn't resist talking by the hour to Amber. He plainly derived immense pleasure from pouring out his chilling soul to her. From cataloguing to her his favorite people, songs, books, poems, films et al, to expressing his wildest dreams of gaudy nights in European capitols, executive positions in multiple companies, walking in the footsteps of G.W. Bush as far as having a father with a holiday spot in Kennebunkport, becoming an adventurer in isolated regions of Alaska; he described himself from HIS perspective, ALL from the comfort of his cushy armchair.

His every phrase and nuance to her screamed of the suffocation he felt with a perpetual wife; displaying how passionately he desired to be fancy free and by assuring Amber emphatically that his wife was history he signaled that he had removed that wife permanently from impeding his rightful life style of riches, pleasure and travel.

He confessed she had been eliminated ( lost irretrievably ) and he was now stone cold free to make romantic overtures whenever he wished and promise his future to another damsel. Not that I ever believed he intended to settle down for good, she was merely a port in his latest storm.

The conversations relayed by Amber's taping amounted to the most detailed and most blatant confession ever rendered in the annals of murder. They equated to his testimony and admission.

They help to guarantee that his wretched appeals will FAIL.

imo


IMO, your post supports AW2B comments(back about 3 posts) that the tapes were highly prejudicial with no evidentiary value to th murder of Laci.

I can sense your anger and outrage at your preception of his continuing courtship of Amber. These tapes opened the door for speculation of what he was thinking and feeling in his cheatin heart. Apparently many on the jury had a similiar reaction to those tapes and it flamed their emotions of hatred towards Scott, imo.

Because this tapes had no evidentiary evidence of the murder and there were declarations of his innocence these tapes just served to prejudice and inflame the jury. I believe they will be an important issue in the appeals.

[enlightenme]

I think Scott's attorneys will be able to show that those tapes were highly prejudicial with zero evidentiary value..and they will be able to show that allowing those tapes into evidence was NOT a HARMLESS error

I'm sure MG tried to keep the tapes out as well. They go to prove Scott's state of mind. They will not be a successful appeal issue.

JMO

[attorneywan2be]

Once Scott turned those "lies and fantasies" into truth and reality, he became a confessed murderer just as surely as if he had confessed to LE and had taken them to the site of where he disposed of Laci's body.

Scott Peterson convicted himself. He was the State's star witness. His words are not impeachable because the evidence proved them to be factual. I don't believe he will ever win an appeal. The best/worst (depending upon how he views his existence in SQ) he can hope for is for the 9th Circuit Court to reduce/increase his sentence to LWOP.

IMO

Hi Paula..

IMO, you just proved my point as to the tapes being highly prejudicial..however, to me, they do not offer a shred of evidence as to the murder...

[woohoo]

Alone and depised !??! Try telling that to Janey, Lee, Jackie and the wretched women who wrote him fan mail ! He was still supported by the Rochas during his affair. AND having neighors round to meals and doing pub crawls, golfing with buds, dining with Laci's friends...

He does confess on those tapes if you listen with an open mind. He says Laci is gone. She was.


imo

3) I think as time went by Amber was the ONLY one, other than family that he COULD talk to.

[Mysteri]

Yes. I hear people argue against the tapes as being nothing more than the lies a "gentleman philanderer" tells to women he considers lower than himself and that's OK with them. But if you are able to reason beyond the actual words, to the motivation behind the words, you will see it is as you describe.

Scott did not kill Laci to be with Amber as a long-term partner. Scott killed Laci because she was the cause of his pain - his inability to be the man he imagined himself being. And Amber was not the object of his undying lifelong affection - that was reserved for himself. Amber was someone for the moment - without a doubt she was getting 100% of his attention for that moment, but I's sure as soon as she became in the future what Laci was to him today she'd be gone as well.

I can see why Scott's supporters hope and pray he will be tried again and the tapes will be excluded. I see his appeal being heard at about 3:1 against. I see a second trial as an extreme long shot, and even in that case exclusion of the tapes has a probability approaching zero.

For sure. Scott wasn't the marrying kind. He simply role played what ever struck his fancy at the time. He saw himself as Don Juan with strarberries, roses and champagne! While he was passionately phoning Amber, he was after Ann Bird's babysitter. He thought he was on a roll. The worst part was that Jackie even said to the babysitter that she hoped they would get together. What better proof that she had no feelings for Laci and resented her to the max !! ( From Ann Bir'ds book about her mother, Jackie and her brother Scott. )

Without the tapes, he would have been convicted , even a day or two sooner. The bones of the murders were always there, waiting for Distaso and Co to hinge them together. It may have helped that he had an affair but if there were no tapes, they would have probably called his sister Ann Bird who could have told him about the babysitter AND the house sitter et al.

AND sans affair, the tapes of he and Jackie talking would have been entered into evidence and they were every bit as damming as the Amber tapes, according to Cath Crier !

imo

[Hey Paula]

Hi Paula..

IMO, you just proved my point as to the tapes being highly prejudicial..however, to me, they do not offer a shred of evidence as to the murder...

Hi AW2B...

They ARE evidence of murder because Scott told Amber he'd lost his wife, two weeks before Laci disappeared. He said Christmas would be his first holiday without his wife, and Laci was murdered sometime between 12/23 and 12/24.

Scott made all of those statements a reality when he killed Laci and threw her body into the SF Bay, 90 miles from Modesto, where he'd been trolling, and where the bodies of Laci and Conner washed up 3 1/2 months later. It was a confession of a crime he would later commit.

IMO

[aingael]

IMO, your post supports AW2B comments(back about 3 posts) that the tapes were highly prejudicial with no evidentiary value to th murder of Laci.

I can sense your anger and outrage at your preception of his continuing courtship of Amber. These tapes opened the door for speculation of what he was thinking and feeling in his cheatin heart. Apparently many on the jury had a similiar reaction to those tapes and it flamed their emotions of hatred towards Scott, imo.

Because this tapes had no evidentiary evidence of the murder and there were declarations of his innocence these tapes just served to prejudice and inflame the jury. I believe they will be an important issue in the appeals.


The tapes go to show the state of mind of Scott Peterson.

There were many tapes that were not allowed into evidence because they were not probative or they were prejudicial. The tapes that were allowed into the court record showed Scott Petersons lack of grief, empathy, conscience, caring, and love for his wife and child. They showed that he was not concerned about their whereabouts or their safety. It had nothing to do with Amber personally; it could have been any woman that Scott Peterson was having a relationship with.

The tapes were gotten by legal wiretaps. The misconception that Amber needed to inform Scott Peterson that he was being taped because she was acting as an extension of law enforcement is totally without merit. In any wiretapping case that is given the approval of the court only one person needs to know that the conversation was being taped and that was Amber. If the tapes were illegally obtained MG would have shouted it from the rooftops like he did about the brown van.

This will not be an issue for an appeal. In fact the first appeal will involve the trial record and nothing else. After this appeal is denied then the next appeal will deal with other issues. Yet, even when they are heard if they want to present any ~new~ evidence it has to be approved for review first before it will be considered as credible and as evidence to garner a new appeal.

[Mysteri]

AW2B, it's a bit distressful (and disrespectful), to make such a blanket statement without backing it up.

I think ISP murdered Kristin Smart too.

Blanket statement.

The tapes clearly showed his state of mind and character. They'll never help his appeal, only RE-destroy any hope he has of walking.

He was a busy boy!

imo

[woohoo]

Hi woohoo..

The motion for a new trial was denied by judge Delucchi

Unfortunately, IMO the appeal process takes years..so I do not expect any new development any time soon...unless the real killers are caught...!

Thanks! Why am I not surprised? LOL
However, Delucchi himself stated the case was an appeal petrie dish.

For all practical purposes I believe the same points used for a new trial will stand on appeal.

exculpatory evidence not timely disclosed by prosecution – Aponte
Denial of change of venue
Removal of BOTH Jurors #5 – Mistrial denied
Excluded videotaped experiment showing instability of boat
Wiretaps should have been excluded – allowing irrevelent statements to Amber Frey
Allowing the adult entertainment purchase to be included at trial
I'm not sure about the dog evidence - seems I remember a problem but cannot remember
Actually the affidavits for the wiretaps may be in question
Did not show proof of necessity for wiretaps

BBL-gotta run errands

[Mysteri]

IMO, your post supports AW2B comments(back about 3 posts) that the tapes were highly prejudicial with no evidentiary value to th murder of Laci.

I can sense your anger and outrage at your preception of his continuing courtship of Amber. These tapes opened the door for speculation of what he was thinking and feeling in his cheatin heart. Apparently many on the jury had a similiar reaction to those tapes and it flamed their emotions of hatred towards Scott, imo.

Because this tapes had no evidentiary evidence of the murder and there were declarations of his innocence these tapes just served to prejudice and inflame the jury. I believe they will be an important issue in the appeals.

Evidently my post confused you. His discussions with Amber were more a source of piyt mixed with amusement and amazement. I had no idea until then what an imagination he had, how inventive he could be. It played into his tv appearance where he expounded on how men get owies on their hands and bleed on their tool boxes.

I don't see him as courting Amber but as spilling his guts and showing how he loved the attempted wife and son murder in The Shining and many other dark ideas.

The tapes show him as coldblooded, even during the candle light ceremony.
His placid face throughout them him made look guilty but what really convicted him, as Paula mentioned, was his own actions.

Jackie's excuses made him look particularly sinister. As did THEIR phone conversations.

He's in there for the duration.

imo

[Miss Bootsie]

I think Scott's attorneys will be able to show that those tapes were highly prejudicial with zero evidentiary value..and they will be able to show that allowing those tapes into evidence was NOT a HARMLESS error

Even IF, it is the Appellate Courts opinion the tapes were prejudicial, they will also consider whether the tapes would have affected the outcome. Whether the error affected the outcome is always a factor.

Scott's Attorneys will have the burden of showing the Appellate Court a reasonable possibility as to why the Jurors depended on the tapes to convict.
imo, they will have a difficult time showing the Jurors depended on the tapes to convict, because there was more than sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict.

Purchase of the boat
Scott - boat - SF bay - Dec. 24
Laci - disappeared on Dec 24
Bodies washed ashore in same vicinity

[caphill]

Evidently my post confused you. His discussions with Amber were more a source of piyt mixed with amusement and amazement. I had no idea until then what an imagination he had, how inventive he could be. It played into his tv appearance where he expounded on how men get owies on their hands and bleed on their tool boxes.

I don't see him as courting Amber but as spilling his guts and showing how he loved the attempted wife and son murder in The Shining and many other dark ideas.

The tapes show him as coldblooded, even during the candle light ceremony.
His placid face throughout them him made look guilty but what really convicted him, as Paula mentioned, was his own actions.

Jackie's excuses made him look particularly sinister. As did THEIR phone conversations.

He's in there for the duration.



IMO, there is no confusion and this post further proves the point AW2B was making about prejudicial impact of the tapes.

You write higly impassionated with your interpretation of what Scott was really saying, what he was really thinking and feeling, imo. Can you cite anywhere in these tapes where Scott has anything derogatory to say about Laci, anything about wanting out of his marriage, anything about where, how and when he killed his wife.

These had no probative value as to the disappearance and murder of his wife. Without question they are probative that he had an inappropriate relationship, had told Amber many lies to hide his true identity and married status. This fact of his fling with Amber was already public and jury knowledge so there was no reason to play this tapes other that to imflame passions and emotions.

His declarations of love for Laci and his statments that he had nothing to do with her disappearance were considered as whispering "sweet nothings" in Amber ear by some that became inflamed by the evidence of his philandering.

After hearing those tapes and other evidence presented ,I have no doubt whatsoever that Scott Peterson was guilty in the first degree of adultery.

[Sturgeon_Moon]

Hi AW2B...

They ARE evidence of murder because Scott told Amber he'd lost his wife, two weeks before Laci disappeared. He said Christmas would be his first holiday without his wife, and Laci was murdered sometime between 12/23 and 12/24.

Scott made all of those statements a reality when he killed Laci and threw her body into the SF Bay, 90 miles from Modesto, where he'd been trolling, and where the bodies of Laci and Conner washed up 3 1/2 months later. It was a confession of a crime he would later commit.

IMO

Amber never questioned Scott getting back to the single life so quickly.

imo

[Hey Paula]

Amber never questioned Scott getting back to the single life so quickly.

imo

Before Amber got a chance to even think about it, Scott went into a crying jag about losing his wife and not being able to talk about it because it was too painful. He took her by surprise, i.e., if Shawn Sibley truly hadn't mentioned anything to Amber and let Scott "break the news" as he'd requested.

IMO

[Heyes]

Scott couldn't resist talking by the hour to Amber. He plainly derived immense pleasure from pouring out his chilling soul to her. From cataloguing to her his favorite people, songs, books, poems, films et al, to expressing his wildest dreams of gaudy nights in European capitols, executive positions in multiple companies, walking in the footsteps of G.W. Bush as far as having a father with a holiday spot in Kennebunkport, becoming an adventurer in isolated regions of Alaska; he described himself from HIS perspective, ALL from the comfort of his cushy armchair.

His every phrase and nuance to her screamed of the suffocation he felt with a perpetual wife; displaying how passionately he desired to be fancy free and by assuring Amber emphatically that his wife was history he signaled that he had removed that wife permanently from impeding his rightful life style of riches, pleasure and travel.

He confessed she had been eliminated ( lost irretrievably ) and he was now stone cold free to make romantic overtures whenever he wished and promise his future to another damsel. Not that I ever believed he intended to settle down for good, she was merely a port in his latest storm.

The conversations relayed by Amber's taping amounted to the most detailed and most blatant confession ever rendered in the annals of murder. They equated to his testimony and admission.

They help to guarantee that his wretched appeals will FAIL.

imo


WOW!
Excellent!

Wow.

[frydaddy]

I'm sure Sharon would be very touched if she read this. Kudos to you, Frydaddy :beer:

Just popped in for a second before heading out to do some yardwork. Just wanted to say thank you for your kind words! Seems as though that post is no longer available, which gives me the impression that we can give our opinions on the character of the mother of a victim of murder, but we cannot give our opinions if they also contain advice to posters here. Some might take that advice as an insult. Seems the advice fell on deaf ears! Take care Sunny! ;)

[frydaddy]

You, my friend, .....I don't know how to express it....you are so spot on here....and once again I'm blown away by your expressions...and keep in mind I read this after the unrelated...sort of...PM I sent.

You, adnoid, TG, Sun, Snoop, Ms. Bootsie, Enl, JMO....I know I'll be red-faced when I realize who I've forgotten.....:o and even a few of you misguided souls on "the other side" whom I haven't given up on saving yet...speakin' of.... HAS ANYONE HEARD FROM WUDGE?

NEway...I have thoroughly enjoyed this ride with the most of you...but I must warn...it's about to come to a close...as all good things do....:seeya:

Thank you peach! I sent you a couple replies...get back to me when you can!

[Miss Bootsie]

IMO, there is no confusion and this post further proves the point AW2B was making about prejudicial impact of the tapes.

You write higly impassionated with your interpretation of what Scott was really saying, what he was really thinking and feeling, imo. Can you cite anywhere in these tapes where Scott has anything derogatory to say about Laci, anything about wanting out of his marriage, anything about where, how and when he killed his wife.

These had no probative value as to the disappearance and murder of his wife. Without question they are probative that he had an inappropriate relationship, had told Amber many lies to hide his true identity and married status. This fact of his fling with Amber was already public and jury knowledge so there was no reason to play this tapes other that to imflame passions and emotions.

His declarations of love for Laci and his statments that he had nothing to do with her disappearance were considered as whispering "sweet nothings" in Amber ear by some that became inflamed by the evidence of his philandering.

After hearing those tapes and other evidence presented ,I have no doubt whatsoever that Scott Peterson was guilty in the first degree of adultery.

It all has to do with these facts.

Purchase of the boat
Scott - boat - SF bay - Dec. 24
Laci - disappeared on Dec 24
Bodies washed ashore in same vicinity
Condition of bodies

This is powerful evidence.
This evidence alone supports the Jurors verdict.

The evidence is so strong, a Jury could reasonably conclude Scott Peterson was guilty without ever hearing what was on those tapes.

Therefore, imo, it will be the Appeal Courts opinion, the Jurors did not depend on the tapes or any prejudice as a result of hearing the tapes to conclude SP was guilty.

[Jadedblueeyes]

It all has to do with these facts.

Purchase of the boat
Scott - boat - SF bay - Dec. 24
Laci - disappeared on Dec 24
Bodies washed ashore in same vicinity
Condition of bodies

This is powerful evidence.
This evidence alone supports the Jurors verdict.

The evidence is so strong, a Jury could reasonably conclude Scott Peterson was guilty without ever hearing what was on those tapes.

Therefore, imo, it will be the Appeal Courts opinion, the Jurors did not depend on the tapes or any prejudice as a result of hearing the tapes to conclude SP was guilty.

I think you are exactly correct Miss Bootsie.

Even if the Court did feel the tapes were an error ........it must be an error so egregious that it could have changed the outcome. The tapes would change nothing. That is the great thing about powerful circumstantial evidence cases. Even though two or three pieces of twine may fall..... the verdict still remains as strong with a CE rope of many twines together as it was before.

