Lie Detector Test

[TopGunner]

I know, I know.....so obvious, but this is a formal invite for the NG's to explain why ISP would not take a lie detector test from the very beginning, and why he LIED and why his mother LIED on national TV about it. I've never heard a NG explain this one. Keep in mind, Amber, Brent and Amy all took one immediately. So did whats-her-name, Servas?

[cookiewench]

I know, I know.....so obvious, but this is a formal invite for the NG's to explain why ISP would not take a lie detector test from the very beginning, and why he LIED and why his mother LIED on national TV about it. I've never heard a NG explain this one. Keep in mind, Amber, Brent and Amy all took one immediately. So did whats-her-name, Servas?

Yep. He could have gotten his story straight, at least. He told the neighbor and his parents that he offered to take one but LE didn't want him to. He told Sharon that he was going to take it, I believe, and other people that his attorney had told him not to take it.

[accordn2me]

Didn't he go to take it but he saw Amber there...about to take or having already taken one...so he left?

[Cadillakin]

Yep. He could have gotten his story straight, at least. He told the neighbor and his parents that he offered to take one but LE didn't want him to. He told Sharon that he was going to take it, I believe, and other people that his attorney had told him not to take it.That's our Scott. Consistently inconsistent.

[Lavindar]

Didn't he go to take it but he saw Amber there...about to take or having already taken one...so he left? I believe Amber was supposed to go with him. He saw Broccchini in the area and did not go. I guess he needed Amber to hold his hand

[TopGunner]

Yep. He could have gotten his story straight, at least. He told the neighbor and his parents that he offered to take one but LE didn't want him to. He told Sharon that he was going to take it, I believe, and other people that his attorney had told him not to take it.

I thought he told someone that the LE said he was "to emotional" to take one, and another time he said "to much time has passed...". Hard to keep up with the boy, ain't it?

[One2Snoop]

I know, I know.....so obvious, but this is a formal invite for the NG's to explain why ISP would not take a lie detector test from the very beginning, and why he LIED and why his mother LIED on national TV about it. I've never heard a NG explain this one. Keep in mind, Amber, Brent and Amy all took one immediately. So did whats-her-name, Servas?

Why on earth would Karen Servas need to take a lie detector test? :confused:

[Cadillakin]

Why on earth would Karen Servas need to take a lie detector test? :confused:I doubt it occurred. Servas was never suspected of any crime, nor were there any suspicions she wasn't telling the truth... unless you are one of those pretending that Scott is innocent.

I believe Amber only took the test to alleviate the police concern that she might be complicit in the murder of Laci..

[cookiewench]

I believe Amber was supposed to go with him. He saw Broccchini in the area and did not go. I guess he needed Amber to hold his hand


Wasn't he supposed to meet Amber there that day? I never believe he intended to take that test. I thought it was just an opportunity for him (he hoped) to see Amber in person again, and then charm her away from the building for a tryst.

[Sturgeon_Moon]

Why on earth would Karen Servas need to take a lie detector test? :confused:
Did everyone believe her?

[Cadillakin]

Did everyone believe her?The police and prosecutors never doubted her.. Why should they? She wasn't a part of this tawdry mess. Only those who needed to discredit her to win an acquittal for Scott had reason to disbelieve her.. Servas unwittingly found herself in the line of fire..

[Lavindar]

Wasn't he supposed to meet Amber there that day? I never believe he intended to take that test. I thought it was just an opportunity for him (he hoped) to see Amber in person again, and then charm her away from the building for a tryst.
I think you are correct, cookie. I think he would have done anything to see Amber again. He much preferred the "skinny blonde" to the "fat brunette" which is very obvious

[Cadillakin]

I think you are correct, cookie. I think he would have done anything to see Amber again. He much preferred the "skinny blonde" to the "fat brunette" which is very obviousI like fat brunettes.:seeya:

[lilmiss1960]

You seem to forget that he was willing to take one in the beginning, Brocchini could have had it set up with in 30 minutes.
Later, Peterson was going to take one and Amber was suppose to go with him. She never showed up. Instead of Amber showing up, Brocchini showed up. Peterson had every right to cancel it after that. I would have canceled it if it had been me.
Det. B knew Peterson went there to take the LDT, so how about if you explaine why did he have to follow Peterson that? Why didn't he just wait until Peterson handed in the results? If Broccini had left Peterson alone, if he had waited, he would have gotten the results. If he didn't get it from Peterson, then all he had to do was get another warrant to get a copy of the results.
Face it, Brocchini screwed up.

[Cadillakin]

You seem to forget that he was willing to take one in the beginningSays who...

[cookiewench]

You seem to forget that he was willing to take one in the beginning, Brocchini could have had it set up with in 30 minutes.
Later, Peterson was going to take one and Amber was suppose to go with him. She never showed up. Instead of Amber showing up, Brocchini showed up. Peterson had every right to cancel it after that. I would have canceled it if it had been me.
Det. B knew Peterson went there to take the LDT, so how about if you explaine why did he have to follow Peterson that? Why didn't he just wait until Peterson handed in the results? If Broccini had left Peterson alone, if he had waited, he would have gotten the results. If he didn't get it from Peterson, then all he had to do was get another warrant to get a copy of the results.
Face it, Brocchini screwed up.

How do you know they could have set it up in 30 minutes?

We're not talking about legal "rights" here, we're talking about moral rights and guilt.

It shouldn't have mattered who showed up. If Scott wanted them to start looking in other directions, he should have taken one. There's only one real reason why he wouldn't - and that's because he knew he would fail.

Why should everyone have tippytoed around Scott, when all the other family members had taken the test immediately?

The test arranged with Amber was about a month after Laci's disappearance. What kind of man will refuse to take an LE lie detector test to help in the investigation of his wife's disappearance, but will promise to take one in order to get a piece of a**?

All that incident does is show how important Amber really was to him.

He wouldn't take the test for Laci, but he would take it for Amber.

[Cadillakin]

What kind of man will refuse to take an LE lie detector test to help in the investigation of his wife's disappearance, but will promise to take one in order to get a piece of a**?
A grand prize winner!!! Now, here's a poster that understands what Scott was really doing...

[Lavindar]

You seem to forget that he was willing to take one in the beginning, Brocchini could have had it set up with in 30 minutes.
Later, Peterson was going to take one and Amber was suppose to go with him. She never showed up. Instead of Amber showing up, Brocchini showed up. Peterson had every right to cancel it after that. I would have canceled it if it had been me.
Det. B knew Peterson went there to take the LDT, so how about if you explaine why did he have to follow Peterson that? Why didn't he just wait until Peterson handed in the results? If Broccini had left Peterson alone, if he had waited, he would have gotten the results. If he didn't get it from Peterson, then all he had to do was get another warrant to get a copy of the results.
Face it, Brocchini screwed up.


Where are your sources for all of these "facts"???