Everything pointed directly at Scott. He had motive. He certainly had the opportunity as he was there at the bay on the very day she went missing and he certainly had the means to discard them by his boat purchase. Just way too many coincidences in this case that one would have to believe and it defies all logic that these things just so happened right around the time she and Conner go missing. Or that Scott just happened to predict that this would be his first holiday without Laci even though Laci was alive at the time. Juries don't buy coincidences.

Look at Judge Fidler in the Phil Spector trial. He is letting it all in. I think he is one of the best California Judges I have seen. He is letting the DA pile it on against Phil Spector and if PS is found Guilty I don't think he will win his appeal either. Taped messages also have been admitted in that courtroom.

The tapes are what they are. This showed Scott Peterson's true concern and mindset around the time his pregnant wife and son went missing and the jury had every right to hear it. I have seen many taped conversations played in open court between a defendant and someone they knew..... like those between Scott and Amber... who were also working with LE trying to get the suspect to say something incriminating. If Scott didn't want them out there he should have tried to pretended he cared about his family instead of still trying to woo his lover.

He got what he deserved imo.

imoo

[Miss Bootsie]

Originally Posted by Mysteri
Evidently my post confused you. His discussions with Amber were more a source of piyt mixed with amusement and amazement. I had no idea until then what an imagination he had, how inventive he could be. It played into his tv appearance where he expounded on how men get owies on their hands and bleed on their tool boxes.

I don't see him as courting Amber but as spilling his guts and showing how he loved the attempted wife and son murder in The Shining and many other dark ideas.

The tapes show him as coldblooded, even during the candle light ceremony.
His placid face throughout them him made look guilty but what really convicted him, as Paula mentioned, was his own actions.

Jackie's excuses made him look particularly sinister. As did THEIR phone conversations.

He's in there for the duration.




IMO, there is no confusion and this post further proves the point AW2B was making about prejudicial impact of the tapes.

You write higly impassionated with your interpretation of what Scott was really saying, what he was really thinking and feeling, imo. Can you cite anywhere in these tapes where Scott has anything derogatory to say about Laci, anything about wanting out of his marriage, anything about where, how and when he killed his wife.

These had no probative value as to the disappearance and murder of his wife. Without question they are probative that he had an inappropriate relationship, had told Amber many lies to hide his true identity and married status. This fact of his fling with Amber was already public and jury knowledge so there was no reason to play this tapes other that to imflame passions and emotions.

His declarations of love for Laci and his statments that he had nothing to do with her disappearance were considered as whispering "sweet nothings" in Amber ear by some that became inflamed by the evidence of his philandering.

After hearing those tapes and other evidence presented ,I have no doubt whatsoever that Scott Peterson was guilty in the first degree of adultery.

But, see Caphill, you are jumping to the conclusion Mysteri concluded Scott is guilty because of the tapes.

With or without those tapes there is sufficient evidence to support an opinion that Scott is guilty.

[woohoo]

snipped
Therefore, imo, it will be the Appeal Courts opinion, the Jurors did not depend on the tapes or any prejudice as a result of hearing the tapes to conclude SP was guilty.

IMO Of course the minds of the jurors were inflamed by the tapes. Just as many others were.

But the point is LE testified under oath that all usual and customary practices had been exhausted in an effort to gain evidence and it had failed. The tapes were specifically meant to obtain either a confession or some sort of evidence against Scott involving the murder of his wife.

There was no such confession or evidence garnered from the tapes. So why were they used at trial? What was their purpose?

[attorneywan2be]

Even IF, it is the Appellate Courts opinion the tapes were prejudicial, they will also consider whether the tapes would have affected the outcome. Whether the error affected the outcome is always a factor.

Scott's Attorneys will have the burden of showing the Appellate Court a reasonable possibility as to why the Jurors depended on the tapes to convict.
imo, they will have a difficult time showing the Jurors depended on the tapes to convict, because there was more than sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict.

Purchase of the boat
Scott - boat - SF bay - Dec. 24
Laci - disappeared on Dec 24
Bodies washed ashore in same vicinity

IMO, the point being those tapes inflamed the jury against Scott...they made them adopt the interpretation that points to guilt and reject the interpretation that points to innocence..they made them accept unproven facts upon which inferences of guilt were drawn..

IMO, if we would apply the law as we examine all the facts surrounding the circumstantial evidence you cited we would come to a different conclusion..

Quote:

Because circumstantial evidence requires the drawing of
inferences, I will explain the process involved in analyzing that
evidence and what you must do before you may return a verdict
of guilty based solely on circumstantial evidence.

Initially, you must decide, on the basis of all of the evidence,
what facts, if any, have been proven. Any facts upon which an
inference of guilt can be drawn must be proven beyond a
reasonable doubt.

After you have determined what facts, if any, have been
proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must decide what
inferences, if any, can be drawn from those facts.

Before you may draw an inference of guilt, however, that
inference must be the only one that can fairly and reasonably be
drawn from the facts, it must be consistent with the proven facts,
and it must flow naturally, reasonably, and logically from them.

Again, it must appear that the inference of guilt is the only
one that can fairly and reasonably be drawn from the facts, and
that the evidence excludes beyond a reasonable doubt every
reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

[Otter]

IMO Of course the minds of the jurors were inflamed by the tapes. Just as many others were.

But the point is LE testified under oath that all usual and customary practices had been exhausted in an effort to gain evidence and it had failed. The tapes were specifically meant to obtain either a confession or some sort of evidence against Scott involving the murder of his wife.

There was no such confession or evidence garnered from the tapes. So why were they used at trial? What was their purpose?

Consciousness of guilt would be my opinion. The tapes when taken in context with his actions were IMO, a glorious illustration.

[woohoo]

Consciousness of guilt would be my opinion. The tapes when taken in context with his actions were IMO, a glorious illustration.

Consciousness of guilt when he steadfastly proclaimed his innocence throughout the tapes?:confused:

[woohoo]

IMO it is not the task of a juror to judge Scott or any defendant on his conscious or unconscioue acts or thoughts. Nor on his personality, character, or personal choice of lifestyle.

Only on the evidence of murder as presented by the prosecution.

[TopGunner]

Consciousness of guilt when he steadfastly proclaimed his innocence throughout the tapes?:confused:



How is telling Amber that she guess and that she guessed correctly at everything proclaming innocence?

That aside, however, he's supposed to deny murdering his wife and son. That's what all killers do, especially the one's who premeditate it.

Gotta laugh when the NG's say "he proclaimed his innocence", like he was supposed to jump on the phone and say "hey Amber, guess what I did today!".

Silly.

[adnoid]

...Gotta laugh when the NG's say "he proclaimed his innocence"...

He also proclaimed he was in Paris when he was not.

He also proclaimed to Amber that he had never cheated on her despite being married to Laci.

He also proclaimed he was in "grief counseling" when he was not.

He also proclaimed to people he was in various places when he was not.

And so on.

A proclamation from Scott is worth very little, just like Scott himself.

[Otter]

IMO it is not the task of a juror to judge Scott or any defendant on his conscious or unconscioue acts or thoughts. Nor on his personality, character, or personal choice of lifestyle.

Only on the evidence of murder as presented by the prosecution.

That's not true. Google "consciousness of guilt". There's so many cases and its hard to pick just one. :D

Bottom line, its okay for a jury to infer COG, but it seems, only as a part of the whole. Evidence of flight is a huge factor in COG. Seems we had that here, what appeared to be flight I mean. That's just one instance, IMO.

[woohoo]

In my opinion I don't see how it can reasonably be argued that the Amber tapes didn't inflame the jury. Just the picture alone of Scott & Amber that was shown to Sharon turned her completely against Scott. That was January 15th.

On January 10th her comments:
January 10, 2003 Gloria Gomez of CBS Sacramento affiliate KOVR
Laci's mother Sharon Rocha tells NBC's "Today" show she doesn't feel what was found in the marina will end up being her daughter's body. Rocha says the family also doesn't believe Scott Peterson had anything to do with his wife's disappearance, and describes him as being "devastated."
She says the couple had a happy marriage and loved each other.

January 14th?
ROCHA: Yes.

Then she sees the pictures as shown to her by LE on January 15th. And in a conversation with Brent he tells Scott:

GERAGOS: And Scott said My God, and you said She was standing by you, you heard her in the media she was still supporting you a hundred percent, and then all of a sudden she just took a 90 degree turn. Is that what you told him?
Brent ROCHA: Yes. It sounds -- sounds about right.

It was all about Amber! IMO

This post is not intended to be in any way a condemnation of Sharon Rocha. Only meant to show the effect of "All things Amber" on even the Mother of Laci.

[Otter]

A proclamation from Scott is worth very little, just like Scott himself.

Oh I don't know, the chemicals in a human body, even SP's, are worth around $20.

[adnoid]

In my opinion I don't see how it can reasonably be argued that the Amber tapes didn't inflame the jury. Just the picture alone of Scott & Amber that was shown to Sharon turned her completely against Scott...

Can't imagine why.

[adnoid]

Oh I don't know, the chemicals in a human body, even SP's, are worth around $20.

I'll spring for the $20. Wrap him up & ship him to Antarctica.

[I'mSun]

Consciousness of guilt when he steadfastly proclaimed his innocence throughout the tapes?:confused:
Do you really think he would say, "I did it - I killed them"?

[Otter]

I'll spring for the $20. Wrap him up & ship him to Antarctica.

Not there, think of the penguins! :eek:

[Mysteri]

IMO, there is no confusion and this post further proves the point AW2B was making about prejudicial impact of the tapes.

You write higly impassionated with your interpretation of what Scott was really saying, what he was really thinking and feeling, imo. Can you cite anywhere in these tapes where Scott has anything derogatory to say about Laci, anything about wanting out of his marriage, anything about where, how and when he killed his wife.

These had no probative value as to the disappearance and murder of his wife. Without question they are probative that he had an inappropriate relationship, had told Amber many lies to hide his true identity and married status. This fact of his fling with Amber was already public and jury knowledge so there was no reason to play this tapes other that to imflame passions and emotions.

His declarations of love for Laci and his statments that he had nothing to do with her disappearance were considered as whispering "sweet nothings" in Amber ear by some that became inflamed by the evidence of his philandering.

After hearing those tapes and other evidence presented ,I have no doubt whatsoever that Scott Peterson was guilty in the first degree of adultery.


It doesn't bother me personally that he had an affair. I wasn't even surprised. Lee mentioned how common it was even though I think their family had unusually low standards.

What clenched it was that he said Laci would be dead for the holidays and he knew EXACTLY what he was talking about. I take murder MUCH more seriously than affairs. He could have been talking to Joe the Mechanic, the FACT he admitted when his wife would be dead is the crux.

imo

[Mysteri]

IMO it is not the task of a juror to judge Scott or any defendant on his conscious or unconscioue acts or thoughts. Nor on his personality, character, or personal choice of lifestyle.

Only on the evidence of murder as presented by the prosecution.

Much of the evidence of ANY murder is based on the character of the suspect, which is duly outlined by the prosecution.

imo

[Otter]

It doesn't bother me personally that he had an affair. I wasn't even surprised. Lee mentioned how common it was even though I think their family had unusually low standards.

What clenched it was that he said Laci would be dead for the holidays and he knew EXACTLY what he was talking about. I take murder MUCH more seriously than affairs. He could have been talking to Joe the Mechanic, the FACT he admitted when his wife would be dead is the crux.

imo

Well put Mys, more about consciousness of guilt that a jury is free to infer guilt or innocence when deliberating.

IMO, in his mind Laci was gone two weeks before she was really gone. Hence the "I lost my wife, it will be the first holidays without her" (paraphrase, but close).

It wasn't a prediction -- it was fact.

[enlightenme]

Can't imagine why.


Not only that but Sharon wasn't just shown a picture of Amber and Scott together, she was told he was STILL talking to her. That would be enough for any mother to turn against her SIL while her daughter is MISSING!

Sheesh! I just do not understand how some people think!

[Mysteri]

Again, it must appear that the inference of guilt is the only
one that can fairly and reasonably be drawn from the facts, and
that the evidence excludes beyond a reasonable doubt every
reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Exactly what the prosecution was able to achieve in the instance of
The State of California vs. Scott Lee Peterson.
His infidelity was just one of myriad bleeps on the Radar of Conviction.

I'd venture that less than half of the jury was 'inflamed' by his infidelity. I think what made them truly angry was his casual indifference to the discovery of the two bodies and preening in the mirror in one interview and making a mockery of his mother's devotion by lying to her regarding his whereabouts, in wire taps.


GRACE: Friend. One thing I`ve always wanted to know and you were under a gag order and we could not speak of the trial. Sharon, when did it first dawn on you, when did you know in your heart that Scott Peterson murdered Laci?

ROCHA: I think a lot of it was subconsciously in the beginning, you know, I was seeing this odd behavior. Things that he would talk about or things he would say or not say.

But as far as consciously saying it out loud, I remember the first time I -- I should just put it this way, the first time I remember saying it out loud was on December 30. I was talking to two friends of mine, Lisa and Patty. And after I told them that I was having these suspicions, I actually felt guilty about it because I was concerned that what if I`m completely wrong and Laci comes home, is she going to be upset with me for having these suspicions about her husband.

GRACE: So she would definitely have been upset?

ROCHA: Yes, she would have. It was really a tough position to be in because I loved Scott and I would always -- I kept going back and forth before December 24, after December 24. And the person I knew before December 24 would never have harmed Laci at all. But the person I was looking at after December 24, I just -- I didn`t know that person.

AND

ROCHA: It did. I remember, I remember when he said the word "missing" because I remember thinking why are you saying "missing?" I mean that actually irritated me that he said that. Then I also remember thinking...

GRACE: Because it`s a police word?

ROCHA: Well, it`s also not something you call somebody and say.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/25/ng.01.ht


imo


imo

[Mysteri]

Not only that but Sharon wasn't just shown a picture of Amber and Scott together, she was told he was STILL talking to her. That would be enough for any mother to turn against her SIL while her daughter is MISSING!

Sheesh! I just do not understand how some people think!

The thing is that Sharon had already doubted him, severely. He ignored her in the park the night of December 24th. She didn't express it PUBLICLY. She tells of other times she was supicious and had mentioned to her friends Privately that she thought he was guilty :

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/25/ng.01.ht

It was only after Amber came out of the closet that she decided to go public with her doubts and fears.


imo

[Mysteri]

Well put Mys, more about consciousness of guilt that a jury is free to infer guilt or innocence when deliberating.

IMO, in his mind Laci was gone two weeks before she was really gone. Hence the "I lost my wife, it will be the first holidays without her" (paraphrase, but close).

It wasn't a prediction -- it was fact.

Thank you kindly, Otter !

So glad the jury saw the Premeditation with the boat purchase and the cement purchase, which iced the cake of his admission.

imo

:seeya:

[woohoo]

Oh I don't know, the chemicals in a human body, even SP's, are worth around $20.

LOL That's fair.:D

[woohoo]

Can't imagine why.

Well, I agree with you. If I were in that situation I probably couldn't get past the picture either. If I saw my SIL in such a snap, even if I had NOT lost my daughter it would be devastating to me. But that's just my personal feelings on it.
I think it not only hurt Sharon Rocha I think it was shocking to her.

[accordn2me]

He also proclaimed he was in Paris when he was not.

He also proclaimed to Amber that he had never cheated on her despite being married to Laci.

He also proclaimed he was in "grief counseling" when he was not.

He also proclaimed to people he was in various places when he was not.

And so on.

A proclamation from Scott is worth very little, just like Scott himself.

Yes, the tapes proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that SLP is a stone cold liar. The prosecution could have simply used Amber....put her on the stand and ask her questions...to tell the jury exactly what Scott told her. Then it would have been up to the jury to determine if she was believable or not. I believe they would have believed her. The tapes left no room for doubt, did they...

[accordn2me]

Wudge is on WS bashing different law schools for reasons only known to him.

I hope you stay a little longer. I've really enjoyed you & your posts. :rose: Hope all is well and your just going on a nice vacation.Thank you, Peachy! :seeya: I've enjoyed your posts as well! :rose:

I'll be poppin' in from time to time. However, once I get back to Louisiana from Hawaii....and rejoin "real life" I'll have a lot less time. :)

[Lavindar]

IMO In the beginning Scott continued to talk to Amber for mixed reasons. 1) to keep her and any knowledge of the affair quiet. 2) He possibly could have thought Laci would return and no one would be the wiser. Why tell the police and family now and complicate matters. 3) I think as time went by Amber was the ONLY one, other than family that he COULD talk to. I think he was totally alone and despised by the world, and he thought she was a friend if nothing else.

But I do think it was a mistake to continue to talk to her. And had he murdered Laci I don't believe he would have.

But the only relevance of these tapes to the murder case was that he never confessed to murder and continued to deny it. Therein lies the prejudicial value of the tapes because that is rarely if ever mentioned or even considered. Just my opinion.

You know why he talked to Amber or are you just guessing. Scott was unable to take any advice from his attorneys either. McAllister I believe told him NOT to give interviews but he knew better (because he could fool his parents, he could fool the world), and did it anyway.

The relevance of the tapes were that Scott lied IN HIS OWN voice to EVERYONE on those tapes. Shot his credibility to hell

[Otter]

Thank you kindly, Otter !

So glad the jury saw the Premeditation with the boat purchase and the cement purchase, which iced the cake of his admission.

imo

:seeya:

:seeya: Mys, there's just so much. Its piling on without piling on if that makes sense. His own words and deeds did him in, with help from his parents to accent it all, IMO.

Its hard to cover up a crime, especially murder, IMO. SP may be a sociopath, and so might his parents, but this really crosses, for the lack of better word, a line.

I can't even describe it. In his own warped mind murdering Laci and Conner solved everything. So he did.

And for you NG's, IMO Amber had nothing to do with "it". A = Amber, B=Barbara, C=Charlotte, etc. Amber was the flavor of the month. And he needed to romance her because that's what, in his mind, normal men do.

Like he knew what normal was. :rolleyes:

[enlightenme]

Yes, the tapes proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that SLP is a stone cold liar. The prosecution could have simply used Amber....put her on the stand and ask her questions...to tell the jury exactly what Scott told her. Then it would have been up to the jury to determine if she was believable or not. I believe they would have believed her. The tapes left no room for doubt, did they...

I think it also guaranteed that he could not take the witness stand. The DA would have just hammered him on all those lies. And not just lies to Amber, there was MUCH more than that. I think a lot of the NGs forget that.

JMO

[One2Snoop]

Thank you, Peachy! :seeya: I've enjoyed your posts as well! :rose:

I'll be poppin' in from time to time. However, once I get back to Louisiana from Hawaii....and rejoin "real life" I'll have a lot less time. :)

OT ~ Hey there accord. :seeya: I'll miss our late nite chats (via pm LOL). Saying prayers that your trip goes smoothly. Please let us know when you're home and settled and stop by and post when you can. :beer: :rose:

Sorry for the interuption. :o :tongue:

[TopGunner]

Well, I agree with you. If I were in that situation I probably couldn't get past the picture either. If I saw my SIL in such a snap, even if I had NOT lost my daughter it would be devastating to me. But that's just my personal feelings on it.
I think it not only hurt Sharon Rocha I think it was shocking to her.

Woo - Sharon said herself that it wasn't the affair per sey that devastated her, but the affair meant Laci wasn't coming home.

[enlightenme]

Oops, thought my post was gone but my browser was not updating...strange!

[Miss Bootsie]

Originally Posted by Miss Bootsie
Even IF, it is the Appellate Courts opinion the tapes were prejudicial, they will also consider whether the tapes would have affected the outcome. Whether the error affected the outcome is always a factor.

Scott's Attorneys will have the burden of showing the Appellate Court a reasonable possibility as to why the Jurors depended on the tapes to convict.
imo, they will have a difficult time showing the Jurors depended on the tapes to convict, because there was more than sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict.

Purchase of the boat
Scott - boat - SF bay - Dec. 24
Laci - disappeared on Dec 24
Bodies washed ashore in same vicinity

IMO, the point being those tapes inflamed the jury against Scott...they made them adopt the interpretation that points to guilt and reject the interpretation that points to innocence..they made them accept unproven facts upon which inferences of guilt were drawn..

IMO, if we would apply the law as we examine all the facts surrounding the circumstantial evidence you cited we would come to a different conclusion..

Quote:Again, it must appear that the inference of guilt is the only
one that can fairly and reasonably be drawn from the facts, and
that the evidence excludes beyond a reasonable doubt every
reasonable hypothesis of innocence.



First, Scott's Attorneys have a very heavy burden because the Appeal Courts not only favor trial court rulings, they also make every exception possible for Jurors.
All evidence that proves guilt is prejudicial and damaging. The stronger the case, the more prejudicial it is. The trial court gives the prosecution great latitude to meet their burden of proof.
These are very important facts that you should keep in mind.

If,(Big If) in the future, it becomes the Appellate Courts opinion, the trial court erred in allowing the Jury to hear the tapes, such an error is harmless if the remaining evidence overwhelmingly supports a finding of guilt.

I don't think anyone can deny, including Scott's trial Attorney, that the following facts are overwhelming evidence that supports a finding of guilt.

Purchase of the boat
Scott - boat - SF bay - Dec. 24
Laci - disappeared on Dec 24
Bodies washed ashore in same vicinity
Condition of bodies when found


Therefore, it is irrelevant if the Jurors after hearing the tapes, concluded Scott was a 14K A..H.., because of the conversations he had with Amber Frey.

The evidence was so powerful, they could reasonably conclude Scott was guilty with or without the tapes.

If I'm accused of something and the evidence is there to support the accusations, anything derogatory my accusers may have heard about me is irrelevant to them.
My accusers may not like what they heard, they may not think much of my character as a result of what they heard,but their main focus is on what I did, and the evidence to support their accusations.

Also, let me point out the following to you.

A finding of guilt as to any crime may not be based on circumstantial evidence unless the proved circumstances are not only, one, consistent with the theory that the defendant is guilty of the crime, but, two, cannot be reconciled with any other rational conclusion.
When considering the facts together as a whole,the Jurors were unable to reconcile the following with any other rational conclusion.
Purchase of the boat
Scott - boat - SF bay - Dec. 24
Laci - disappeared on Dec 24
Bodies washed ashore in same vicinity

Reasonable doubt is defined has follows: It is not a mere possible doubt, because everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge.

Discrepancies in a witness's testimony or between a witness's testimony and that of other witnesses, if there were any, do not necessarily mean that a witness should be discredited. Failure of recollection is common.


When, as in this case, it is alleged that the crime charged was committed on or about a certain date, if you find that the crime was committed, it is not necessary that the proof show that it was committed on that precise date. It is sufficient if the proof shows that the crime was committed on or about that date.

btw, do you understand how this sounds?
Originally posted by attorneywan2be:they made them adopt the interpretation that points to guilt and reject the interpretation that points to innocence..they made them accept unproven facts upon which inferences of guilt were drawn..

So, the tapes made the Jurors accept the following facts::shrug:
Purchase of the boat
Scott - boat - SF bay - Dec. 24
Laci - disappeared on Dec 24
Bodies washed ashore in same vicinity
Condition of bodies when found

[attorneywan2be]

Snip

So, the tapes made the Jurors accept the following facts:

Purchase of the boat
Scott - boat - SF bay - Dec. 24
Laci - disappeared on Dec 24
Bodies washed ashore in same vicinity
Condition of bodies when found



IMO, the tapes inflamed the jury so much to the point they overlooked an important requirement before accepting a fact upon which an inference of guilt can be drawn..

The important requirement is : Any fact upon which an
inference of guilt can be drawn must be proven beyond a
reasonable doubt.

IMO:

-Purchase of the boat: the prosecution proved BARD that Scott purchased a boat..it was Scott who told them about it anyway and gave them the name and address of the seller...but they DIDN'T prove BARD that Scott purchased the boat to use to dump Laci's body...

-Scott went to the bay on Dec 24th: the prosecution proved BARD that Scott went to SF bay and used his boat there, that was Scott's own statement to the police..but they DIDN'T prove BARD that he went there to dump Laci's body..there was no evidence he transported the body to the bay...

-Laci disappeared on Dec 24th: the prosecution proved BARD that Laci disappeared on that day, again, it was Scott that reported her missing on that day...but they DIDN'T prove BARD that she was killed on that day..there was no evidence of murder..no crime scene...

-Bodies washed ashore in the same vicinity: the prosecution proved BARD that the bodies were FOUND on the shorein the same vicinity, but they DIDN'T prove BARD that the bodies washed ashore...in fact, IMO, the evidence presented indicates the bodies were placed where they were found and didn't wash ashore..

-Condition of bodies when found: the prosecution proved BARD that Laci and Conner were dead for sometimes...but they DIDN'T prove BARD that the bodies were in the bay for about 4 months..there was no time of death..no cause of death...no place of death...no evidence of murder..

IMO, there is a very good chance the appellate court would reverse the conviction based on insufficient evidence to support the verdict..

[enlightenme]

Thanks! Why am I not surprised? LOL
However, Delucchi himself stated the case was an appeal petrie dish.

For all practical purposes I believe the same points used for a new trial will stand on appeal.

exculpatory evidence not timely disclosed by prosecution – Aponte
Denial of change of venue
Removal of BOTH Jurors #5 – Mistrial denied
Excluded videotaped experiment showing instability of boat
Wiretaps should have been excluded – allowing irrevelent statements to Amber Frey
Allowing the adult entertainment purchase to be included at trial
I'm not sure about the dog evidence - seems I remember a problem but cannot remember
Actually the affidavits for the wiretaps may be in question
Did not show proof of necessity for wiretaps

BBL-gotta run errands

Exculpatory evidence was in the LE reports given to the defense early on. JMO, but I think MG saved this as a "last ditch effort" for a new trial. Judge D. gave his very educated, esteemed, and logical reason to reject this "exculpatory evidence".

Change of venue was granted for the guilt phase of the trial. Please reference ANY trial where COV was granted for the sentencing phase. I'll bet it does not exist.

LOL! The MG boat experiment. That was too funny! I WISH the jury could have seen it! It was totally unprofessional and transparent!

Okay, take out the wiretaps of Amber. You still have the ones to his family, friends, a volunteer center worker, etc. to PROVE Scott is/was an accomplished LIAR.

Adult entertainment? LOL! Nice name for hard core porn! It probably WOULD NOT have been admissable IF Scott hadn't called the cable company DURING the search warrant and had it cancelled. Again, COG. He was his own worst enemy!

What other trial have you followed where LE showed proof of necessity for wire taps? Just curious. IMO, they had PLENTY of "proof" and reasons to wiretap the creep by the time they did.

JMO

[enlightenme]

IMO, the tapes inflamed the jury so much to the point they overlooked an important requirement before accepting a fact upon which an inference of guilt can be drawn..

The important requirement is : Any fact upon which an
inference of guilt can be drawn must be proven beyond a
reasonable doubt.

IMO:

-Purchase of the boat: the prosecution proved BARD that Scott purchased a boat..it was Scott who told them about it anyway and gave them the name and address of the seller...but they DIDN'T prove BARD that Scott purchased the boat to use to dump Laci's body...

-Scott went to the bay on Dec 24th: the prosecution proved BARD that Scott went to SF bay and used his boat there, that was Scott's own statement to the police..but they DIDN'T prove BARD that he went there to dump Laci's body..there was no evidence he transported the body to the bay...

-Laci disappeared on Dec 24th: the prosecution proved BARD that Laci disappeared on that day, again, it was Scott that reported her missing on that day...but they DIDN'T prove BARD that she was killed on that day..there was no evidence of murder..no crime scene...

-Bodies washed ashore in the same vicinity: the prosecution proved BARD that the bodies were FOUND on the shorein the same vicinity, but they DIDN'T prove BARD that the bodies washed ashore...in fact, IMO, the evidence presented indicates the bodies were placed where they were found and didn't wash ashore..

-Condition of bodies when found: the prosecution proved BARD that Laci and Conner were dead for sometimes...but they DIDN'T prove BARD that the bodies were in the bay for about 4 months..there was no time of death..no cause of death...no place of death...no evidence of murder..

IMO, there is a very good chance the appellate court would reverse the conviction based on insufficient evidence to support the verdict..

This is my favorite NG argument. Never will anyone try to prove in court that the bodies were "placed on the shore". That is ridiculous beyond belief! Just because no one was there and SAW the bodies wash ashore, there was a 2 day storm where lots of debris washed ashore and the bodies were a mile apart. Trying to pretend that the "real killers" planned and did this is so unreasonable as to be unthinkable.

JMO

I shouldn't have said "unthinkable". I guess anyone can think anything, as is proven in these forums. It's just soooooo unreasonable, unlikely, and NOT common sense that the vast majority of normal people will reject the "planted on the shore" scenario.

JMO

[Mysteri]

This is my favorite NG argument. Never will anyone try to prove in court that the bodies were "placed on the shore". That is ridiculous beyond belief! Just because no one was there and SAW the bodies wash ashore, there was a 2 day storm where lots of debris washed ashore and the bodies were a mile apart. Trying to pretend that the "real killers" planned and did this is so unreasonable as to be unthinkable.

JMO

I shouldn't have said "unthinkable". I guess anyone can think anything, as is proven in these forums. It's just soooooo unreasonable, unlikely, and NOT common sense that the vast majority of normal people will reject the "planted on the shore" scenario.

JMO

Of course !
That the piiful bodies came ashore at random is as crystal clear as the fact that Scott had no interest in checking on who they might be. Better than anyone, he knew.

imo

[TopGunner]

This is my favorite NG argument. Never will anyone try to prove in court that the bodies were "placed on the shore". That is ridiculous beyond belief! Just because no one was there and SAW the bodies wash ashore, there was a 2 day storm where lots of debris washed ashore and the bodies were a mile apart. Trying to pretend that the "real killers" planned and did this is so unreasonable as to be unthinkable.

JMO

I shouldn't have said "unthinkable". I guess anyone can think anything, as is proven in these forums. It's just soooooo unreasonable, unlikely, and NOT common sense that the vast majority of normal people will reject the "planted on the shore" scenario.

JMO



Morning EnL-

I totally agree. This is where the law and posters knowlege part seas (no pun). The LE didn't have to have a witness to the bodies washing up, OBVIOUSLY, or he wouldn't be sitting in a cage.

To suggest otherwise is merely wishful thinking.

[attorneywan2be]

This is my favorite NG argument. Never will anyone try to prove in court that the bodies were "placed on the shore". That is ridiculous beyond belief! Just because no one was there and SAW the bodies wash ashore, there was a 2 day storm where lots of debris washed ashore and the bodies were a mile apart. Trying to pretend that the "real killers" planned and did this is so unreasonable as to be unthinkable.

Snip



Unthinkable?!! in other cases bodies have been moved and placed in other locations..links have been posted regarding this issue....anyhow..

IMO:

It's not the responsibility of the jury to solve the crime or figure out how the bodies got there....it is their responsibility to determine whether or not the prosecution proved BARD that the bodies washed ashore where they were found...it is not only a matter of the fact that no one saw the bodies floating or washing ashore..the prosecution expert's testimony created a reasonable doubt the bodies washed ashore..Dr. Cheng testified that he was not able to explain the location where Laci was found based on the tidal/current condition..the prosecution's theory is basically based on the concept that Conner was in Laci's womb until the storm, then he exited while those pants magically REMAINED on Laci, then both bodies traveled to shore..if that was true, then Dr. Cheng would have been able to explain the location of both bodies...he simply didn't! In addition to that, Conner's body was found passed the debris line..his body didn't show injuries consistent with a body slamming against those rocks he supposedly washed over to land where he was found...which is quite a distance from the boulder breaker area:

Judge Delucchi: Officer, when you describe the measurements, show the jury so they can figure it out.

Timothy Gard: Yes, your Honor. This, this is the west edge breaker line. This is the south edge breaker line. Conner was located 73 feet east, which is this direction, of this breaker line. And then 326 feet this direction here, and 24 feet. So 326 feet this way, 73 feet this way, and 24 feet in this way. And that's where Conner's body was located.

[Lavindar]

Thanks! Why am I not surprised? LOL
However, Delucchi himself stated the case was an appeal petrie dish.

For all practical purposes I believe the same points used for a new trial will stand on appeal.

exculpatory evidence not timely disclosed by prosecution – Aponte
Denial of change of venue
Removal of BOTH Jurors #5 – Mistrial denied
Excluded videotaped experiment showing instability of boat
Wiretaps should have been excluded – allowing irrevelent statements to Amber Frey
Allowing the adult entertainment purchase to be included at trial
I'm not sure about the dog evidence - seems I remember a problem but cannot remember
Actually the affidavits for the wiretaps may be in question
Did not show proof of necessity for wiretaps

BBL-gotta run errands
Maybe reading the responses to the motions might help. Aponte was in discovery all the time. Bates number for same is included in response

The venue was changed - just not to where Geragos wanted it. The costs of transporting witnesses over 5 hours to tesify would have cost the state a small fortunre. Poor Mark didn't get his way.

Funny how the dismissal of a "G" juror is OK, but not the juror who ADMITTED talking to his girl friend about the case and knowing who Nancy Grace was. And it was NOT OK to dismiss the juror who was obstructing the deliberation by violating HIS OWN rules.

The wiretaps showed very much his state of mind after the disappearance. He was not sufficiently upset over his "missing" wife to stop talking to his girl friend. The fact that he ADMITTED saying he lost his wife and this would be his first Christmas without her is NOT important? Shows how prophetic he really was. And it reinforces the fact that he DID tell Amber he "lost" his wife
It also showed his pathelogical lying to EVERYONE

Again, the porn goes to his state of mind/consciousness of guilt. He cared so much that he needed hard core porn to get him through.

The dog evidence was disputed because it did NOT help the defense at all. More of Mark's whining.

You do not know about the wiretaps being in question. They are sealed so you have no clue. No one will until they are unsealed. You are just speculating.

Sorry, missed the boat on. Unless Geragos duplicated the events that happened, legally, his experiment could NOT be used. He neeeded to be at teh same spot, with the same boat, in teh same weather conditions for it to be admitted. He did NONE of that .