[cookiewench]

A grand prize winner!!! Now, here's a poster that understands what Scott was really doing...

What's almost as amazing as Scott's twisted behavior is how some people try to excuse it and rationalize it as normal.

[Riviera]

Just a reminder ---->

You Are Responsible For What You Post

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

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

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

[lilmiss1960]

How do you know they could have set it up in 30 minutes?

We're not talking about legal "rights" here, we're talking about moral rights and guilt.

It shouldn't have mattered who showed up. If Scott wanted them to start looking in other directions, he should have taken one. There's only one real reason why he wouldn't - and that's because he knew he would fail.

Why should everyone have tippytoed around Scott, when all the other family members had taken the test immediately?

The test arranged with Amber was about a month after Laci's disappearance. What kind of man will refuse to take an LE lie detector test to help in the investigation of his wife's disappearance, but will promise to take one in order to get a piece of a**?

All that incident does is show how important Amber really was to him.

He wouldn't take the test for Laci, but he would take it for Amber.

Just to show you it doesn't take that long to set it up, I shortened this up so it wouldn't be too long and just copied what I needed to prove my point:

When I called , the Dispatcher, David Lincoln informed me that I had been ordered by the Sheriff to return to the office right away. When I arrived at my office the Sheriff greeted me along with the Chief of Police from Auburn, NH. He said they were bringing in a guy named Ernest Therrien who agreed to submit to a polygraph test in connection with the missing Messina girl.

I headed right for my polygraph suite and set up for the test. Shortly thereafter I was introduced to Ernest Therrien. After completing a very lenghty pre-test interview which included his consent to be examined, the admonishment of his rights, and the development and review of his question list he was linked to my polygraph instrument.

http://www.polygraphplace.com/stories/criminal/messina.htm

[I'mSun]

Just to show you it doesn't take that long to set it up, I shortened this up so it wouldn't be too long and just copied what I needed to prove my point:

When I called , the Dispatcher, David Lincoln informed me that I had been ordered by the Sheriff to return to the office right away. When I arrived at my office the Sheriff greeted me along with the Chief of Police from Auburn, NH. He said they were bringing in a guy named Ernest Therrien who agreed to submit to a polygraph test in connection with the missing Messina girl.

I headed right for my polygraph suite and set up for the test. Shortly thereafter I was introduced to Ernest Therrien. After completing a very lenghty pre-test interview which included his consent to be examined, the admonishment of his rights, and the development and review of his question list he was linked to my polygraph instrument. http://www.polygraphplace.com/stories/criminal/messina.htmI don't see how this proves your point. What you referenced is from another state and does not take place on a major holiday. Do you know the difference in state laws regarding administering polygraph tests?

[I'mSun]

What's almost as amazing as Scott's twisted behavior is how some people try to excuse it and rationalize it as normal.ITA, I guess it just depends on your frame of reference. ;)

[TopGunner]

You seem to forget that he was willing to take one in the beginning, Brocchini could have had it set up with in 30 minutes.
Later, Peterson was going to take one and Amber was suppose to go with him. She never showed up. Instead of Amber showing up, Brocchini showed up. Peterson had every right to cancel it after that. I would have canceled it if it had been me.
Det. B knew Peterson went there to take the LDT, so how about if you explaine why did he have to follow Peterson that? Why didn't he just wait until Peterson handed in the results? If Broccini had left Peterson alone, if he had waited, he would have gotten the results. If he didn't get it from Peterson, then all he had to do was get another warrant to get a copy of the results.
Face it, Brocchini screwed up.

Hey lilmiss, you got a link to show Califorina Law's time limit to take a lie detector test "or else"?

I'd also LOVE to know why you think it was an intelligent move on ISP part to refuse to take one because Brochinni didn't produce in 30 minutes.

I feel pretty confident that 99.9% of the human population would take one, in any time frame...IF they were innocent, because it would keep them off death row. But then, I can see where one's pride might get in the way...

:tongue:

[Luke Davis]

Hey lilmiss, you got a link to show Califorina Law's time limit to take a lie detector test "or else"?

I'd also LOVE to know why you think it was an intelligent move on ISP part to refuse to take one because Brochinni didn't produce in 30 minutes.

I feel pretty confident that 99.9% of the human population would take one, in any time frame...IF they were innocent, because it would keep them off death row. But then, I can see where one's pride might get in the way...

:tongue:

I feel pretty confident that nowhere near 99.9% of the human population would take one.

[Luke Davis]

Immediate Appointments »
We schedule lie detector tests daily & nightly.
Clear your name TODAY! Get test results within minutes of the testing verbally & in a free written report.

take test today (http://www.nationwidepolygraphs.com/lie-detector-test-how-it-works.htm)

[frydaddy]

I feel pretty confident that nowhere near 99.9% of the human population would take one.

If you were in Scott's shoes, would you have taken one?

If you were in Geragos' shoes (the shoes he was wearing after his head was turned around), would you have advised Scott to take one?

Would you be interested in a spontaneous polygraph of Scott today?

[deputydi]

You seem to forget that he was willing to take one in the beginning, Brocchini could have had it set up with in 30 minutes.
Later, Peterson was going to take one and Amber was suppose to go with him. She never showed up. Instead of Amber showing up, Brocchini showed up. Peterson had every right to cancel it after that. I would have canceled it if it had been me.
Det. B knew Peterson went there to take the LDT, so how about if you explaine why did he have to follow Peterson that? Why didn't he just wait until Peterson handed in the results? If Broccini had left Peterson alone, if he had waited, he would have gotten the results. If he didn't get it from Peterson, then all he had to do was get another warrant to get a copy of the results.
Face it, Brocchini screwed up.
You have no way of knowing any of this. Testimony that even mentions a lie detector test is disallowed and was redacted from the interview tapes that were shown to the jury.

[Luke Davis]

If you were in Scott's shoes, would you have taken one?

If you were in Geragos' shoes (the shoes he was wearing after his head was turned around), would you have advised Scott to take one?

Would you be interested in a spontaneous polygraph of Scott today?

No.
No.
No.

[accordn2me]

If you were in Scott's shoes, would you have taken one?

If you were in Geragos' shoes (the shoes he was wearing after his head was turned around), would you have advised Scott to take one?

Would you be interested in a spontaneous polygraph of Scott today?

Yes

no

Yes!


You tricked me with the first question, frydaddy! Of course a guilty SLP would not take a lie detector test! DUH!

[JustMyOpinion]

You seem to forget that he was willing to take one in the beginning, Brocchini could have had it set up with in 30 minutes.
Face it, Brocchini screwed up.

I think it's accurate to say that Scott told Brocchini he would be willing to take a polygraph, I don't think there's any evidence "Brocchini could have had it set up with in 30 minutes", do you have a source for this? TIA. It was early morning hours of Xmas Day, do you know for a fact there was a department polygrapher available? I disagree Brocchini "screwed up". Polygraph is an investigative tool, and there would be a presumption by an experienced detective that Scott might be too fatigued & stressed at that time to be subjected to polygraph examination, IMO. Why do you believe Scott refused to submit the next day?