[Lavindar]

Unthinkable?!! in other cases bodies have been moved and placed in other locations..links have been posted regarding this issue....anyhow..

IMO:

It's not the responsibility of the jury to solve the crime or figure out how the bodies got there....it is their responsibility to determine whether or not the prosecution proved BARD that the bodies washed ashore where they were found...it is not only a matter of the fact that no one saw the bodies floating or washing ashore..the prosecution expert's testimony created a reasonable doubt the bodies washed ashore..Dr. Cheng testified that he was not able to explain the location where Laci was found based on the tidal/current condition..the prosecution's theory is basically based on the concept that Conner was in Laci's womb until the storm, then he exited while those pants magically REMAINED on Laci, then both bodies traveled to shore..if that was true, then Dr. Cheng would have been able to explain the location of both bodies...he simply didn't! In addition to that, Conner's body was found passed the debris line..his body didn't show injuries consistent with a body slamming against those rocks he supposedly washed over to land where he was found...which is quite a distance from the boulder breaker area:

Judge Delucchi: Officer, when you describe the measurements, show the jury so they can figure it out.

Timothy Gard: Yes, your Honor. This, this is the west edge breaker line. This is the south edge breaker line. Conner was located 73 feet east, which is this direction, of this breaker line. And then 326 feet this direction here, and 24 feet. So 326 feet this way, 73 feet this way, and 24 feet in this way. And that's where Conner's body was located.


It was not just that people say the bodies were placed there. Laci's body was consistent with being in a marine environment for 3-6 months. So did someone fish her out of the Bay and place her there?

Conner's body was so fragile that t he skin could be pulled apart. How could he have been transported by human hands with no damage done to his frail body. You could see the muscles through his skin.

You say the bodies could have been place there but you IGNORE the fact that they were in a MARINE enviornment.

[Miss Bootsie]

Unthinkable?!! in other cases bodies have been moved and placed in other locations..links have been posted regarding this issue....anyhow..
In making this statement you omitted a few circumstances.

Purchase of the boat
Scott - boat - SF bay - Dec. 24
Laci - disappeared on Dec 24
Bodies washed ashore in same vicinity

True circumstantial evidence that -- proves a fact) from which the inference can be drawn) of the existence of the fact)- that the bodies washed ashore as a result of Scott Peterson disposing of the bodies in the Bay.

Condition of bodies:
True circumstantial evidence that - proves a fact) from which the inference can be drawn) of the existence of the fact) - that the bodies washed ashore as a result of Scott Peterson disposing of the bodies in the Bay.

With this in mind, Yes, it is unthinkable that anyone would consider that the bodies were planted on the shore.

btw, why are you now jumping into another subject?

[ekg]

He also proclaimed he was in Paris when he was not.
which is not a crime



He also proclaimed to Amber that he had never cheated on her despite being married to Laci. which is not a crime



He also proclaimed he was in "grief counseling" when he was not. which is not a crime



He also proclaimed to people he was in various places when he was not. which is not a crime


And so on.

A proclamation from Scott is worth very little, just like Scott himself.

he admitted to nothing on the tapes.....

lying is not a crime....and besides that w/o his testimony it's all subjective..

why does a grown man have to tell anyone where he is? especially when he is being followed by everyone in the media and everyone in LE? why can't he say "I'm over here" when he's really over there, in hopes that he can get away from the extreme pressure that is being applied to him?

the Paris call is the most ridiculous thing I had ever heard.... I'll give you that. It was THE biggest mistake I think he made...... sleeping with Amber was a big one, but not as big as the whole Euro-trip with Pascale and Francois(???)........... but it was not illegal.... and he was talking to the woman I believe he had already dumped..... and didn't want to have to explain why he wasn't in Paris, so he lied......and even if he hadn't dumped her yet, it was still not illegal for him to talk to her..bad taste, sure...

the tapes were ordered in part or in toto b/c of a falsified affidavit.... possibly an intentional lie, as stated by a G.

the tapes were meant to catch him incriminating himself in the murder..... they didn't do that..... they just incriminated him in the affair which isn't illegal.

Amber was acting as an arm of LE when she "interrogated" Scott..

If Laci wasn't having sex with Scott, as one of the G's here suggested.... then he didn't 'cheat' on Amber did he...... what that has to do with his guilt or not I have no idea..... but I felt it should be addresses since it was mentioned as to why the tapes should stand.

The tapes did not prove murder....... in fact the tapes did not prove a crime at all..... they were a character assassination and nothing else.... b/c the only thing they proved was that he cheated on his pregnant wife...and since that could have been stipulated to, and still isn't illegal, the tapes were baseless and the only way the DA could get the jury to hate Scott enough to convict him on NO evidence.....

I believe they will be thrown out........ but I also believe that won't matter b/c that bell has already been rung... and it would take a jury as dedicated and honest as the MJ trial to not consider them anyway, in a new trial...




IMO..............as always..

[ekg]

Do you really think he would say, "I did it - I killed them"?


I think that is exactly what MPD was hoping he would say...

but he didn't... so I think they had to chop up everything else he said to make it seem like he did.....

IMO as always....

[ekg]

It doesn't bother me personally that he had an affair. I wasn't even surprised. Lee mentioned how common it was even though I think their family had unusually low standards.

What clenched it was that he said Laci would be dead for the holidays and he knew EXACTLY what he was talking about. I take murder MUCH more seriously than affairs. He could have been talking to Joe the Mechanic, the FACT he admitted when his wife would be dead is the crux.

imo

when did he say Laci would be dead for the holidays?

[ekg]

Much of the evidence of ANY murder is based on the character of the suspect, which is duly outlined by the prosecution.

imo

so your an advocate for sending ppl to death row b/c of their character traits?

see, I'd rather send them there b/c of their actions in the crime they are charged with...I could care less if they are womanizers, tax evaders, cross dressers...etc etc etc..I like actual proof of their crime or even A crime before I strap them in the chair...Just b/c their an asshat isn't good enough for me...

[Lavindar]

when did he say Laci would be dead for the holidays?


He said this would be his first Christmas without her. Was Scott psychic? He said this before it occurred.

He also told Shawn Sibley in OCTOBER that he had "lost" his soul mate. Man, imo, that Scott could sure predict the future accurately, couldn't he?

[ekg]

Thank you kindly, Otter !

So glad the jury saw the Premeditation with the boat purchase and the cement purchase, which iced the cake of his admission.

imo

:seeya:

why didn't they see the same premeditation for the baby?

[Lavindar]

so your an advocate for sending ppl to death row b/c of their character traits?

see, I'd rather send them there b/c of their actions in the crime they are charged with...I could care less if they are womanizers, tax evaders, cross dressers...etc etc etc..I like actual proof of their crime or even A crime before I strap them in the chair...Just b/c their an asshat isn't good enough for me...

The jurors heard it all. They convicted him based on what happened in the courtroom. Were you there? They did NOT hear Wecht wax eloquent on TV. Based on our system of law, he was legally convicted. Since you were not on the jury, your opinion as do any of ours means nothing in an appeal.

[Hey Paula]

when did he say Laci would be dead for the holidays?

Two weeks before Laci disappeared, Scott told Amber (and Shawn Sibley) that he'd lost his wife and the upcoming holidays (Christmas) would be his first without her.

But you already knew that! :biggrin:

Hi Ekg! :seeya:

[Lavindar]

why didn't they see the same premeditation for the baby?
You will have to ask them that question. None of us would presume to know what went through their minds.

[ekg]

He said this would be his first Christmas without her. Was Scott psychic? He said this before it occurred.

He also told Shawn Sibley in OCTOBER that he had "lost" his soul mate. Man, imo, that Scott could sure predict the future accurately, couldn't he?

how many men do you think would say, "Oh yeah.. I'm happily married and she's expecting our 1st baby" in that instance?

IMO it's safe to assume that not many would fess up.... but would make up another lie like, she's gone, she left me, we're divorced...etc etc etc...



IMO as always.....

[Lavindar]

which is not a crime


which is not a crime


which is not a crime


which is not a crime



he admitted to nothing on the tapes.....

lying is not a crime....and besides that w/o his testimony it's all subjective..

why does a grown man have to tell anyone where he is? especially when he is being followed by everyone in the media and everyone in LE? why can't he say "I'm over here" when he's really over there, in hopes that he can get away from the extreme pressure that is being applied to him?

the Paris call is the most ridiculous thing I had ever heard.... I'll give you that. It was THE biggest mistake I think he made...... sleeping with Amber was a big one, but not as big as the whole Euro-trip with Pascale and Francois(???)........... but it was not illegal.... and he was talking to the woman I believe he had already dumped..... and didn't want to have to explain why he wasn't in Paris, so he lied......and even if he hadn't dumped her yet, it was still not illegal for him to talk to her..bad taste, sure...

the tapes were ordered in part or in toto b/c of a falsified affidavit.... possibly an intentional lie, as stated by a G.

the tapes were meant to catch him incriminating himself in the murder..... they didn't do that..... they just incriminated him in the affair which isn't illegal.

Amber was acting as an arm of LE when she "interrogated" Scott..

If Laci wasn't having sex with Scott, as one of the G's here suggested.... then he didn't 'cheat' on Amber did he...... what that has to do with his guilt or not I have no idea..... but I felt it should be addresses since it was mentioned as to why the tapes should stand.

The tapes did not prove murder....... in fact the tapes did not prove a crime at all..... they were a character assassination and nothing else.... b/c the only thing they proved was that he cheated on his pregnant wife...and since that could have been stipulated to, and still isn't illegal, the tapes were baseless and the only way the DA could get the jury to hate Scott enough to convict him on NO evidence.....

I believe they will be thrown out........ but I also believe that won't matter b/c that bell has already been rung... and it would take a jury as dedicated and honest as the MJ trial to not consider them anyway, in a new trial...




IMO..............as always..

He admitted that he was having a relationship with another woman while he was married. He admitted that he told Amber that he had "lost" his wife, when she was in reality still alive in Modesto. Lying is not a crime, but his state of mind was that of a man who had no wife to impair his relationship with another woman.

He lied about grief counseling to one of his family. HE talked about partying on the beach to another.

He acted like a man without a care in the world and ready and willings to go on with his life even though his wife was missing.

This ALL goes to his state of mind. If there were tapes that were not indicative of this, his attorney should have used them. He did not.

[ekg]

The jurors heard it all. They convicted him based on what happened in the courtroom. Were you there? They did NOT hear Wecht wax eloquent on TV. Based on our system of law, he was legally convicted. Since you were not on the jury, your opinion as do any of ours means nothing in an appeal.

but I am still allowed to vent them......... as are you..

[Lavindar]

how many men do you think would say, "Oh yeah.. I'm happily married and she's expecting our 1st baby" in that instance?

IMO it's safe to assume that not many would fess up.... but would make up another lie like, she's gone, she left me, we're divorced...etc etc etc...

IMO as always..... His lack of grief was appalling. It was just another day for Scott to find some free sex. IMO I remember a tape where he told Amber he didn't do it, but he knew who did....could he have meant his alter ego?

[ekg]

Two weeks before Laci disappeared, Scott told Amber (and Shawn Sibley) that he'd lost his wife and the upcoming holidays (Christmas) would be his first without her.

But you already knew that! :biggrin:

Hi Ekg! :seeya:

yes I know he said that....... but the op said " he said Laci would be dead for the holidays"

he never said Laci would be dead for the holidays...

[Lavindar]

yes I know he said that....... but the op said " he said Laci would be dead for the holidays"

he never said Laci would be dead for the holidays... You are addressing that response to the wrong poster.

You know it amazes me how Scott could "lose" a wife. He never lost his roses or his champagne and strawberries, now did he? He also added many tears and fake emotions to his telling to Amber of the "loss" of his wife.

Funny how he had so many tears describing a fake incident to his girlfriend, yet couldn't summon up real ones for his "lost" wife. He cried to Amber all the time, but no one saw him cry about Laci.

His tears were as fake as he was imo.

[Lavindar]

yes I know he said that....... but the op said " he said Laci would be dead for the holidays"

he never said Laci would be dead for the holidays... Are you trying to bait us? We already said that he did not say that in those words.

[ekg]

His lack of grief was appalling. It was just another day for Scott to find some free sex. IMO I remember a tape where he told Amber he didn't do it, but he knew who did....could he have meant his alter ego?

altar ego?

huh?

[ekg]

Are you trying to bait us? We already said that he did not say that in those words.

what are you talking about?

I asked the question once.. the op made a statement that Scott said Laci would be dead.... I wanted clarification on that, b/c that is not what he said..

how is that baiting?

[Miss Bootsie]

which is not a crime


which is not a crime


which is not a crime


which is not a crime



he admitted to nothing on the tapes.....

lying is not a crime....and besides that w/o his testimony it's all subjective..

why does a grown man have to tell anyone where he is? especially when he is being followed by everyone in the media and everyone in LE? why can't he say "I'm over here" when he's really over there, in hopes that he can get away from the extreme pressure that is being applied to him?

the Paris call is the most ridiculous thing I had ever heard.... I'll give you that. It was THE biggest mistake I think he made...... sleeping with Amber was a big one, but not as big as the whole Euro-trip with Pascale and Francois(???)........... but it was not illegal.... and he was talking to the woman I believe he had already dumped..... and didn't want to have to explain why he wasn't in Paris, so he lied......and even if he hadn't dumped her yet, it was still not illegal for him to talk to her..bad taste, sure...

the tapes were ordered in part or in toto b/c of a falsified affidavit.... possibly an intentional lie, as stated by a G.

the tapes were meant to catch him incriminating himself in the murder..... they didn't do that..... they just incriminated him in the affair which isn't illegal.

Amber was acting as an arm of LE when she "interrogated" Scott..

If Laci wasn't having sex with Scott, as one of the G's here suggested.... then he didn't 'cheat' on Amber did he...... what that has to do with his guilt or not I have no idea..... but I felt it should be addresses since it was mentioned as to why the tapes should stand.

The tapes did not prove murder....... in fact the tapes did not prove a crime at all..... they were a character assassination and nothing else.... b/c the only thing they proved was that he cheated on his pregnant wife...and since that could have been stipulated to, and still isn't illegal, the tapes were baseless and the only way the DA could get the jury to hate Scott enough to convict him on NO evidence.....

I believe they will be thrown out........ but I also believe that won't matter b/c that bell has already been rung... and it would take a jury as dedicated and honest as the MJ trial to not consider them anyway, in a new trial...




IMO..............as always..



With or without the tapes, there remained overwhelming evidence that supports the verdict.
With or without prejudice, there remained evidence that supports the verdict.


You're right, the tapes did not prove murder....... in fact the tapes did not prove a crime at all.
I believe it is rather silly to suggest they did or to suggest they didn't.:confused:

The SII's are the people making the most out of the tapes.
The Jurors certainly didn't. They may not like or approve of what they heard, but their focus was on the remaining overwhelming evidence. imo

[Lavindar]

altar ego?

huh?alter ego - it was meant as a joke

[ekg]

You are addressing that response to the wrong poster.

I was addressing Hey Paula after she addressed me.... how is that the wrong person?


You know it amazes me how Scott could "lose" a wife. He never lost his roses or his champagne and strawberries, now did he? He also added many tears and fake emotions to his telling to Amber of the "loss" of his wife.

Funny how he had so many tears describing a fake incident to his girlfriend, yet couldn't summon up real ones for his "lost" wife. He cried to Amber all the time, but no one saw him cry about Laci.

His tears were as fake as he was imo.

and these things have what to do with the appeals?

[Miss Bootsie]

Are you trying to bait us? We already said that he did not say that in those words.

An attempt to distract. ;)

[ekg]

alter ego - it was meant as a joke


thank you for correcting my spelling...

is that something we are doing now?

I guess I missed the joke...... sorry about that... thanks for clarifying tho

[ekg]

An attempt to distract. ;)

the statement was corrected after my questioning(once) of it.....



the op made an incorrect assertion..so how am I distracting anyone?

[Miss Bootsie]

I was addressing Hey Paula after she addressed me.... how is that the wrong person?



and these things have what to do with the appeals?

ekg, actually the content of your post 2899, imo, has little to do with the appeals.

[Lavindar]

I was addressing Hey Paula after she addressed me.... how is that the wrong person?



and these things have what to do with the appeals?

I can't find where paula said Laci would be dead for the holidays.

she said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ekg
when did he say Laci would be dead for the holidays?

Two weeks before Laci disappeared, Scott told Amber (and Shawn Sibley) that he'd lost his wife and the upcoming holidays (Christmas) would be his first without her.

But you already knew that!

Hi Ekg!



As for the appeals, the fact he said he had "lost" his wife AND he admitted saying it in the tapes would seal his state of mind and would NOT help the appeal.

[attorneywan2be]

yes I know he said that....... but the op said " he said Laci would be dead for the holidays"

he never said Laci would be dead for the holidays...


Why did Amber tell him that he told her that his wife was missing and this is a tragedy..IMO, she knew that he never said that..she was lying..when he denied ever saying that..she then used the other statement.."Lost my wife"..I think he basically lied about where and with whom he was going to spend the holidays..he lied about the traveling..IMO, he made a huge mistake talking to Amber, to me, it was obvious she was trying to get him to admit to incriminating statements..