[cookiewench]

I have never heard of someone being asked to take a polygraph test on the very evening that the victim went missing.....while all of the attention is focused on a frantic effort to find the victim...and before it's 100% a missing person case. It's just not done. Scott was supposed to be in a hurry to get back with the rest of the family and continue with the search......which of course, we know he didn't do. He went back to the warehouse to do more cleanup after he left the station that night - while the rest of the family were gathered and still searching.

[TopGunner]

I feel pretty confident that nowhere near 99.9% of the human population would take one.

I'm talking about INNOCENT people Luke, my bad.

:punch:

[lilmiss1960]

Says who? Gotta link? Brocchini set up a lie detector test in the middle of the night? Pure fantasy to believe that. If you are going to chime in, please have your facts right. Thanks. It doesn't do you any good by posting lies. Face it; Brocchini did a fantastic job. From a lay person such as yourself, what gives you the right to say he "screwed up"? What credentials do you have? FACT: It was Scott who screwed up. Did you not follow the case or just make it up as you go along after 5 yrs? What you posted is pure MUMBO JUMBO.

imo


BROCCHINI: Would you be willing to take a polygraph?
SCOTT: Sure.
BROCCHINI: So what you’re telling me, Scott, is there no, you have no idea where Laci is?
SCOTT: None.
BROCCHINI: The only, just to eliminate you as a suspect you’d be willing to take…
SCOTT: Yeah.
BROCCHINI: Would you be willing to take a polygraph?
SCOTT: Yeah…They’re accurate, right?
BROCCHINI: Yeah, yeah, I mean I, it’s not nothing that can be used against you, but yeah, I believe
they’re accurate.
SCOTT: No, I’m certainly willing.
BROCCHINI: It wouldn’t be now, it’d be, ya know, in a day or two.
SCOTT: Now….
BROCCHINI: It’s just like the next step in this thing.
SCOTT: Sure.

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Timelines/Brocchini's%20Interview/Peoples%2068A.htm

That is my proof that he was willing to take one.

Edit to add: It didn't show the previous quote. This is the proof that Peterson was willing to take a polygraph. Brocchini was willing to set it up with in a day or two.
Why didn't Brocchini set it up?

[Cadillakin]

BROCCHINI: Would you be willing to take a polygraph?
SCOTT: Sure.
BROCCHINI: So what you’re telling me, Scott, is there no, you have no idea where Laci is?
SCOTT: None.
BROCCHINI: The only, just to eliminate you as a suspect you’d be willing to take…
SCOTT: Yeah.
BROCCHINI: Would you be willing to take a polygraph?
SCOTT: Yeah…They’re accurate, right?
BROCCHINI: Yeah, yeah, I mean I, it’s not nothing that can be used against you, but yeah, I believe
they’re accurate.
SCOTT: No, I’m certainly willing.
BROCCHINI: It wouldn’t be now, it’d be, ya know, in a day or two.
SCOTT: Now….
BROCCHINI: It’s just like the next step in this thing.
SCOTT: Sure.

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Timelines/Brocchini's%20Interview/Peoples%2068A.htm

That is my proof that he was willing to take one.So, Scott's word is proof to you? The pathetic liar of all time speaks and you believe him?

I wonder why he didn't get on the witness stand and answer all the questions then.. telling the truth like a man who has nothing to fear in doing so, instead of hiding behind his lawyer and the constitution. If I were accused of killing my family.. Id answer any question asked of me, truthfully and repeatedly..

But I guess you won't see the logic in that... will you?

[Lavindar]

So, Scott's word is proof to you? The pathetic liar of all time speaks and you believe him?

I wonder why he didn't get on the witness stand and answer all the questions then.. telling the truth like a man who has nothing to fear in doing so, instead of hiding behind his lawyer and the constitution. If I were accused of killing my family.. Id answer any question asked of me, truthfully and repeatedly..
But I guess you won't see the logic in that... will you?

I take it that is a rhetorical question, right?

[JustMyOpinion]

BROCCHINI: Would you be willing to take a polygraph?
SCOTT: Sure.
BROCCHINI: So what you’re telling me, Scott, is there no, you have no idea where Laci is?
SCOTT: None.
BROCCHINI: The only, just to eliminate you as a suspect you’d be willing to take…
SCOTT: Yeah.
BROCCHINI: Would you be willing to take a polygraph?
SCOTT: Yeah…They’re accurate, right?
BROCCHINI: Yeah, yeah, I mean I, it’s not nothing that can be used against you, but yeah, I believe
they’re accurate.
SCOTT: No, I’m certainly willing.
BROCCHINI: It wouldn’t be now, it’d be, ya know, in a day or two.
SCOTT: Now….
BROCCHINI: It’s just like the next step in this thing.
SCOTT: Sure.

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Timelines/Brocchini's%20Interview/Peoples%2068A.htm

That is my proof that he was willing to take one.

Edit to add: It didn't show the previous quote. This is the proof that Peterson was willing to take a polygraph. Brocchini was willing to set it up with in a day or two.
Why didn't Brocchini set it up?

It was set up, on Dec 25 with Doug Mansfield, but reportedly Scott declined to submit to the actual polygraph.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124897,00.html

[TopGunner]

BROCCHINI: Would you be willing to take a polygraph?
SCOTT: Sure.
BROCCHINI: So what you’re telling me, Scott, is there no, you have no idea where Laci is?
SCOTT: None.
BROCCHINI: The only, just to eliminate you as a suspect you’d be willing to take…
SCOTT: Yeah.
BROCCHINI: Would you be willing to take a polygraph?
SCOTT: Yeah…They’re accurate, right?
BROCCHINI: Yeah, yeah, I mean I, it’s not nothing that can be used against you, but yeah, I believe
they’re accurate.
SCOTT: No, I’m certainly willing.
BROCCHINI: It wouldn’t be now, it’d be, ya know, in a day or two.
SCOTT: Now….
BROCCHINI: It’s just like the next step in this thing.
SCOTT: Sure.

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Timelines/Brocchini's%20Interview/Peoples%2068A.htm

That is my proof that he was willing to take one.

Edit to add: It didn't show the previous quote. This is the proof that Peterson was willing to take a polygraph. Brocchini was willing to set it up with in a day or two.
Why didn't Brocchini set it up?

This just confirms he was lying. Like he lied about everything. No surprise here.

[attorneywan2be]

It was set up, on Dec 25 with Doug Mansfield, but reportedly Scott declined to submit to the actual polygraph.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124897,00.html

How do we know for sure that Scott declined to take the polygraph test?

Can you think of one reason a polygraph expert from the department of justice would interview Scott? an interview that took place the very next day after Brocchini asked Scott if he was willing to take a polygraph test and Scott agreed..