FREY: But isn’t that ironic how Scott when I first met you on our date how you told me you were going to Maine with your family and you were going to Paris and Europe and all these things. And then you came to me after Shawn had found out that you were married and you came and told me this elaborate lie about her missing and this tragedy and that…
PETERSON: No.
FREY: And that…that this will be the first holidays without her?
PETERSON: Sweetie, I never said…Amber I
FREY: Yes.
PETERSON: I…God, I don’t want to fight with you. Um…you know that I…I never said tragedy or missing.
FREY: Oh, yes, you said you’ve lost your wife.

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

PETERSON: But I lied to you about…about traveling, about where I am now.
FREY: Well, obviously…
PETERSON: And yes, I lied to you before that I hadn’t been married.

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

PETERSON: Amber, I lied. Amber, I lied to you about the travel to Maine.
FREY: Why? Why would you lie to me about the travel to Maine?
PETERSON: Because I couldn’t spend the holidays with you.

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

PETERSON: There are no lies between us now. I lied to you about where I was gonna spend the holidays and with who.
FREY: Yeah, and you told me again December 9th you had lost your wife and this will be the first holidays without her, yet you…
PETERSON: And I lied to you about that.
FREY: Yes, but then…
PETERSON: That I was gonna be with her these holidays.
FREY: Yes, that was definitely a lie, yes.
PETERSON: Yes, I did.

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

FREY: I mean at this point I mean what do you expect now? I mean do you…do you…I mean do you still get…do you have these feelings that you and I have something or that…
PETERSON: I don’t think so after I lied to you.
FREY: …possibly you could have a relationship with me?*
PETERSON:* I don’t think it’s possible after I lied to you this much. I don’t think you could ever trust me. And, you know, just like you said the cornerstone.
FREY: What about the cornerstone?
PETERSON: That you said trust is a cornerstone, right? I don’t think you could ever trust me again.
FREY: I never put those words trust as a cornerstone, that’s not…
PETERSON: Oh, I thought you told me that once.

[Miss Bootsie]

Absolutely amazing......:shrug: ;)

[adnoid]

... Unless Geragos duplicated the events that happened, legally, his experiment could NOT be used...

Fundamentally he was trying to show that something could not be done by anyone based on one person not being able to do it - a person he hired.

Give me a car and pay me $10,000 to make a film showing that it's impossible to parallel park and I'll give you 8 straight hours of me attempting and failing to parallel park the car and failing to do so in any variety of ways you like. That does not demonstrate that I cannot parallel park the car. That does not demonstrate anything about anyone else's ability to parallel part the car.

It's clear why the judge did not allow the demonstration in for this reason. Even if the defense had been able to duplicate the conditions the above fundamental problem would still be there. No appeal issue here.

[cookiewench]

He told Amber that he had "lost her", and he told Shawn the same thing, with the same words.

If someone wants to put out there that he was just trying to imply that he was divorced, that won't work.

People who are divorced say that they got divorced - they don't sit there sobbing and saying that they "lost" the person.

He knew that both Amber and Shawn believed that his wife had died, and that is exactly what he wanted.

In fact, he told Shawn that he tells people that he was never married because it's "too painful to talk about".

Scott is, without a doubt, one of the weirdest people ever born on this earth.

[Lavindar]

:cool: Why did Amber tell him that he told her that his wife was missing and this is a tragedy..IMO, she knew that he never said that..she was lying..when he denied ever saying that..she then used the other statement.."Lost my wife"..I think he basically lied about where and with whom he was going to spend the holidays..he lied about the traveling..IMO, he made a huge mistake talking to Amber, to me, it was obvious she was trying to get him to admit to incriminating statements..

FREY: But isn’t that ironic how Scott when I first met you on our date how you told me you were going to Maine with your family and you were going to Paris and Europe and all these things. And then you came to me after Shawn had found out that you were married and you came and told me this elaborate lie about her missing and this tragedy and that…
PETERSON: No.
FREY: And that…that this will be the first holidays without her?
PETERSON: Sweetie, I never said…Amber I
FREY: Yes.
PETERSON: I…God, I don’t want to fight with you. Um…you know that I…I never said tragedy or missing.
FREY: Oh, yes, you said you’ve lost your wife.

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

PETERSON: But I lied to you about…about traveling, about where I am now.
FREY: Well, obviously…
PETERSON: And yes, I lied to you before that I hadn’t been married.

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

PETERSON: Amber, I lied. Amber, I lied to you about the travel to Maine.
FREY: Why? Why would you lie to me about the travel to Maine?
PETERSON: Because I couldn’t spend the holidays with you.

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

PETERSON: There are no lies between us now. I lied to you about where I was gonna spend the holidays and with who.
FREY: Yeah, and you told me again December 9th you had lost your wife and this will be the first holidays without her, yet you…
PETERSON: And I lied to you about that.
FREY: Yes, but then…
PETERSON: That I was gonna be with her these holidays.
FREY: Yes, that was definitely a lie, yes.
PETERSON: Yes, I did.

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

FREY: I mean at this point I mean what do you expect now? I mean do you…do you…I mean do you still get…do you have these feelings that you and I have something or that…
PETERSON: I don’t think so after I lied to you.
FREY: …possibly you could have a relationship with me?*
PETERSON:* I don’t think it’s possible after I lied to you this much. I don’t think you could ever trust me. And, you know, just like you said the cornerstone.
FREY: What about the cornerstone?
PETERSON: That you said trust is a cornerstone, right? I don’t think you could ever trust me again.
FREY: I never put those words trust as a cornerstone, that’s not…
PETERSON: Oh, I thought you told me that once.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/docs/wiretap0106d.html?page=5

He Admits he told her he lost his wife etc

[accordn2me]

Absolutely amazing......:shrug: ;)Yes it is. Can you imagine what the NGs would say about Amber if it were her testimony alone, without the tapes to verify what she would have said on the stand?

BTW, Amber could have taped the calls herself w/out a LE wiretap. That would not have been illegal. She could have then turned them over to be used in court.

IMO, the tapes proved, by Scott's own words, HE was the liar, not Amber. Except he didn't lie about "this will be my first holidays without her." Did he?

[cookiewench]

With or without the tapes, there remained overwhelming evidence that supports the verdict.
With or without prejudice, there remained evidence that supports the verdict.


You're right, the tapes did not prove murder....... in fact the tapes did not prove a crime at all.
I believe it is rather silly to suggest they did or to suggest they didn't.:confused:

The SII's are the people making the most out of the tapes.
The Jurors certainly didn't. They may not like or approve of what they heard, but their focus was on the remaining overwhelming evidence. imo


I believe the tapes were presented to show Scott's true state of mind, vs. the state of mind he was trying to pull off on the public.

State of mind is circumstantial evidence, has always been permitted in court, and always will be.

Those tapes are similar to Darlie Routier and her silly string party at her son's graves.

[Lavindar]

Yes it is. Can you imagine what the NGs would say about Amber if it were her testimony alone, without the tapes to verify what she would have said on the stand?

BTW, Amber could have taped the calls herself w/out a LE wiretap. That would not have been illegal. She could have then turned them over to be used in court.

IMO, the tapes proved, by Scott's own words, HE was the liar, not Amber. Except he didn't lie about "this will be my first holidays without her." Did he?

A2M click on the link on the post and go to page five - Scott admits that he told it to Amber. I can't copy and past the transcript itself

The link is in post 2929

[accordn2me]

This is my favorite NG argument. Never will anyone try to prove in court that the bodies were "placed on the shore". That is ridiculous beyond belief! Just because no one was there and SAW the bodies wash ashore, there was a 2 day storm where lots of debris washed ashore and the bodies were a mile apart. Trying to pretend that the "real killers" planned and did this is so unreasonable as to be unthinkable.

JMO

I shouldn't have said "unthinkable". I guess anyone can think anything, as is proven in these forums. It's just soooooo unreasonable, unlikely, and NOT common sense that the vast majority of normal people will reject the "planted on the shore" scenario.

JMO :rose:


I'm proud of you for coming up with such a nice way of saying what you said, enlightenme. :beer:

[adnoid]

:cool:

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/docs/wiretap0106d.html?page=5

He Admits he told her he lost his wife etc

Careful - it's chock full o' Scottspeak. I get this look on my face and feeling in my gut like you get when you bite into a bad clam every time I have to read that crap.

But one thing I had forgotten - this call was January 6th and Scott tells Amber that Laci is ALIVE and IN MODESTO! If he knows this, why didn't he go to someone with the details?

[Lavindar]

Careful - it's chock full o' Scottspeak. I get this look on my face and feeling in my gut like you get when you bite into a bad clam every time I have to read that crap.

But one thing I had forgotten - this call was January 6th and Scott tells Amber that Laci is ALIVE and IN MODESTO! If he knows this, why didn't he go to someone with the details?


I had forgotten that he said that, Adnoid. Thanks for the refresher.

[attorneywan2be]

Absolutely amazing......:shrug: ;)


Yep..absolutely AMAZING..!!

Why do you think Amber told him this---->

"then you came to me after Shawn had found out that you were married and you came and told me this elaborate lie about her missing and this tragedy

??? IMO, she knew that he never said that his wife was missing and it is a tragedy AFTER Shawn's confrontation...she was trying to get him to admit to a statement he never said...

Is this ok?

[Lavindar]

Yep..absolutely AMAZING..!!

Why do you think Amber told him this---->

"then you came to me after Shawn had found out that you were married and you came and told me this elaborate lie about her missing and this tragedy

??? IMO, she knew that he never said that his wife was missing and it is a tragedy AFTER Shawn's confrontation...she was trying to get him to admit to a statement he never said...

Is this ok?


Reread page five of that transcipt. He admits that he said it

[enlightenme]

Yep..absolutely AMAZING..!!

Why do you think Amber told him this---->

"then you came to me after Shawn had found out that you were married and you came and told me this elaborate lie about her missing and this tragedy

??? IMO, she knew that he never said that his wife was missing and it is a tragedy AFTER Shawn's confrontation...she was trying to get him to admit to a statement he never said...

Is this ok?

Were you there? Scott probably blubbered out a number of stupid things but the details were "entirely too difficult to talk about". He did like that line a lot.
IMO

[adnoid]

I had forgotten that he said that, Adnoid. Thanks for the refresher.

Gawd - I kept reading. Things come back...

Page 14 is where Scott won't admit to Amber that he's the father of Laci's child.

Poor little Conner, up in heaven, knowing that his own father denies him. Even if you don't think Scott killed Laci and Conner, how can anyone stand by a "man" that would deny his own son? It brings tears to my eyes. I'm going to go give my kids a hug right now.

[adnoid]

Reread page five of that transcipt. He admits that he said it

Also, on page 3, he does not deny he said it and tells Amber he wants to explain why he said it but he cannot explain right now.

[attorneywan2be]

Were you there? Scott probably blubbered out a number of stupid things but the details were "entirely too difficult to talk about". He did like that line a lot.
IMO

The statement in question: told me this elaborate lie about her missing and this tragedy

You're not addressing the point..Amber didn't testify that Scott told her, AFTER SHAWN'S CONFRONTATION, that his wife was missing and it is A tragedy..she testified that he said that he had lost his wife..during the phone conversation though she tried to attribute that statement to him..when he strongly denied it, she then told him that he said he lost his wife..and she didn't press that point again..IMO, she was definitely trying to trick him to accept that statement as something he said knowing full well he didn't say it!

[attorneywan2be]

Reread page five of that transcipt. He admits that he said it

Nope, he didn't admit that he told Amber AFTER Shawn's confrontation that his wife was missing and it is a tragedy ...please post that part....

[enlightenme]

Reread page five of that transcipt. He admits that he said it

We all know he admits it. Posting only parts of the transcripts is just a tactic that some use to try and prove Scott's (cough) innocence.

JMO

[Lavindar]

Nope, he didn't admit that he told Amber AFTER Shawn's confrontation that his wife was missing and it is a tragedy ...please post that part....
I was addressing the part about her being lost and this would be the first holidays without her. He ADMITS to that. He also claims that she is alive and in Modesto. I never said anything about "missing"

[attorneywan2be]

We all know he admits it. Posting only parts of the transcripts is just a tactic that some use to try and prove Scott's (cough) innocence.

JMO

My post was about this particular statement---->

And then you came to me after Shawn had found out that you were married and you came and told me this elaborate lie about her missing and this tragedy and that…

He strongly denied ever saying it..the question is: Why was Amber trying to attribute this statement to him?

[attorneywan2be]

I was addressing the part about her being lost and this would be the first holidays without her. He ADMITS to that. He also claims that she is alive and in Modesto. I never said anything about "missing"

But your reply about him admitting it was to my post where I only mentioned "the missing" statement..and I think you know that already..!

[Lavindar]

But your reply about him admitting it was to my post where I only mentioned "the missing" statement..and I think you know that already..!



I was responding to the "lost" part of this quote


PETERSON: I…God, I don’t want to fight with you. Um…you know that I…I never said tragedy or missing.
FREY: Oh, yes, you said you’ve lost your wife.

and your failure to post where he did admit he said he "lost" his wife

[cookiewench]

The statement in question: told me this elaborate lie about her missing and this tragedy

You're not addressing the point..Amber didn't testify that Scott told her, AFTER SHAWN'S CONFRONTATION, that his wife was missing and it is A tragedy..she testified that he said that he had lost his wife..during the phone conversation though she tried to attribute that statement to him..when he strongly denied it, she then told him that he said he lost his wife..and she didn't press that point again..IMO, she was definitely trying to trick him to accept that statement as something he said knowing full well he didn't say it!

So Amber made a mistake. Big deal.

It's understandable. Scott had told her that he'd "lost" his wife and Amber'd been hearing about the "missing" Laci Peterson, so she used the wrong word.

The fact is that he did tell both Shawn & Amber that he'd lost his wife - and his blubbering and stomach heaving at Amber's certainly was an act to make it a "tragedy" or whatever.

[attorneywan2be]

I was responding to the "lost" part of this quote


PETERSON: I…God, I don’t want to fight with you. Um…you know that I…I never said tragedy or missing.
FREY: Oh, yes, you said you’ve lost your wife.

and your failure to post where he did admit he said he "lost" his wife

Again..that part was NOT in the post you replied to where you stated :

"Reread page five of that transcipt. He admits that he said it"

Post # 2937

[adnoid]

He strongly denied ever saying it..the question is: Why was Amber trying to attribute this statement to him?

This not a personal attack, OK, but you are the only person I know that interprets the conversation that way. That interpretation does not fit the words at all.

There may be others that interpret it that way, but I have yet to come across them.

[attorneywan2be]

So Amber made a mistake. Big deal.

It's understandable. Scott had told her that he'd "lost" his wife and Amber'd been hearing about the "missing" Laci Peterson, so she used the wrong word.

The fact is that he did tell both Shawn & Amber that he'd lost his wife - and his blubbering and stomach heaving at Amber's certainly was an act to make it a "tragedy" or whatever.

I'm not surprised!!...contradicting statements made by others are simply mistakes or forgetfullness or whatever..did she make a mistake when she said "missing"? or when she said "tragedy"? he denied saying either words..

IMO, she intentionally tried to attribute that statement to him...if it was a mistake, she would have said, "I meant that you told me you lost your wife"

[Lavindar]

I'm not surprised!!...contradicting statements made by others are simply mistakes or forgetfullness or whatever..did she make a mistake when she said "missing"? or when she said "tragedy"? he denied saying either words..

IMO, she intentionally tried to attribute that statement to him...if it was a mistake, she would have said, "I meant that you told me you lost your wife"


So, pray tell, where does this insight into Amber's words come from? Personal knowledge? Also I can't find that missing and tragedy comment on the tape - can you give me a page # for it?

[attorneywan2be]

This not a personal attack, OK, but you are the only person I know that interprets the conversation that way. That interpretation does not fit the words at all.

There may be others that interpret it that way, but I have yet to come across them.

The statement I was referring to:

"And then you came to me after Shawn had found out that you were married and you came and told me this elaborate lie about her missing and this tragedy and that…"

Anyone can tell anyone that their interpretation doesn't fit the words at all...but in order to have a meaningful debate I would appreciate it if you would explain what you are talking about..please address the statement I was referring to..then please explain why did Amber try to attribute that statement to him? Keep in mind that he strongly denied it AND she didn't testify that he ever said that statement...

[accordn2me]

I was responding to the "lost" part of this quote


PETERSON: I…God, I don’t want to fight with you. Um…you know that I…I never said tragedy or missing.
FREY: Oh, yes, you said you’ve lost your wife.

and your failure to post where he did admit he said he "lost" his wifeNo, she posted it. Here....her post was at 7:O7 AM....but let me copy it and highlight the parts she ignores:


"FREY: But isn’t that ironic how Scott when I first met you on our date how you told me you were going to Maine with your family and you were going to Paris and Europe and all these things. And then you came to me after Shawn had found out that you were married and you came and told me this elaborate lie about her missing and this tragedy and that…
PETERSON: No.
FREY: And that…that this will be the first holidays without her?
PETERSON: Sweetie, I never said…Amber I
FREY: Yes.
PETERSON: I…God, I don’t want to fight with you. Um…you know that I…I never said tragedy or missing.
FREY: Oh, yes, you said you’ve lost your wife.