Mark Geragos: Now, the next day, about six hours, seven hours later, what time did, what time did you and Mansfield show up to interview him?
Craig Grogan: I showed up about 1:00 o'clock on the 25th.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And then specifically you and Officer Mansfield said that, or told him that you needed to familiarize yourself with the case. You introduced yourself as the lead investigator, basically; is that correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: And you told Scott specifically that he did not have to participate in the interview, and he was free to leave; but that you would appreciate if he would assist in the investigation, correct?
Craig Grogan: That's all correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And he said he would stay, and he wanted to help, right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, at that point you introduced, was it Detective Buehler? Do I pronounce that right, Buehler?
Craig Grogan: Detective Buehler was already there that day.
Mark Geragos: And specifically when you introduced him, was Mr. Mansfield from the Department of Justice there?
Craig Grogan: What I recall is, I had a conversation with Mr. Peterson, and that he left with Detective Buehler and Agent Mansfield. And I don't know if they were both standing next to me when I talked to him, or if it was just John Buehler.

[frydaddy]

Yes

no

Yes!


You tricked me with the first question, frydaddy! Of course a guilty SLP would not take a lie detector test! DUH!

Sorry, wasn't an attempt to trick ya. I was just curious to know where Luke stood on polygraphs, but the question wasn't exclusive to him.

Personally, whatever discomfort I might have felt with the inaccuracy of them would have flown out the window pretty quickly if my wife were to disappear. It's a no brainer...Scott put himself first, before Laci and Conner. The devestation of losing my family would far exceed the potential of a false accusation.

If I were MG and truly believed Scott was innocent, I'd have advised him to take one. He could only have gained by taking it. Had he failed, he was already suspect numero uno, he couldn't have been any more of a suspect at that point. Had he passed, perhaps he might have gained some allies in the investigation. Besides, the failed test couldn't be used against him.

As for a poly now of Scott, perhaps they could do a pay-per-view to help with legal expenses and the continued investigation. Be a much better reality series than some of the garbage that's out there now. We could submit names of people we want to see take LDT's.

[JustMyOpinion]

How do we know for sure that Scott declined to take the polygraph test?




Based on all that has been reported and statements from Scott and his parents pertaining to polygraph, I am convinced he never took one. JMO.

[Luke Davis]

I think it's accurate to say that Scott told Brocchini he would be willing to take a polygraph, I don't think there's any evidence "Brocchini could have had it set up with in 30 minutes", do you have a source for this? TIA. It was early morning hours of Xmas Day, do you know for a fact there was a department polygrapher available? I disagree Brocchini "screwed up". Polygraph is an investigative tool, and there would be a presumption by an experienced detective that Scott might be too fatigued & stressed at that time to be subjected to polygraph examination, IMO. Why do you believe Scott refused to submit the next day?

IIRC they use a private company.

[Luke Davis]

BROCCHINI: Would you be willing to take a polygraph?
SCOTT: Sure.
BROCCHINI: So what you’re telling me, Scott, is there no, you have no idea where Laci is?
SCOTT: None.
BROCCHINI: The only, just to eliminate you as a suspect you’d be willing to take…
SCOTT: Yeah.
BROCCHINI: Would you be willing to take a polygraph?
SCOTT: Yeah…They’re accurate, right?
BROCCHINI: Yeah, yeah, I mean I, it’s not nothing that can be used against you, but yeah, I believe
they’re accurate.
SCOTT: No, I’m certainly willing.
BROCCHINI: It wouldn’t be now, it’d be, ya know, in a day or two.
SCOTT: Now….
BROCCHINI: It’s just like the next step in this thing.
SCOTT: Sure.

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Timelines/Brocchini's%20Interview/Peoples%2068A.htm

That is my proof that he was willing to take one.

Edit to add: It didn't show the previous quote. This is the proof that Peterson was willing to take a polygraph. Brocchini was willing to set it up with in a day or two.
Why didn't Brocchini set it up?

Many times the tests aren't taken, it is just a question LE ask.

[Luke Davis]

So, Scott's word is proof to you? The pathetic liar of all time speaks and you believe him?

I wonder why he didn't get on the witness stand and answer all the questions then.. telling the truth like a man who has nothing to fear in doing so, instead of hiding behind his lawyer and the constitution. If I were accused of killing my family.. Id answer any question asked of me, truthfully and repeatedly..

But I guess you won't see the logic in that... will you?

He didn't take the stand because his rehearsal was pathetic.

[Cadillakin]

He didn't take the stand because his rehearsal was pathetic.It's simply amazing to me that the NG's could be constantly pummeled by information such as you provide.. and still have any doubt about his guilt.. It was reported nearly everywhere that defense attorney Cardoza shredded Scott in the mock examination..

[Sturgeon_Moon]

The police and prosecutors never doubted her.. Why should they? She wasn't a part of this tawdry mess. Only those who needed to discredit her to win an acquittal for Scott had reason to disbelieve her.. Servas unwittingly found herself in the line of fire..That's a shame, very discouraging.

[Sturgeon_Moon]

If you were in Scott's shoes, would you have taken one?

If you were in Geragos' shoes (the shoes he was wearing after his head was turned around), would you have advised Scott to take one?

Would you be interested in a spontaneous polygraph of Scott today?Hey frydaddy, is it against the law to test convicted murderers? What would it prove if the murderer passed/failed?

imo

[frydaddy]

Hey frydaddy, is it against the law to test convicted murderers? What would it prove if the murderer passed/failed?

imo

Sturge!

I'm no expert on laws that govern polygraphs (other than inadmissability), but I do not believe post-conviction polygraphs are illegal. Unless all appeals have been exhausted, I doubt any convicts would be allowed by their attorney to take one.

And I don't know what one would prove in Scott's case. I think we know enough about Scott and his lies to be able to ask him some questions where we know he lied and see what we get on the machine. If he beats the machine on known lies, then we know the whole test is useless. If we can prove he cannot beat the machine on known lies, then the test might be interesting, right?

[Lavindar]

Sorry, wasn't an attempt to trick ya. I was just curious to know where Luke stood on polygraphs, but the question wasn't exclusive to him.

Personally, whatever discomfort I might have felt with the inaccuracy of them would have flown out the window pretty quickly if my wife were to disappear. It's a no brainer...Scott put himself first, before Laci and Conner. The devestation of losing my family would far exceed the potential of a false accusation.

If I were MG and truly believed Scott was innocent, I'd have advised him to take one. He could only have gained by taking it. Had he failed, he was already suspect numero uno, he couldn't have been any more of a suspect at that point. Had he passed, perhaps he might have gained some allies in the investigation. Besides, the failed test couldn't be used against him.

As for a poly now of Scott, perhaps they could do a pay-per-view to help with legal expenses and the continued investigation. Be a much better reality series than some of the garbage that's out there now. We could submit names of people we want to see take LDT's.

I have no doubt that Geragos knew his client was guilty. If he thought otherwise, he would have had a private polygraph done and shouted the results from the highest mountain in CA. If Scott flunked, Geragose would have said nothing.

Nope, IMO, Geragos knew his client was as guilty as guilty could be.

[Luke Davis]

Based on all that has been reported and statements from Scott and his parents pertaining to polygraph, I am convinced he never took one. JMO.If he took one, he flunked.

[deputydi]

Sturge!

I'm no expert on laws that govern polygraphs (other than inadmissability), but I do not believe post-conviction polygraphs are illegal. Unless all appeals have been exhausted, I doubt any convicts would be allowed by their attorney to take one.

And I don't know what one would prove in Scott's case. I think we know enough about Scott and his lies to be able to ask him some questions where we know he lied and see what we get on the machine. If he beats the machine on known lies, then we know the whole test is useless. If we can prove he cannot beat the machine on known lies, then the test might be interesting, right?
What point would there be in giving a LDT post-conviction? They are used as an investigative tool and are inadmissable in court. The investigation is over.

[frydaddy]

What point would there be in giving a LDT post-conviction? They are used as an investigative tool and are inadmissable in court. The investigation is over.

I thought I was fairly clear in previous posts...entertainment...curiosity...etc.

[Sturgeon_Moon]

What point would there be in giving a LDT post-conviction? They are used as an investigative tool and are inadmissable in court. The investigation is over.During the case there was mention of a woman who was murdered at college. Scott was interviewed and cleared. But in other cases, maybe leads could be discovered. I think photos, fingerprints, DNA, etc. are used for the same purpose.

frydaddy makes a good point about appeals and that is probably a good reason.

In other cases, I could see where a LDT given to a convicted murderer might be useful. For example, recovering remains of victims.

For lesser convictions, it might be useful to make LDT a condition prior to parole. For child molesters perhaps.

imo

[cookiewench]

Hey frydaddy, is it against the law to test convicted murderers? What would it prove if the murderer passed/failed?

imo

Diane Zamora took one for Chris Hansen on one of his shows.

She failed.

[deputydi]

During the case there was mention of a woman who was murdered at college. Scott was interviewed and cleared. But in other cases, maybe leads could be discovered. I think photos, fingerprints, DNA, etc. are used for the same purpose.

frydaddy makes a good point about appeals and that is probably a good reason.

In other cases, I could see where a LDT given to a convicted murderer might be useful. For example, recovering remains of victims.

For lesser convictions, it might be useful to make LDT a condition prior to parole. For child molesters perhaps.

imo
Sorry, I don't think they would serve any purpose other than to satisfy the public's curiosity. They can't be mentioned during testimony. You can't even ask a defendant whether he took one -- let alone give the result. LE can't make the test a condition of anything and the refusal to take one can't be held against a defendant. So what does that leave???

[Luke Davis]

Sorry, I don't think they would serve any purpose other than to satisfy the public's curiosity. They can't be mentioned during testimony. You can't even ask a defendant whether he took one -- let alone give the result. LE can't make the test a condition of anything and the refusal to take one can't be held against a defendant. So what does that leave???Condition of employment?

[deputydi]

Condition of employment?
I see your point. :beer:

[accordn2me]

Sorry, wasn't an attempt to trick ya. I was just curious to know where Luke stood on polygraphs, but the question wasn't exclusive to him.

Personally, whatever discomfort I might have felt with the inaccuracy of them would have flown out the window pretty quickly if my wife were to disappear. It's a no brainer...Scott put himself first, before Laci and Conner. The devestation of losing my family would far exceed the potential of a false accusation.

If I were MG and truly believed Scott was innocent, I'd have advised him to take one. He could only have gained by taking it. Had he failed, he was already suspect numero uno, he couldn't have been any more of a suspect at that point. Had he passed, perhaps he might have gained some allies in the investigation. Besides, the failed test couldn't be used against him.

As for a poly now of Scott, perhaps they could do a pay-per-view to help with legal expenses and the continued investigation. Be a much better reality series than some of the garbage that's out there now. We could submit names of people we want to see take LDT's.You're makin' it worse! You weren't even tryin' to trick me! :biggrin:

No, I'm with you on the "no matter how guilty I might look because I have no verifiable alibi" I'd take the damn test. Rumor has it a true psychopath can pass one anyway - hence the 'it wouldn't matter if SLP passed one now, or not.'

On the attorney's recommendation, I heard an attorney say: "I would never take a lie detector test." Additionally, she said, "I advised my husband if I ever turned up missing, do not take a lie detector test." :eek: What a dumbass, huh! Caused me to dismiss everything she said both before and after! :no:

[frydaddy]

You're makin' it worse! You weren't even tryin' to trick me! :biggrin:

No, I'm with you on the "no matter how guilty I might look because I have no verifiable alibi" I'd take the damn test. Rumor has it a true psychopath can pass one anyway - hence the 'it wouldn't matter if SLP passed one now, or not.'

On the attorney's recommendation, I heard an attorney say: "I would never take a lie detector test." Additionally, she said, "I advised my husband if I ever turned up missing, do not take a lie detector test." :eek: What a dumbass, huh! Caused me to dismiss everything she said both before and after! :no:

LMAO - I cannot assume responsibility for blond moments or moments of "more fun", if you will!

The way I see it, polygraphs are taboo for many people. Some don't trust the Po-lice, some fear the other irrelevant truths that may be exposed, and some simply don't know enough about them, other than to know "you shouldn't take one".

Well, I say hogwash. If you are guilty and can pass one, why wouldn't you take one? If you are innocent, but are the main suspect already, how can it hurt? It's not admissible, your potential failure cannot make your situation any worse, IF you are innocent. The key to Scott's not taking one, in particular, was his faux interest in finding Laci. If he really cared about her well being, he'd have strapped in each and every time he was asked like those who took them did. Any devestated spouse, whose life is over at the loss of their spouse, ain't gonna focus on a trial or prison in the first few days.

As for attorneys advising their clients not to take them, or even the admonishment to keep their mouths shut, they are protecting their client, sure. But again, they only need protection if they are guilty. I can't get behind this irrational fear that LE is always at the ready for a conspiracy to frame, I don't care how many individual cops were corrupt in the past. I have faith that there are more good cops than bad and that in the end, truth will prevail. Maybe I'm naive...or maybe those who think I am are paranoid.

Bottom line on polygraphs for me is that Scott's behavior, the switching of lawyers to one who's "head was turned around", the lack of any positive poly results, and the failed mock cross - in hindsight, prove to me that Scott couldn't pass one because he was guilty. I fail to see any other conclusion that makes sense.

[frydaddy]

Sorry, I don't think they would serve any purpose other than to satisfy the public's curiosity. They can't be mentioned during testimony. You can't even ask a defendant whether he took one -- let alone give the result. LE can't make the test a condition of anything and the refusal to take one can't be held against a defendant. So what does that leave???