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

PETERSON: But I lied to you about…about traveling, about where I am now.
FREY: Well, obviously…
PETERSON: And yes, I lied to you before that I hadn’t been married.

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

PETERSON: Amber, I lied. Amber, I lied to you about the travel to Maine.
FREY: Why? Why would you lie to me about the travel to Maine?
PETERSON: Because I couldn’t spend the holidays with you.

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

PETERSON: There are no lies between us now. I lied to you about where I was gonna spend the holidays and with who.
FREY: Yeah, and you told me again December 9th you had lost your wife and this will be the first holidays without her, yet you…
PETERSON: And I lied to you about that.
FREY: Yes, but then…
PETERSON: That I was gonna be with her these holidays.
FREY: Yes, that was definitely a lie, yes.
PETERSON: Yes, I did."

[enlightenme]

The statement I was referring to:

"And then you came to me after Shawn had found out that you were married and you came and told me this elaborate lie about her missing and this tragedy and that…"

Anyone can tell anyone that their interpretation doesn't fit the words at all...but in order to have a meaningful debate I would appreciate it if you would explain what you are talking about..please address the statement I was referring to..then please explain why did Amber try to attribute that statement to him? Keep in mind that he strongly denied it AND she didn't testify that he ever said that statement...


I think only Amber can answer your question. She was nervous. She was ad-libbing. She was trying to find out where poor Laci could be.

Nitpick her words all you want but it won't help Scott now or his appeal.

JMO

[Mysteri]

There were 174 witnesses against Scott Lee Peterson and 100s of pieces of evidence. Any appeals are strictly a formality. No new trial, no lesser sentence. He's permanently behind bars.


imo

[USAHICK]

No, she posted it. Here....her post was at 7:O7 AM....but let me copy it and highlight the parts she ignores:


"FREY: But isn’t that ironic how Scott when I first met you on our date how you told me you were going to Maine with your family and you were going to Paris and Europe and all these things. And then you came to me after Shawn had found out that you were married and you came and told me this elaborate lie about her missing and this tragedy and that…
PETERSON: No.
FREY: And that…that this will be the first holidays without her?
PETERSON: Sweetie, I never said…Amber I
FREY: Yes.
PETERSON: I…God, I don’t want to fight with you. Um…you know that I…I never said tragedy or missing.
FREY: Oh, yes, you said you’ve lost your wife.

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

PETERSON: But I lied to you about…about traveling, about where I am now.
FREY: Well, obviously…
PETERSON: And yes, I lied to you before that I hadn’t been married.

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

PETERSON: Amber, I lied. Amber, I lied to you about the travel to Maine.
FREY: Why? Why would you lie to me about the travel to Maine?
PETERSON: Because I couldn’t spend the holidays with you.

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

PETERSON: There are no lies between us now. I lied to you about where I was gonna spend the holidays and with who.
FREY: Yeah, and you told me again December 9th you had lost your wife and this will be the first holidays without her, yet you…
PETERSON: And I lied to you about that.
FREY: Yes, but then…
PETERSON: That I was gonna be with her these holidays.
FREY: Yes, that was definitely a lie, yes.
PETERSON: Yes, I did."


A2M, not only did DRISP admit to Amber that he said he "lost his wife and this would be his first holiday without her", but Shawn testified that he told her the same thing.

That's what he said -- he admitted saying it on tape. After that he went on to deny his son a father. He refused to acknowledge his own son. Must be why murdering him was so easy.

[accordn2me]

The statement in question: told me this elaborate lie about her missing and this tragedy

You're not addressing the point..Amber didn't testify that Scott told her, AFTER SHAWN'S CONFRONTATION, that his wife was missing and it is A tragedy..she testified that he said that he had lost his wife..during the phone conversation though she tried to attribute that statement to him..when he strongly denied it, she then told him that he said he lost his wife..and she didn't press that point again..IMO, she was definitely trying to trick him to accept that statement as something he said knowing full well he didn't say it!
Let me try and help you understand what Amber seems to be saying here:

Two weeks before Laci was murdered, Scott told Amber and Shawn that he'd "lost his wife......it would be the first Christmas without her".....and that it was "too painful to talk about." Now, "lost" could be intrepreted to be "missing" and in light of the things that were going on at the time....a national search for Laci, Scott's statement to Sharon that Laci was "missing,".......that's probably why Amber substituted the proper word "missing" for Scott's twisted word "lost." Actually, in light of what we know now, the proper word is MURDERED.

I hope you're with me so far...I won't be surprised if you're not but try to follow this next part:

All of those words:

lost...even if she would have died of natural causes such as a congenital birth defect

missing...whether abducted or a "runaway"

murdered......

THEY ALL CONSTITUTE A TRAGEDY. Scott's lamentation alone.... that this was "too painful to talk about" connotes tragedy.

So why are you raking Amber over the coals for this? :no:

[USAHICK]

Yep..absolutely AMAZING..!!

Why do you think Amber told him this---->

"then you came to me after Shawn had found out that you were married and you came and told me this elaborate lie about her missing and this tragedy

??? IMO, she knew that he never said that his wife was missing and it is a tragedy AFTER Shawn's confrontation...she was trying to get him to admit to a statement he never said...

Is this ok?


Quite possibly Amber spoke the words "missing and tragedy" because by that time, Laci WAS missing and the whole thing was a tragedy. You are implying Amber lied (to frame DRISP of course), but you are wrong. Just becasue she didn't quote the exact words doesn't mean she lied. He told her he lost his wife, he told her it would be his first holiday without her. Twist all you want, won't work.

[attorneywan2be]

Let me try and help you understand what Amber seems to be saying here:

Two weeks before Laci was murdered, Scott told Amber and Shawn that he'd "lost his wife......it would be the first Christmas without her".....and that it was "too painful to talk about." Now, "lost" could be intrepreted to be "missing" and in light of the things that were going on at the time....a national search for Laci, Scott's statement to Sharon that Laci was "missing,".......that's probably why Amber substituted the proper word "missing" for Scott's twisted word "lost." Actually, in light of what we know now, the proper word is MURDERED.

I hope you're with me so far...I won't be surprised if you're not but try to follow this next part:

All of those words:

lost...even if she would have died of natural causes such as a congenital birth defect

missing...whether abducted or a "runaway"

murdered......

THEY ALL CONSTITUTE A TRAGEDY. Scott's lamentation alone.... that this was "too painful to talk about" connotes tragedy.

So why are you raking Amber over the coals for this? :no:

Thanks, I do not need you to explain to me what Amber was saying..LOL

The bottom line is, he didn't say the word "Missing" after Shawn's confrontation....as I said, he denied it and she didn't testify to it...IMO, she was lying to get him to admit he used the word "missing"....that was the day she was sitting in the police station and officers were passing notes and suggestions to her as she was talking to Scott...I bet that statement was a note given to her by one of the officers...IMO, they wanted so bad for Scott to admit that he used the word missing 2 weeks before Laci went missing...

Mark Geragos: Play B9. This has also been played. January 6th.
<recording played>
Mark Geragos: Now, the, at that point, you still are being, you are in the same room with the officers, correct?
Amber Frey: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And they are giving you suggestions, telling you to ask every different way to get him to say something incriminating, correct?
Amber Frey: At times. I wouldn't say every time.

[Miss Bootsie]

Yep..absolutely AMAZING..!!

Why do you think Amber told him this---->

"then you came to me after Shawn had found out that you were married and you came and told me this elaborate lie about her missing and this tragedy

??? IMO, she knew that he never said that his wife was missing and it is a tragedy AFTER Shawn's confrontation...she was trying to get him to admit to a statement he never said...

Is this ok?

AW, My post really wasn't in reference to your post.
I think the folks it was meant for understand the meaning.;)

[accordn2me]

Thanks, I do not need you to explain to me what Amber was saying..LOL

The bottom line is, he didn't say the word "Missing" after Shawn's confrontation....as I said, he denied it and she didn't testify to it...IMO, she was lying to get him to admit he used the word "missing"....that was the day she was sitting in the police station and officers were passing notes and suggestions to her as she was talking to Scott...I bet that statement was a note given to her by one of the officers...IMO, they wanted so bad for Scott to admit that he used the word missing 2 weeks before Laci went missing...

Mark Geragos: Play B9. This has also been played. January 6th.
<recording played>
Mark Geragos: Now, the, at that point, you still are being, you are in the same room with the officers, correct?
Amber Frey: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And they are giving you suggestions, telling you to ask every different way to get him to say something incriminating, correct?
Amber Frey: At times. I wouldn't say every time.You seem to be splitting hairs over the words Amber used during her questioning SLP about his now obvious...by his admission...lies to her. SLP may not have used the word missing to Shawn & Amber...but he did use it to Sharon and one of Laci's friends on the 24th. I've seen a poster.....could have been you but I'm not sure....say that they...at least Sharon...probably has it wrong and Scott didn't use the word "missing" to her. I don't believe Sharon is wrong, nor Laci's friend who testified in court. Too bad we don't have tapes of those conversations. We are blessed to have recordings of conversations between SLP and Amber. If we didn't......well she's being accused of being a manipulative liar and we do have them!

BTW, I was under the impression that these calls were recorded from Amber's house. Not that it matters.

[Miss Bootsie]

Fundamentally he was trying to show that something could not be done by anyone based on one person not being able to do it - a person he hired.

Give me a car and pay me $10,000 to make a film showing that it's impossible to parallel park and I'll give you 8 straight hours of me attempting and failing to parallel park the car and failing to do so in any variety of ways you like. That does not demonstrate that I cannot parallel park the car. That does not demonstrate anything about anyone else's ability to parallel part the car.

It's clear why the judge did not allow the demonstration in for this reason. Even if the defense had been able to duplicate the conditions the above fundamental problem would still be there. No appeal issue here.

Yes, it is very clear. In fact, too clear for some.;)
Wonder why these type of posts are never addressed?:beer:

[ekg]

ekg, actually the content of your post 2899, imo, has little to do with the appeals.


I disagree.... I think the tapes are totally an appeals issue...
and I listed the reason why I thought so..

so which content are you referring to

[ekg]

I can't find where paula said Laci would be dead for the holidays.

she said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ekg
when did he say Laci would be dead for the holidays?

Two weeks before Laci disappeared, Scott told Amber (and Shawn Sibley) that he'd lost his wife and the upcoming holidays (Christmas) would be his first without her.

But you already knew that!

Hi Ekg!



As for the appeals, the fact he said he had "lost" his wife AND he admitted saying it in the tapes would seal his state of mind and would NOT help the appeal.

I never said HP said that...

my post was to Mysteri

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8918557&postcount=2872


http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8918989&postcount=2901




then HP replied to me..

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8918998&postcount=2906


so I answered her..

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8919020&postcount=2912

HTH......:patriot:

[adnoid]

AW, My post really wasn't in reference to your post.
I think the folks it was meant for understand the meaning.;)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v468/adnoid/Animated/show_the_love-2.gif

[enlightenme]

You seem to be splitting hairs over the words Amber used during her questioning SLP about his now obvious...by his admission...lies to her. SLP may not have used the word missing to Shawn & Amber...but he did use it to Sharon and one of Laci's friends on the 24th. I've seen a poster.....could have been you but I'm not sure....say that they...at least Sharon...probably has it wrong and Scott didn't use the word "missing" to her. I don't believe Sharon is wrong, nor Laci's friend who testified in court. Too bad we don't have tapes of those conversations. We are blessed to have recordings of conversations between SLP and Amber. If we didn't......well she's being accused of being a manipulative liar and we do have them!

BTW, I was under the impression that these calls were recorded from Amber's house. Not that it matters.

IIRC, Amber didn't have a land line, only a cell phone. LE bought some equipment at Radio Shack that could be used with a cell phone to record. They may have still have been using that on Amber's cell phone at the police station or some other equipment.

[cookiewench]

Isn't it funny how so many people suffered from temporary hearing problems when they were around Scott...........the two neighbors, Amber, Sharon, etc.?

Funny.....I saw his interviews on TV and he's not a mumbler.

[ekg]

huh.....

I just saw this....

since it hangs on the appeals..... and this is the 'appeals' thread... I figured this is where it should go...

If wrong, I apologize..


http://www.fresnobee.com/263/story/57640.html

Peterson insurance could be in limbo
Court seems inclined to hold up release of funds until the appeals process is finished.

Insurance policy proceeds awarded to the mother of Laci Peterson -- who was murdered by her husband, Scott Peterson -- could be in jeopardy based on questions Tuesday by a Fresno-based appellate court.

A three-judge panel of the 5th District Court of Appeal in Fresno made no decision but seemed to agree with arguments that Laci Peterson's mother, Sharon Rocha, should not receive the insurance proceeds while the case is on appeal.

A jury convicted Scott Peterson of killing his pregnant wife, Laci Peterson, in Modesto just before Christmas in 2002.

In 2004, he was sentenced to death.

In late 2005, Rocha was awarded the proceeds of a $250,000 life insurance policy by Stanislaus County Superior Court Judge Roger Beauchesne.

Scott and Laci Peterson took out life insurance policies in June 2001.

Attorneys for Scott Peterson appealed, saying any verdict on the murder is not final because appeals are pending.

During Tuesday's hearing, Peterson's attorney Pat Harris argued that Rocha should not receive the insurance proceeds while the case is on appeal, and he objected that Modesto attorney Adam Stewart submitted a copy of the jury's judgment to the Superior Court as proof of Scott Peterson's guilt.

"A trial is one step toward a final judgment, but it is not the last step," Harris argued to the three justices, who appeared to agree.

"This is not a final judgment," James Ardaiz, the 5th District's presiding justice, told Stewart, who was interrupted repeatedly by the justices, the first time not long into his presentation. "There's no question about it."

Stewart argued that it could take 20 years or more for Peterson to exhaust his appeals, which would keep the estate -- and the insurance proceeds -- in limbo.

Harris, whose time before the justices went smoothly, said he estimates the appeal of the verdict to take four to six years.

Justices were also skeptical that submitting the jury's verdict as proof of Peterson's guilt carried weight as evidence.

"I cannot think how a judgment that is not final has evidentiary value," Ardaiz said.

Rocha declined to comment, but she and longtime companion Ron Grantski were clearly unhappy with the tone of the hearing. Afterward, Grantski yelled at Scott Peterson's attorney that Peterson is "not getting out," a reference to the possibility that if Peterson won the appeal on the verdict, the conviction could be overturned and he could then seek to collect on the insurance settlement.
The reporter can be reached at jellis@fresnobee.com or (559) 441-6320.


I think its fair.. besides the loss of his family, he's also lost his house and all of his and Laci's things.... stuff that he can never get back or replace..... even if tomorrow Brochinni proclaims him innocent of all charges and convictions and JD agrees, Scott would never get this stuff back...

so I think waiting for the appeals process to be over is fair....

Harris said the "the appeal of the verdict to take four to six years." I wonder if he meant 4-6 yrs from now.. or from when Scott was convicted...

anyway....I am shocked that the "three-judge panel of the 5th District Court of Appeal in Fresno" even seemed to agree with Harris on this..... it makes me feel a little more positive about his chance of an appeal thats for sure....

[attorneywan2be]

You seem to be splitting hairs over the words Amber used during her questioning SLP about his now obvious...by his admission...lies to her. SLP may not have used the word missing to Shawn & Amber...but he did use it to Sharon and one of Laci's friends on the 24th. I've seen a poster.....could have been you but I'm not sure....say that they...at least Sharon...probably has it wrong and Scott didn't use the word "missing" to her. I don't believe Sharon is wrong, nor Laci's friend who testified in court. Too bad we don't have tapes of those conversations. We are blessed to have recordings of conversations between SLP and Amber. If we didn't......well she's being accused of being a manipulative liar and we do have them!

BTW, I was under the impression that these calls were recorded from Amber's house. Not that it matters.

Amber was in the police station..and officers were giving her questions to ask Scott..I still think that it would be an appeal issue..IMO, it's deception, he thought he was talking to a friend, in reality, Amber was a police agent..they were trying to go around talking to him in the presence of his attorney..

As to who said that Sharon was wrong about Scott using the word "missing"..I think you are probably thinking of that part of the trial where Geragos was asking Grogan about the issue surrounding the use of the word "missing" by Scott vs. Sharon..

BTW, which one of Laci's friend testified that Scott told her that Laci was missing?

[attorneywan2be]

Snip

I think its fair.. besides the loss of his family, he's also lost his house and all of his and Laci's things.... stuff that he can never get back or replace..... even if tomorrow Brochinni proclaims him innocent of all charges and convictions and JD agrees, Scott would never get this stuff back...

so I think waiting for the appeals process to be over is fair....

Harris said the "the appeal of the verdict to take four to six years." I wonder if he meant 4-6 yrs from now.. or from when Scott was convicted...

anyway....I am shocked that the "three-judge panel of the 5th District Court of Appeal in Fresno" even seemed to agree with Harris on this..... it makes me feel a little more positive about his chance of an appeal thats for sure....

I hope the appellate court would decide to wait until the appeal is over...IMO, it would be totally unfair to release the insurance money BEFORE the final resolution...!