Let me pose the question this way. Let's say I was an innocent suspect in the disappearance of my wife and you are a member of a police force who thinks I killed her. I can't seem to get anyone to believe me by my words, so I take a polygraph and pass with flying colors. If my doing so convinces one person on your force to support me and look in the direction of whoever really did this, then in respect and honor for my missing wife, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

You could specifically take the stance that I tricked the machine, but are you sure you wouldn't have a single moment of pause that perhaps your force is wrong and that a person you swore to protect and serve is getting a raw deal? Wouldn't you at least start asking questions and scrutinize things more, amongst your peers?

I really don't understand the stigma associated with polygraphs. I don't think they are 100% reliable and I know that they aren't admissible, but to consider either of those things from the start, if you are innocent, it putting the cart in front of the horse, isn't it? It's a matter of trust and faith in people and if I lose that, then all the rest is pointless anyway.

[deputydi]

Let me pose the question this way. Let's say I was an innocent suspect in the disappearance of my wife and you are a member of a police force who thinks I killed her. I can't seem to get anyone to believe me by my words, so I take a polygraph and pass with flying colors. If my doing so convinces one person on your force to support me and look in the direction of whoever really did this, then in respect and honor for my missing wife, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

You could specifically take the stance that I tricked the machine, but are you sure you wouldn't have a single moment of pause that perhaps your force is wrong and that a person you swore to protect and serve is getting a raw deal? Wouldn't you at least start asking questions and scrutinize things more, amongst your peers?

I really don't understand the stigma associated with polygraphs. I don't think they are 100% reliable and I know that they aren't admissible, but to consider either of those things from the start, if you are innocent, it putting the cart in front of the horse, isn't it? It's a matter of trust and faith in people and if I lose that, then all the rest is pointless anyway.
Don't get me wrong -- I think Scott should have taken one. Virtually all defense attorneys will advise against it, but I don't think an innocent person would refuse one. I'm talking about a post-conviction test. It really wouldn't serve any purpose. It couldn't be used in an appeal and it wouldn't be considered exonerating evidence since the results are not admissible.

[frydaddy]

Don't get me wrong -- I think Scott should have taken one. Virtually all defense attorneys will advise against it, but I don't think an innocent person would refuse one. I'm talking about a post-conviction test. It really wouldn't serve any purpose. It couldn't be used in an appeal and it wouldn't be considered exonerating evidence since the results are not admissible.

I agree on the post-conviction test, it would serve no legal purpose. But I'd damn sure watch if it happened, just for the spectacle of it. But given the results of the mock cross, we know it won't happen, we have our answers!

[deputydi]

I agree on the post-conviction test, it would serve no legal purpose. But I'd damn sure watch if it happened, just for the spectacle of it. But given the results of the mock cross, we know it won't happen, we have our answers!
I'd take the day off work if it were televised! LOL.

[Luke Davis]

I admit someone who is most vulnerable, such as a loved one of a missing person, may do anything for the slightest chance to get their loved one back safe. A LDT, psychic examination, hypnosis, etc.

I'd watch a LDT of Scott Peterson but would I trust the examiner? Or would the examiner spin things for ratings? What about Dr. Phil showing a controversial conversation with Deepak Kalpoe by a distinguished LDT examiner?

At the very least, I would want to consult a lawyer and let some time pass before giving in to desperation and being examined by a process that no court accepts as proof.

[deputydi]

I admit someone who is most vulnerable, such as a loved one of a missing person, may do anything for the slightest chance to get their loved one back safe. A LDT, psychic examination, hypnosis, etc.

I'd watch a LDT of Scott Peterson but would I trust the examiner? Or would the examiner spin things for ratings? What about Dr. Phil showing a controversial conversation with Deepak Kalpoe by a distinguished LDT examiner?

At the very least, I would want to consult a lawyer and let some time pass before giving in to desperation and being examined by a process that no court accepts as proof.
IMO, the smart thing to do is to agree to one but insist on your attorney being in the room during the exam. This would prevent an unscrupulous examiner from asking leading questions such as "when did you stop beating your wife" without making the suspect appear evasive.

ETA: I think they can only ask "yes" or "no" questions anyway.

[frydaddy]

I'd take the day off work if it were televised! LOL.

Definitely need two days Di, one to watch it and one to discuss it here! LMAO

[frydaddy]

I admit someone who is most vulnerable, such as a loved one of a missing person, may do anything for the slightest chance to get their loved one back safe. A LDT, psychic examination, hypnosis, etc.

I'd watch a LDT of Scott Peterson but would I trust the examiner? Or would the examiner spin things for ratings? What about Dr. Phil showing a controversial conversation with Deepak Kalpoe by a distinguished LDT examiner?

At the very least, I would want to consult a lawyer and let some time pass before giving in to desperation and being examined by a process that no court accepts as proof.

I didn't follow the Holloway case much, so I am unfamiliar with much of the information surrounding it. From a distance, I think JVS did it and the Kalpoes knew it. Just my opinion, but there is another board for that I am certain. Dr. Phil, while enjoyable like Dr. Ruth or Judge Judy, is not a journalist. He's an entertainer and his content is taken as entertainment. Perhaps Brokaw could come out of mothballs, or some other veteran with that type of respect.

As for the poly, I understand your reluctance to take one and the reasons why. I don't think mine is the right view, nor is yours necessarily wrong. I just think in this particular case, if all that the advocates say is true about rush to judgment and tunnel vision, I don't think Scott could become any more of a suspect based on a failed poly. He could only gain if he could trick it or if he was actually innocent.

In Scott's case in particular, if he's innocent, what do you think he'd have lost by taking one? In hindsight, he's due for the needle. Since it's not admissable, could he have done himself any more harm, in hindsight?

[Luke Davis]

I didn't follow the Holloway case much, so I am unfamiliar with much of the information surrounding it. From a distance, I think JVS did it and the Kalpoes knew it. Just my opinion, but there is another board for that I am certain. Dr. Phil, while enjoyable like Dr. Ruth or Judge Judy, is not a journalist. He's an entertainer and his content is taken as entertainment. Perhaps Brokaw could come out of mothballs, or some other veteran with that type of respect.

As for the poly, I understand your reluctance to take one and the reasons why. I don't think mine is the right view, nor is yours necessarily wrong. I just think in this particular case, if all that the advocates say is true about rush to judgment and tunnel vision, I don't think Scott could become any more of a suspect based on a failed poly. He could only gain if he could trick it or if he was actually innocent.

In Scott's case in particular, if he's innocent, what do you think he'd have lost by taking one? In hindsight, he's due for the needle. Since it's not admissable, could he have done himself any more harm, in hindsight?

If you limit it to SP it probably makes no difference. But I hear it in every case, people would do anything, if they were innocent. I think the young men in the Duke case, did it right. Get some good lawyers and lets them get the truth out.

[frydaddy]

If you limit it to SP it probably makes no difference. But I hear it in every case, people would do anything, if they were innocent. I think the young men in the Duke case, did it right. Get some good lawyers and lets them get the truth out.

I don't disagree, but it does beg two questions to be asked.

Would the Duke players have sped up their dismissal of charges had they taken polygraphs? (Assuming none did, since I did not follow it enough to recall.)

Would Scott have been better off with McAllister, a better man-tanned hotshot attorney, or a PD?

[Buckethead]

I don't disagree, but it does beg two questions to be asked.

Would the Duke players have sped up their dismissal of charges had they taken polygraphs? (Assuming none did, since I did not follow it enough to recall.)

Would Scott have been better off with McAllister, a better man-tanned hotshot attorney, or a PD?


Excellent questions FD!
:beer:

Certainly a PD would have saved the P's at least a Mil (to paraphrase Lee's televised statement "there's another million where that one came from") and the outcome would have been the same.

[Luke Davis]

I don't disagree, but it does beg two questions to be asked.

Would the Duke players have sped up their dismissal of charges had they taken polygraphs? (Assuming none did, since I did not follow it enough to recall.)

Would Scott have been better off with McAllister, a better man-tanned hotshot attorney, or a PD?

At the time, I thought McAllister. Looking back, I think the best deal would have been a confession to manslaughter and had McAllister work a deal with people he knew. I think the people of Modesto resented bringing in the big "Hollywood" lawyer.

I didn't follow the Duke case closely but I got the idea the DA was blind to anything the young men offered. I doubt perfect LDTs would have done any good but poor LDTs would have been leaked to the press.

MOO

[deputydi]

At the time, I thought McAllister. Looking back, I think the best deal would have been a confession to manslaughter and had McAllister work a deal with people he knew. I think the people of Modesto resented bringing in the big "Hollywood" lawyer.

I didn't follow the Duke case closely but I got the idea the DA was blind to anything the young men offered. I doubt perfect LDTs would have done any good but poor LDTs would have been leaked to the press.

MOO
The three Duke players offered to take lie detector tests, but the DA ignored them. Reade Seligmann had absolute proof he wasn't even in the house when the rapes supposedly occurred and it was ignored. Nothing was going to stop Mike Nifong from prosecuting this case. Thank goodness the NC ethics committee decided to take a look at this and decided to disbar him -- no one else will be a victim at his hands ever again.

Back to Scott -- I don't know about the people of Modesto resenting the big "Hollywood" lawyer. I think they may be more sophisticated than that. I do agree that Scott should have kept McAllister and attempted to hammer out a deal. If nothing else, it would have kept him off death row.

[frydaddy]

Excellent questions FD!
:beer:

Certainly a PD would have saved the P's at least a Mil (to paraphrase Lee's televised statement "there's another million where that one came from") and the outcome would have been the same.

Could have offered bigger rewards for information leading to Scott's release if they wen't with the PD. Or, they could buy John a hoist AND a petard! I'd have went with Kirk. He was esablished, local, and got his tan like the rest of us, in the elements.

[frydaddy]

At the time, I thought McAllister. Looking back, I think the best deal would have been a confession to manslaughter and had McAllister work a deal with people he knew. I think the people of Modesto resented bringing in the big "Hollywood" lawyer.

I didn't follow the Duke case closely but I got the idea the DA was blind to anything the young men offered. I doubt perfect LDTs would have done any good but poor LDTs would have been leaked to the press.

MOO

Probably would have been best to cop a plea, but Scott though he was "not kinda smart, but real smart" to claim innocence.

There should be a new rule after the Duke case...the prosecutor cannot be a bigger scumbag than those he's trying to convict. Perhaps a poly by the Lacrosse players might have initiated the trap door for Nifong a little sooner, if nothing else!

[Luke Davis]

Probably would have been best to cop a plea, but Scott though he was "not kinda smart, but real smart" to claim innocence.

There should be a new rule after the Duke case...the prosecutor cannot be a bigger scumbag than those he's trying to convict. Perhaps a poly by the Lacrosse players might have initiated the trap door for Nifong a little sooner, if nothing else!

I think the Duke situation happens everyday, we just heard about this one.

[deputydi]

I think the Duke situation happens everyday, we just heard about this one.
That sounds kind of cynical. I don't think it happens often but I am sure Nifong isn't the first and won't be the last. He just happened to be both ambitious and unscrupulous -- that's a very dangerous mix.

[frydaddy]

I think the Duke situation happens everyday, we just heard about this one.

Don't know if it happens everyday, but the odds favor you, there's lots of crime and lots of trials. Fortunately, in the Duke travesty, the end result was as decent as one could hope for, given the circumstances. Could have turned out like the Libby debacle, where the prosecutor there was Nifong with more authority.

Bottom line though and much more on topic...Scott could have taken one and in the least, left it up to all involved to determine what it meant. Given each and every detail of this case that is known, I think it is COG that he said he would a few times, but never did. The sobbing fool I saw on Diane Sawyer, if I was to believe that was genuine, would have jumped at the chance to take one. IMO

[Luke Davis]

Don't know if it happens everyday, but the odds favor you, there's lots of crime and lots of trials. Fortunately, in the Duke travesty, the end result was as decent as one could hope for, given the circumstances. Could have turned out like the Libby debacle, where the prosecutor there was Nifong with more authority.

Bottom line though and much more on topic...Scott could have taken one and in the least, left it up to all involved to determine what it meant. Given each and every detail of this case that is known, I think it is COG that he said he would a few times, but never did. The sobbing fool I saw on Diane Sawyer, if I was to believe that was genuine, would have jumped at the chance to take one. IMO

I'm curious frydaddy (or anyone), what 5 yes or no questions would you ask, the day after Christmas? And what woud the answers mean?

[enlightenme]

I'm curious frydaddy (or anyone), what 5 yes or no questions would you ask, the day after Christmas? And what woud the answers mean?


Not frydaddy here, but I've got a list...

1. Did you have anything to do with the disappearance of Laci Peterson?
2. Do you know where Laci Peterson is now?
3. Did you either intentionally or accidentally cause the death of Laci Peterson?
4. Are you a liar? (Hey, that's a question - LOL!)
5. Are you freaking kidding me? (That would be MY response to his BS answers!)

:tongue:

[accordn2me]

I'm curious frydaddy (or anyone), what 5 yes or no questions would you ask, the day after Christmas? And what woud the answers mean?
1. Is your name Scott Lee Peterson?

2. Did you have sexual relations with Amber Frey?

3. Did you murder your wife, Laci?

4. Do you know where Laci's body is?

5. Did you put Laci's body in the SFB?

The answers would indicate SLP's ability/non-ability to beat a lie detector test, IMO.