[Lavindar]

You seem to be splitting hairs over the words Amber used during her questioning SLP about his now obvious...by his admission...lies to her. SLP may not have used the word missing to Shawn & Amber...but he did use it to Sharon and one of Laci's friends on the 24th. I've seen a poster.....could have been you but I'm not sure....say that they...at least Sharon...probably has it wrong and Scott didn't use the word "missing" to her. I don't believe Sharon is wrong, nor Laci's friend who testified in court. Too bad we don't have tapes of those conversations. We are blessed to have recordings of conversations between SLP and Amber. If we didn't......well she's being accused of being a manipulative liar and we do have them!

BTW, I was under the impression that these calls were recorded from Amber's house. Not that it matters.
The majority were.

[TopGunner]

huh.....

I just saw this....

since it hangs on the appeals..... and this is the 'appeals' thread... I figured this is where it should go...

If wrong, I apologize..




I think its fair.. besides the loss of his family, he's also lost his house and all of his and Laci's things.... stuff that he can never get back or replace..... even if tomorrow Brochinni proclaims him innocent of all charges and convictions and JD agrees, Scott would never get this stuff back...

so I think waiting for the appeals process to be over is fair....

Harris said the "the appeal of the verdict to take four to six years." I wonder if he meant 4-6 yrs from now.. or from when Scott was convicted...

anyway....I am shocked that the "three-judge panel of the 5th District Court of Appeal in Fresno" even seemed to agree with Harris on this..... it makes me feel a little more positive about his chance of an appeal thats for sure....

I couldn't disagree more. ISP was convicted, found guility, he did it, he's on death row. The fact that death sentences automatically qualify for appeals doesn't, for a NY minute, mean he's up for appeals because he personally deserves it. It's part of the process, and just like all the other guilty murderers who remain on death row after their appeals are exhausted, so will ISP. He should have thought it out more carefully, shoulda had his alibi straight, kept his mouth shut, listened to his attny who advised him to stop talking with his lover. He should have cleaned up the cement mess he made, got the time he left the house right, he shoulda have PRETENDED he missed his wife, should have PRETENDED to care that others were distraught. Most importantly, he never should have told anyone he was hoping for infertility.

There isn't a jury on earth that would find him innocent. Parents aren't allowed to sit on their sons jury and the three NG's here are 9 short.

He'll never walk. Thank God.

[Lavindar]

yes...... I believe Amie suffered from faulty hearing... and Lavindar believes she suffered from faulty sight.......... LOL we've mangled the poor ppl in the case...:biggrin:


Let's add Ted Rowlands and Chuck Smithto the mix of people with poor hearing:

from Larry King Live:

TED ROWLANDS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, you know, this was something that when it came out, it was confusing to a lot of people. And I know the Rocha family was upset when Scott said publicly that the due date was different than the 10th, saying it was the 16th. He said that they had this later appointment on the 23rd and the doctor basically changed it. Now to find out that it was Amber's birthday, too, has this weird significance, I guess, in terms of well, Amber sure thinks it does. And that comes across in this tape.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/16/lkl.01.html

Remember the testimony where Dr. Tow-der said she did NOT change the due date?


CHUCK SMITH, FMR. SAN MATEO COUNTY PROSECUTOR: No, I disagree with Michael on that point. The importance of the testimony about what he did and whether he slept with his wife in the same bed on the evening of the 23rd, he could have easily said, hey, look, she's eight months pregnant, I wanted to let her have all the room. He didn't. Instead he suggested to Amber that there's a reason he's not sleeping with his wife. And he's deliberately distancing himself from his wife.

He does the same thing regarding his child. He never talks about it as my son, my child, our child. It's always her child or the child. And then later on today, even regarding the house, he says to Amber, oh, I'm at the house where she was abducted from. Not our house. He is deliberately distancing himself. And if I play amateur psychologist a little bit, I look at this and I say, here's a man who knows he's done something terribly wrong, and he can't come to grips with it even himself. So he's trying to really put himself outside it as if it's not him.

[Miss Bootsie]

I disagree.... I think the tapes are totally an appeals issue...
and I listed the reason why I thought so..

so which content are you referring to

ekg, no offense, but we seem to have a problem here on this forum in that certain posts for some reason are never addressed. I believe this problem has been mentioned before.

i.e. Reference to recent posts
Adnoid's post # 2927
Do you agree or disagree with post 2927? Why do you agree or disagree?

My posts # 2848 - 2855 - 2889 -2898

Do you agree or disagree with my posts? Why do you agree or disagree?

You are totally within your rights to ignore the posts if you choose to, but I'm curious why posts that are a little more indepth are never addressed.:shrug:

[TopGunner]

With or without the tapes, there remained overwhelming evidence that supports the verdict.
With or without prejudice, there remained evidence that supports the verdict.


You're right, the tapes did not prove murder....... in fact the tapes did not prove a crime at all.
I believe it is rather silly to suggest they did or to suggest they didn't.:confused:

The SII's are the people making the most out of the tapes.
The Jurors certainly didn't. They may not like or approve of what they heard, but their focus was on the remaining overwhelming evidence. imo


Every single juror interviewed and in their book "We The Jury" said they would have convicted ISP without ever hearing the tapes.

[attorneywan2be]

Yes, it is very clear. In fact, too clear for some.;)
Wonder why these type of posts are never addressed?:beer:


Let me address it...lol

IMO, the appeal will be about the judge denying the defense's experiment while allowing the prosecution's demonstration which did NOT replicate the event in question....1-they used a living person to demonstrate that Laci's dead body could have been placed in the toolbox and the boat..2-their theory was based on the concept that Scott attached 5 anchors to her body..that demonstration did NOT take that into account...! It will definitely be an appeal issue, in fact, Geragos said that to the judge..!

[TopGunner]

Let me address it...lol

IMO, the appeal will be about the judge denying the defense's experiment while allowing the prosecution's demonstration which did NOT replicate the event in question....1-they used a living person to demonstrate that Laci's dead body could have been placed in the toolbox and the boat..2-their theory was based on the concept that Scott attached 5 anchors to her body..that demonstration did NOT take that into account...! It will definitely be an appeal issue, in fact, Geragos said that to the judge..!

Geragos made a lot of idiotic statements, no credibility there!

It won't be used as an appeal issue, and if it is - no way will it be successful. It didn't influence the verdit one wit.

[cookiewench]

I hope the appellate court would decide to wait until the appeal is over...IMO, it would be totally unfair to release the insurance money BEFORE the final resolution...!

It would only be unfair if every other murder victim's family has to wait through their murderer's appeals before they can collect the insurance.

I don't believe that any of them do, and when Sharon wins her Wrongful Death suit against Scott, he'll never see another penny from anything for the rest of his life.

[TopGunner]

It would only be unfair if every other murder victim's family has to wait through their murderer's appeals before they can collect the insurance.

I don't believe that any of them do, and when Sharon wins her Wrongful Death suit against Scott, he'll never see another penny from anything for the rest of his life.

ITA 100%!!! :beer:

[attorneywan2be]

It would only be unfair if every other murder victim's family has to wait through their murderer's appeals before they can collect the insurance.

I don't believe that any of them do, and when Sharon wins her Wrongful Death suit against Scott, he'll never see another penny from anything for the rest of his life.


Since I believe he's 100% innocent..IMO, once exonerated, he will be able to keep all his properties.. and hopefully he would be able to get back every penny he lost because of this wrongful conviction..!

[enlightenme]

Amber was in the police station..and officers were giving her questions to ask Scott..I still think that it would be an appeal issue..IMO, it's deception, he thought he was talking to a friend, in reality, Amber was a police agent..they were trying to go around talking to him in the presence of his attorney..

As to who said that Sharon was wrong about Scott using the word "missing"..I think you are probably thinking of that part of the trial where Geragos was asking Grogan about the issue surrounding the use of the word "missing" by Scott vs. Sharon..

BTW, which one of Laci's friend testified that Scott told her that Laci was missing?

I thought you gave this up as an appellate issue? If Judge D. did not see this as an appeal issue and MG never brought it up in his motion for a new trial, what makes you think it's an appeal issue? Do you have any case law to back it up, I guess is my question?

[Lavindar]

Let me address it...lol

IMO, the appeal will be about the judge denying the defense's experiment while allowing the prosecution's demonstration which did NOT replicate the event in question....1-they used a living person to demonstrate that Laci's dead body could have been placed in the toolbox and the boat..2-their theory was based on the concept that Scott attached 5 anchors to her body..that demonstration did NOT take that into account...! It will definitely be an appeal issue, in fact, Geragos said that to the judge..!

You are mis-stating. They used a living PREGNANT person, close to the size of Laci to prove that someone COULD have fit into the toolbox and the boat. They NEVER said that is how Scott did it.

Geragos attempting to use a DIFFERENT boat with a 150 lb dummy in waters that were not the same as the Bay on that day in weather that was not the same as the day - and had the guy (who was or was not scott's size?) STANDING up, throwing a dummy overboard. They are saying that Scott would have had to do it this way. Could not Scott have been sitting and rolled the body off the front. Geragos's lawyer who was supposed to be scott was TRYING to capsize the boat. You have to duplicate the conditions if you do an experiement. Geragos did NOT in any way shape or form.

[Lavindar]

I thought you gave this up as an appellate issue? If Judge D. did not see this as an appeal issue and MG never brought it up in his motion for a new trial, what makes you think it's an appeal issue? Do you have any case law to back it up, I guess is my question?

There is no legal issue with this at all.

[accordn2me]

Amber was in the police station..and officers were giving her questions to ask Scott..I still think that it would be an appeal issue..IMO, it's deception, he thought he was talking to a friend, in reality, Amber was a police agent..they were trying to go around talking to him in the presence of his attorney..

As to who said that Sharon was wrong about Scott using the word "missing"..I think you are probably thinking of that part of the trial where Geragos was asking Grogan about the issue surrounding the use of the word "missing" by Scott vs. Sharon..

BTW, which one of Laci's friend testified that Scott told her that Laci was missing?
Amber has the right to record her phone conversations...from her home or the police station. Why would that be an appeal issue for Scott?

As to who said that Sharon was wrong about Scott using the word "missing" I think it was a poster on this board...maybe they used this point to back up why they believed she was wrong.

Which one of Laci's friends did Scott call first when Sharon had to tell him to check with her friends? That one. Stacey, I think...but maybe Renee' or Lori.

[TopGunner]

Since I believe he's 100% innocent..IMO, once exonerated, he will be able to keep all his properties.. and hopefully he would be able to get back every penny he lost because of this wrongful conviction..!

Your opinion won't carry any weight in the appeals process, and since he's stone cold guilty, he won't be able to keep so much as a shoelace. Nor does he DESERVE it.

[Lavindar]

It would only be unfair if every other murder victim's family has to wait through their murderer's appeals before they can collect the insurance.

I don't believe that any of them do, and when Sharon wins her Wrongful Death suit against Scott, he'll never see another penny from anything for the rest of his life.


I don't recall this ever happening in history and I don't think it will happen now.

[Lavindar]

Thanks, I do not need you to explain to me what Amber was saying..LOL

The bottom line is, he didn't say the word "Missing" after Shawn's confrontation....as I said, he denied it and she didn't testify to it...IMO, she was lying to get him to admit he used the word "missing"....that was the day she was sitting in the police station and officers were passing notes and suggestions to her as she was talking to Scott...I bet that statement was a note given to her by one of the officers...IMO, they wanted so bad for Scott to admit that he used the word missing 2 weeks before Laci went missing...

Mark Geragos: Play B9. This has also been played. January 6th.
<recording played>
Mark Geragos: Now, the, at that point, you still are being, you are in the same room with the officers, correct?
Amber Frey: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And they are giving you suggestions, telling you to ask every different way to get him to say something incriminating, correct?
Amber Frey: At times. I wouldn't say every time.

Can ANYONE tell me what transcript and date this statement came from?:

FREY: But isn’t that ironic how Scott when I first met you on our date how you told me you were going to Maine with your family and you were going to Paris and Europe and all these things. And then you came to me after Shawn had found out that you were married and you came and told me this elaborate lie about her missing and this tragedy and that…
PETERSON: No.

[attorneywan2be]

You are mis-stating. They used a living PREGNANT person, close to the size of Laci to prove that someone COULD have fit into the toolbox and the boat. They NEVER said that is how Scott did it.

Geragos attempting to use a DIFFERENT boat with a 150 lb dummy in waters that were not the same as the Bay on that day in weather that was not the same as the day - and had the guy (who was or was not scott's size?) STANDING up, throwing a dummy overboard. They are saying that Scott would have had to do it this way. Could not Scott have been sitting and rolled the body off the front. Geragos's lawyer who was supposed to be scott was TRYING to capsize the boat. You have to duplicate the conditions if you do an experiement. Geragos did NOT in any way shape or form.

I was pointing out the difference between the demonstration of the prosecution and the event in question as per their theory..both were pregnant..no difference there.. the point I was making is that we've got a living person vs. the body of a dead person..how would that replicate the conditions of the event..

They NEVER said that is how Scott did it..?? LOL

ok..please tell me what point were they making when they placed a pregnant woman the size of Laci in Scott's toolbox and in Scott's boat??

[accordn2me]

Every single juror interviewed and in their book "We The Jury" said they would have convicted ISP without ever hearing the tapes.These 4 things, in my humble opinion, are what leaves no reasonable doubt about SLP being the murderer:

1. The prediction - not on the tapes but in testimony from Shawn & Amber

2. Research of fishing/dumping locations - including the location selected

3. Purchase of a boat with a depth sounder

4. Location of the bodies

No matter if Scott would have done all those things you suggested earlier, TG, cried his eyes out, fessed up about the affair & broken it off w/ Amber, pretended to be grief stricken, begged for Laci's return...even taken a polygraph.....NOTHING can change those 4 things! They scream GUILTY.

[TopGunner]

I don't recall this ever happening in history and I don't think it will happen now.

Hey Lavindar, good to see you!

I was actually speaking with someone very well versed (experienced) in the law the other day. (That's what I love about my work, I meet people from all walks of life). He said, due to the monies involved, the notoriety (publicity), and all that, there will be a whole lot a debate, promises, threats, and the like going on. Many will make a name for themselves, many will fall away and never be heard from again...but in the end, ISP will stay on DR. He'll never walk, there's no chance. This is a guy who could really care less btw.

Reminds me of an FBI agent I met a few years ago. He said what the public didn't know, and of course will never know, is that there were so many experts involved in this case ACROSS THE COUNTRY. From the kind that read body language to voice interpretation and a multitude of other things I can't recall - and they all said GUILTY. All of 'em.:patriot:

[enlightenme]

It would only be unfair if every other murder victim's family has to wait through their murderer's appeals before they can collect the insurance.

I don't believe that any of them do, and when Sharon wins her Wrongful Death suit against Scott, he'll never see another penny from anything for the rest of his life.

It can take over 20 years for all appeals to be exhausted and there's no guaranty that any of them will be successful. I think it would be very wrong for courts to decide to wait for all appeals before deciding the victim's family is given the money from insurance. It's like victimizing the family again.

[Miss Bootsie]

Let me address it...lol

IMO, the appeal will be about the judge denying the defense's experiment while allowing the prosecution's demonstration which did NOT replicate the event in question....1-they used a living person to demonstrate that Laci's dead body could have been placed in the toolbox and the boat..2-their theory was based on the concept that Scott attached 5 anchors to her body..that demonstration did NOT take that into account...! It will definitely be an appeal issue, in fact, Geragos said that to the judge..!




AW, you should address your reply to Adnoid, not me.

However, imo, you are not really addressing his post properly.
You are again giving your opinion of what you think the appeal will be based on.

[TopGunner]

Can ANYONE tell me what transcript and date this statement came from?:

FREY: But isn’t that ironic how Scott when I first met you on our date how you told me you were going to Maine with your family and you were going to Paris and Europe and all these things. And then you came to me after Shawn had found out that you were married and you came and told me this elaborate lie about her missing and this tragedy and that…
PETERSON: No.

Lavindar, I'd like to know too - I sure don't remember it that way.:seeya:

[cookiewench]

Why in the world would anyone think that body and cement weights would be tossed over at the same time?

The weights would be attached by ropes or wire.

I don't even have to put any thought into it to know that the best way to do it would be to either push the body over first and then roll the weights over the side, or vice versa.


There is no other reasonable scenario.

[attorneywan2be]

Your opinion won't carry any weight in the appeals process, and since he's stone cold guilty, he won't be able to keep so much as a shoelace. Nor does he DESERVE it.

Likewise..your opinion won't carry any weight in the appeal process..with that said, IMO, by reading cases where the convictions were reversed, I can predict with certainty that he will win his appeal..

[accordn2me]

Likewise..your opinion won't carry any weight in the appeal process..with that said, IMO, by reading cases where the convictions were reversed, I can predict with certainty that he will win his appeal..In any event, if you are correct....Scott wins an appeal....surely he will be retried....and these 4 things will convict him:

1. The prediction - not on the tapes but in testimony from Shawn & Amber

2. Research of fishing/dumping locations - including the location selected

3. Purchase of a boat with a depth sounder

4. Location of the bodies

Just like the first time.

[Miss Bootsie]

Likewise..your opinion won't carry any weight in the appeal process..with that said, IMO, by reading cases where the convictions were reversed, I can predict with certainty that he will win his appeal..

Really??? Why don't you cite a few of those cases that have similar circumstances.

[TopGunner]

Likewise..your opinion won't carry any weight in the appeal process..with that said, IMO, by reading cases where the convictions were reversed, I can predict with certainty that he will win his appeal..


You might want to polish your crystal ball. There are far more (thousands) similar cases that weren't over-turned than were, and I think the fact that he was already convicted of 1st and 2nd degree murder favors MY opinion.

[attorneywan2be]

Can ANYONE tell me what transcript and date this statement came from?:

FREY: But isn’t that ironic how Scott when I first met you on our date how you told me you were going to Maine with your family and you were going to Paris and Europe and all these things. And then you came to me after Shawn had found out that you were married and you came and told me this elaborate lie about her missing and this tragedy and that…
PETERSON: No.


It is hard to believe..isn't it?

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/docs/wiretap0106d.html?page=10

[Miss Bootsie]

You might want to polish your crystal ball. There are far more (thousands) similar cases that weren't over-turned than were, and I think the fact that he was already convicted of 1st and 2nd degree murder favors MY opinion.



You are right TG. Very few are over-turned.
The fact he has already been convicted does indeed favor your opinion.
The Appeal courts favor the trial courts ruling, and make every exception they can for the Jury.:seeya:

[Lavindar]

Amber was in the police station..and officers were giving her questions to ask Scott..I still think that it would be an appeal issue..IMO, it's deception, he thought he was talking to a friend, in reality, Amber was a police agent..they were trying to go around talking to him in the presence of his attorney..

As to who said that Sharon was wrong about Scott using the word "missing"..I think you are probably thinking of that part of the trial where Geragos was asking Grogan about the issue surrounding the use of the word "missing" by Scott vs. Sharon..

BTW, which one of Laci's friend testified that Scott told her that Laci was missing?


130) Mark Geragos: Okay. And during that lengthy phone call, they are passing you notes constantly throughout, aren't they?
131) Amber Frey: From time-to-time. They could only hear what I was saying. They didn't know what Scott was saying unless I rephrased or repeated what he said. It would give them some indication. But other than that


326) Mark Geragos: Now, in that same conversation, you kept asking him, or when I say you kept asking him, you, they are slipping you suggestions at points. It's not necessarily you, as you being the voice for them, correct?
327) Amber Frey: At times.


NOWHERE DOES SHE SAY THEY WERE FEEDING HER CONSTANT THINGS TO SAY - In fact, they could not hear Scott's side of the conversation unless Amber repeated it, which she did not constantly do.

[enlightenme]

Likewise..your opinion won't carry any weight in the appeal process..with that said, IMO, by reading cases where the convictions were reversed, I can predict with certainty that he will win his appeal..


Which one? The first? The second? The State Supreme court? The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals?

I predict he will not win any appeal, since we're predicting here.

JMO

[Lavindar]

107) Stacey Boyers: Scott had called me December 24th at, I think it was 5:29, I've got my phone record, and asked me if I had seen Laci or talked to her today. I said no, I hadn't. And he asked me to call a few of the girlfriends and see if they had been with her. And that she was missing. And he got off the phone really abruptly, so I called a few of the girlfriends and called him back.

[attorneywan2be]

In any event, if you are correct....Scott wins an appeal....surely he will be retried....and these 4 things will convict him:

1. The prediction - not on the tapes but in testimony from Shawn & Amber

2. Research of fishing/dumping locations - including the location selected

3. Purchase of a boat with a depth sounder

4. Location of the bodies

Just like the first time.

I beg to differ..the evidence you cited doesn't indicate that a murder was committed....

IMO:

1-whatever he told Amber and Shawn about losing his wife doesn't mean that was a prediction since it is a line used by cheaters..for example, Amber testified that her previous boyfriend told her that he had lost his wife as well...

2- He researched the internet looking for different type of fish..looking for fish regulations..reading fishing reports about the bay area..he didn't search for a keyword :"Tides or currents...the totality of that particular evidence points to someone searching for fishing information..

3-The fact that he bought a boat with fishfinder indicates he was preparing to go fishing, after all, the previous owner had the fishfinder in there...so it is a piece of equipment fishermen use..

4-As to the location of the bodies..IMO, the prosecution didn't prove the bodies washed ashore, in the next trial I predict the defense will be much better prepared, they will call the experts that would totally refute that piece of evidence...I think they will be able to prove BARD that the bodies were planted..mark my word..

[Lavindar]

Amber has the right to record her phone conversations...from her home or the police station. Why would that be an appeal issue for Scott?

As to who said that Sharon was wrong about Scott using the word "missing" I think it was a poster on this board...maybe they used this point to back up why they believed she was wrong.

Which one of Laci's friends did Scott call first when Sharon had to tell him to check with her friends? That one. Stacey, I think...but maybe Renee' or Lori.

It was STacey and I posted the testimony

[Lavindar]

yes...... I believe Amie suffered from faulty hearing... and Lavindar believes she suffered from faulty sight.......... LOL we've mangled the poor ppl in the case...:biggrin:

When did I EVER say that?

[Lavindar]

huh.....

I just saw this....

since it hangs on the appeals..... and this is the 'appeals' thread... I figured this is where it should go...

If wrong, I apologize..




I think its fair.. besides the loss of his family, he's also lost his house and all of his and Laci's things.... stuff that he can never get back or replace..... even if tomorrow Brochinni proclaims him innocent of all charges and convictions and JD agrees, Scott would never get this stuff back...

so I think waiting for the appeals process to be over is fair....

Harris said the "the appeal of the verdict to take four to six years." I wonder if he meant 4-6 yrs from now.. or from when Scott was convicted...

anyway....I am shocked that the "three-judge panel of the 5th District Court of Appeal in Fresno" even seemed to agree with Harris on this..... it makes me feel a little more positive about his chance of an appeal thats for sure....

Where is their decision? I have heard of no decision from them. Link to their decision against Sharon getting the life insurance.

Scott did not lose everything. His mother and brother took a MOVIE VAN of furniture and stuff from the house. I am assuming they will not sell it and keep it for him.

[attorneywan2be]

130) Mark Geragos: Okay. And during that lengthy phone call, they are passing you notes constantly throughout, aren't they?
131) Amber Frey: From time-to-time. They could only hear what I was saying. They didn't know what Scott was saying unless I rephrased or repeated what he said. It would give them some indication. But other than that


326) Mark Geragos: Now, in that same conversation, you kept asking him, or when I say you kept asking him, you, they are slipping you suggestions at points. It's not necessarily you, as you being the voice for them, correct?
327) Amber Frey: At times.


NOWHERE DOES SHE SAY THEY WERE FEEDING HER CONSTANT THINGS TO SAY - In fact, they could not hear Scott's side of the conversation unless Amber repeated it, which she did not constantly do.

Are you now changing the argument..? LOL ;)

Where did I say they were feeding her constant things to say..the point was and remains to be that she was in the police station and the officers were passing her notes and suggestions...and she did tell Scott that he told her after Shawn's confrontation that his wife was missing and it is a tragedy..etc..which he strongly denied..

[accordn2me]

It was STacey and I posted the testimony
Thank you! You always come through for me. :rose:

[accordn2me]

It is hard to believe..isn't it?

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/docs/wiretap0106d.html?page=10
What's hard to believe? On this very page, Scott said, "I said I lost my wife."

Did you :read: it? :shrug:

[Lavindar]

Lavindar, I'd like to know too - I sure don't remember it that way.:seeya:I would be willing to believe it if the original poster, would post a date or a link to the alleged conversation. However, I guess the rules about posting a link do not apply to AW2B

[Lavindar]

What's hard to believe? On this very page, Scott said, "I said I lost my wife."

Did you :read: it? :shrug:

Thank you.

[Otter]

I beg to differ..the evidence you cited doesn't indicate that a murder was committed....

IMO:

~Snipped~

4-As to the location of the bodies..IMO, the prosecution didn't prove the bodies washed ashore, in the next trial I predict the defense will be much better prepared, they will call the experts that would totally refute that piece of evidence...I think they will be able to prove BARD that the bodies were planted..mark my word..

Why would you believe the defense, in the scant chance there would be a retrial, be better prepared? If a $1 million defense couldn't disprove the hydrologist why would think a public defender could do any better?

Do you really think if, and its a HUMONGOUS if, there's a new trial that there would be money to actually hire a private attorney? And if not, would you think that one would be beating down the door to do it pro bono? And experts? No bankroll for that either, the state isn't an ATM machine.

Hope is a wonderful thing, but its so hard to face the disappointment when our hope is all but impossible to come to fruition.

MOO of course.

[attorneywan2be]

What's hard to believe? On this very page, Scott said, "I said I lost my wife."

Did you :read: it? :shrug:


"I said I lost my wife"---> WAS NOT the point of the discussion..the point of the discussion was Amber's statement that Scott told her after Shawn's confrontation that his wife was missing and it is a tragedy...and Lavinder wanted to verify that particular part..I provided the link..the argument changed to "I lost my wife" statement...LOL

[accordn2me]

I beg to differ..the evidence you cited doesn't indicate that a murder was committed....It does.

IMO:

1-whatever he told Amber and Shawn about losing his wife doesn't mean that was a prediction since it is a line used by cheaters..for example, Amber testified that her previous boyfriend told her that he had lost his wife as well... Please cite this testimony. I have never seen where Amber said that. I "heard" that Amber was sort of involved with a married man who claimed his wife was dead, not "lost" but this man's wife was alive and well. SLP's prediction was just that...until he made it a reality which equals murder.

2- He researched the internet looking for different type of fish..looking for fish regulations..reading fishing reports about the bay area..he didn't search for a keyword :"Tides or currents...the totality of that particular evidence points to someone searching for fishing information..Different types of fish...to "shore up" his alibi - answer questions about where he was and what he was doing. Reports conveniently containing currents, tides, depth of water.....and locations of shipping channels. When someone's murdered wife turns up where they were...a LONG way from home.....the very day he reports her missing...the totality of that particular evidence points to someone searching for an appropriate dumping ground for her body..........especially in light of that ominious prediction made two weeks previous to the murder.

3-The fact that he bought a boat with fishfinder indicates he was preparing to go fishing, after all, the previous owner had the fishfinder in there...so it is a piece of equipment fishermen use..The previous owner used it for it's intended purpose. SLP used it, IMO, to locate the shipping channel to dump Laci's body.

4-As to the location of the bodies..IMO, the prosecution didn't prove the bodies washed ashore, in the next trial I predict the defense will be much better prepared, they will call the experts that would totally refute that piece of evidence...I think they will be able to prove BARD that the bodies were planted..mark my word.. OK. Until then, I'll just have to wonder why they didn't use the two experts they had...or anyone.....to refute the location of the bodies. :shrug:

[Otter]

I would be willing to believe it if the original poster, would post a date or a link to the alleged conversation. However, I guess the rules about posting a link do not apply to AW2B

Lav, I would appreciate that also. A date at least, so I could read beyond MG's spin and understand the entire context.

Links, or at the bare minimum a date should not have to be requested so as not to inconvenience the reader.

[Lavindar]

Why would you believe the defense, in the scant chance there would be a retrial, be better prepared? If a $1 million defense couldn't disprove the hydrologist why would think a public defender could do any better?

Do you really think if, and its a HUMONGOUS if, there's a new trial that there would be money to actually hire a private attorney? And if not, would you think that one would be beating down the door to do it pro bono? And experts? No bankroll for that either, the state isn't an ATM machine.

Hope is a wonderful thing, but its so hard to face the disappointment when our hope is all but impossible to come to fruition.

MOO of course.
I want to know the expert who will testify that what is left of Laci's body - acdipocere (which forms more quickly in water and her lack of soft tissue (eaten by marine life) would put his reputation on the line to say that she was NOT in a marine enviornment.

Also a mascerated Conner, whose skin was so delicate that it could pull apart was not in her body until shortly before being found.

Maybe there are more Dr. Marchs out there who need some slack who will testify but I seriously doubt that any CREDIBLE expert would testify. Conner's body showed NO evidence of being handled by human hands at all

[accordn2me]

"I said I lost my wife"---> WAS NOT the point of the discussion..the point of the discussion was Amber's statement that Scott told her after Shawn's confrontation that his wife was missing and it is a tragedy...and Lavinder wanted to verify that particular part..I provided the link..the argument changed to "I lost my wife" statement...LOLWell, it's like SLP said...."There are different kinds of loss....."

Amber used the appropriate one....the one SLP used with Sharon & Stacey.

And it was a tragedy...."too painful to talk about."

[Lavindar]

It does.

Please cite this testimony. I have never seen where Amber said that. I "heard" that Amber was sort of involved with a married man who claimed his wife was dead, not "lost" but this man's wife was alive and well. SLP's prediction was just that...until he made it a reality which equals murder.

Different types of fish...to "shore up" his alibi - answer questions about where he was and what he was doing. Reports conveniently containing currents, tides, depth of water.....and locations of shipping channels. When someone's murdered wife turns up where they were...a LONG way from home.....the very day he reports her missing...the totality of that particular evidence points to someone searching for an appropriate dumping ground for her body..........especially in light of that ominious prediction made two weeks previous to the murder.

The previous owner used it for it's intended purpose. SLP used it, IMO, to locate the shipping channel to dump Laci's body.

OK. Until then, I'll just have to wonder why they didn't use the two experts they had...or anyone.....to refute the location of the bodies. :shrug:

I talked to a life-long fisherman Friday night. The aluminum boat was a freshwater boat. Remember the pliers - and how rust they became after being exposed to salt water?

The same thing would happen to a freshwater engine. The salt water would ruin it. Scott really had little thought for that, didn't he? There is an adapter that would allow a freshwater engine to be used in salt water, but Scott did not have that. Bruce Peterson testified, I believe that it was used in freshwater only.

[attorneywan2be]

It does.

Please cite this testimony. I have never seen where Amber said that. I "heard" that Amber was sort of involved with a married man who claimed his wife was dead, not "lost" but this man's wife was alive and well. SLP's prediction was just that...until he made it a reality which equals murder.

Snip



She did say that her previous boyfriend Dave told her that he had lost his wife:

Quote

[Amber Frey: I had left him a message after learning the information about, that Kelly wasn't dead, and he later called me back, and I explained to him, I said Do you remember my friend Dave that I was telling you about, and about how he had lost his wife? And he said yes, and that I had ran into her, thinking that she was her twin sister, Shelly, and, and she, and she said Well, I'm sure he wished that I was, but no. And I was very shaken up by, by this whole situation that had happened, because he had told me three years prior, when I had ran into him at the Rib House, I had asked where Kelly was, and he said You, you didn't, you didn't hear? I said No, what? And he said Well, you know she had a heart condition, right? And I said Well, yeah. And he said she passed away last February, and, I didn't, I had never heard that, and so I was taken back a little bit by that. And I asked how he was, and he said that he was, you know, getting over it and it's been hard for him. And at that point I hadn't seen him for, I didn't really see him that often, and then I would, later on we became or established a friendship with each other, and he would often talk about, about Kelly and their relationship and, and the doctor bills that he was still paying, and had talked about..]

I have to run..I will address the rest of your post later..

[Otter]

I want to know the expert who will testify that what is left of Laci's body - acdipocere (which forms more quickly in water and her lack of soft tissue (eaten by marine life) would put his reputation on the line to say that she was NOT in a marine enviornment.

Also a mascerated Conner, whose skin was so delicate that it could pull apart was not in her body until shortly before being found.

Maybe there are more Dr. Marchs out there who need some slack who will testify but I seriously doubt that any CREDIBLE expert would testify. Conner's body showed NO evidence of being handled by human hands at all

I agree. I don't understand this planting theory in the simplest of terms. SP's advocates say its impossible for him to have dumped Laci's body in the Bay, or even transfer her there undetected. But they can easily grasp that a person unknown magically held her for months somewhere, rotting away and falling apart. But somehow magically transfer her and Conner to two separate locations, somehow magically unwrap their bindings holding them together (ugh, I'm creeping myself out, let alone you guys -- sorry), place the bodies and magically disappear from the scene.

Flesh doesn't stop rotting, or smelling. I'm so relieved I wasn't stopped at a light next to the person unknown during the transit.

Sorry again for a gross post, but I'm trying to follow the logic.

[Lavindar]

I agree. I don't understand this planting theory in the simplest of terms. SP's advocates say its impossible for him to have dumped Laci's body in the Bay, or even transfer her there undetected. But they can easily grasp that a person unknown magically held her for months somewhere, rotting away and falling apart. But somehow magically transfer her and Conner to two separate locations, somehow magically unwrap their bindings holding them together (ugh, I'm creeping myself out, let alone you guys -- sorry), place the bodies and magically disappear from the scene.

Flesh doesn't stop rotting, or smelling. I'm so relieved I wasn't stopped at a light next to the person unknown during the transit.

Sorry again for a gross post, but I'm trying to follow the logic.

Therein lies the problem. There IS no logic. Decomposing bodies smell. Often that is what leads people to them. Laci had no soft tissue left. What she had was adipocere which is rancid smelling, Yet no one ever claimed to smell anything