[Sturgeon_Moon]

1. Is your name Scott Lee Peterson?

2. Did you have sexual relations with Amber Frey?

3. Did you murder your wife, Laci?

4. Do you know where Laci's body is?

5. Did you put Laci's body in the SFB?

The answers would indicate SLP's ability/non-ability to beat a lie detector test, IMO.

Did LE know about Amber Frey that early?

[accordn2me]

Did LE know about Amber Frey that early?I'll guess, yes.

[Lavindar]

Did LE know about Amber Frey that early?



She called police on Dec 30th. The NE came out in early Jan. The information went public Jan 16 (I think that's when the families were notified) and her press conference was Jan 24th

[frydaddy]

I'm curious frydaddy (or anyone), what 5 yes or no questions would you ask, the day after Christmas? And what woud the answers mean?

1. Was Laci alive and healthy when you left for the warehouse on the morning of the 24th?

2. Did you leave the house any time between 8:30pm on Dec 23 and 9:00am on the 24th?

3. Have you ever told anyone any details related to your involvement in Laci's death or disappearance?

4. Did you feel Conner was going to be a burden to your lifestyle of cheating on your wife?

5. Did you really do the wild with Victor Cordiero, you sick SOB?

[Wearing A Halo]

1. Do you regret going fishing 90+ miles away from home?

2. Do you regret not calling your wife before leaving to SFB to say goodbye to her.

3. Do you regret not staying with your wife to walk the dog together?

4. Do you regret making cement weights?

5. Do you regret having to do with your wife's demise?

The answers would mean how regretful, or not, DRISP is.

[I'mSun]

Did LE know about Amber Frey that early?I don't think LE knew about Amber the day after Christmas.

[I'mSun]

1. Do you regret going fishing 90+ miles away from home?

2. Do you regret not calling your wife before leaving to SFB to say goodbye to her.

3. Do you regret not staying with your wife to walk the dog together?

4. Do you regret making cement weights?

5. Do you regret having to do with your wife's demise?

The answers would mean how regretful, or not, DRISP is.IMO, with the possible exception of question #2, my guess is ISP would answer "no" to each question, therefore proving he would not be regretful.

[Trixy]

Did LE know about Amber Frey that early?

No, they knew nothing about AF. Amber didn't know Scott was married and he was claiming his "wife" was missing.

:seeya:

[Sturgeon_Moon]

I was watching a lawyer on a show the other day who said all his clients take LDT. If they pass, he makes them public. If not, he says they don't work.

The trick is to get one who is highly respected. Then if the police question the results, the lawyer makes it look like LE does not trust an independent expert.

imo

[Lavindar]

I was watching a lawyer on a show the other day who said all his clients take LDT. If they pass, he makes them public. If not, he says they don't work.

The trick is to get one who is highly respected. Then if the police question the results, the lawyer makes it look like LE does not trust an independent expert.

imo Interesting theory

[deputydi]

I was watching a lawyer on a show the other day who said all his clients take LDT. If they pass, he makes them public. If not, he says they don't work.

The trick is to get one who is highly respected. Then if the police question the results, the lawyer makes it look like LE does not trust an independent expert.

imo
I guess that's an interesting approach, but I don't understand his logic. I don't know a single defense attorney who would encourage his client to even take one in the first place but I guess there are some who think this might be a beneficial tactic.

LE doesn't view the results of a LDT as positive proof of a person's innocence or guilt and they are not admissible in any court. The detectives look at the results as part of their decision whether or not to agressively pursue a particular suspect. Passing one doesn't not necessarily get a suspect off the hook. Often, they will ask a suspect if he/she is willing to take one just to see the reaction -- never actually intending to administer the test.

[Luke Davis]

I guess that's an interesting approach, but I don't understand his logic. I don't know a single defense attorney who would encourage his client to even take one in the first place but I guess there are some who think this might be a beneficial tactic.

LE doesn't view the results of a LDT as positive proof of a person's innocence or guilt and they are not admissible in any court. The detectives look at the results as part of their decision whether or not to agressively pursue a particular suspect. Passing one doesn't not necessarily get a suspect off the hook. Often, they will ask a suspect if he/she is willing to take one just to see the reaction -- never actually intending to administer the test.

Sounds like more of a public relations thing. Nancy Grace has mentioned many times OJ Simpson got a -40 on his LDT. I'm sure some people think that is proof of something.

[Otter]

Sounds like more of a public relations thing. Nancy Grace has mentioned many times OJ Simpson got a -40 on his LDT. I'm sure some people think that is proof of something.

Luke, I love your posts ... they're so cryptic. But if I may and in all respect, this board has nothing to do with Nancy Grace or OJ Simpson.

Have a good evening! :seeya:

[Luke Davis]

Luke, I love your posts ... they're so cryptic. But if I may and in all respect, this board has nothing to do with Nancy Grace or OJ Simpson.

Have a good evening! :seeya:You are correct, of course. In the case of SP, I suspect it might have done some good if a lawyer could wave a favorable LDT in front of the public, or with a gag order have leaked it, perhaps to some commentator from CTV who was in Redwood City covering the case.

Because it wasn't waved or leaked, I judge it to be that a favorable report did not exist.

[Lavindar]

Sounds like more of a public relations thing. Nancy Grace has mentioned many times OJ Simpson got a -40 on his LDT. I'm sure some people think that is proof of something. I know a man whose defense attorney got him a lie detector test rather than take the police-arranged one. He passed so the defense atty flaunted it all over the place.

[kjb19500]

In my state LDT (polygraphs) are administered by trained and licensed professionals. They are videotaped from beginning to end.

The examiner explains the nature of the test and the reason for its administration. The examinee signs a statement that he agrees to the exam and won’t hold the examiner responsible for the results.

A mock run is performed over a series of innocuous questions. The examinee is encouraged to give a lying “yes” or “no” to certain questions so that a baseline “false” can be established.

All questions that will be asked are prepared before the test begins. They are all of a yes or no nature. Any questions that require elaboration (the “yes or no” or “maybe, but) are discussed before the test begins.

After the leads and BP cuff are attached the examiner informs the examinee that the test is to begin. There are generally three sessions using the same questions, each lasting 3-5 minutes (it’s unsafe to leave the BP cuff on for too long.)

After each session, there is a short rest. The results aren’t given until the test is complete and the examiner has the opportunity to examine the results.

The test isn’t graded as passed/failed, but passed/deceptive. The examinee isn’t allowed to be broadsided with “secret” or “explosive” or leading questions. There certainly might be questions like “did you kill...” or “did you have anything to do with the disappearance of...” but again he’s aware that the question is going to be asked, he just doesn’t know when.

[accordn2me]

In my state LDT (polygraphs) are administered by trained and licensed professionals. They are videotaped from beginning to end.

The examiner explains the nature of the test and the reason for its administration. The examinee signs a statement that he agrees to the exam and won’t hold the examiner responsible for the results.

A mock run is performed over a series of innocuous questions. The examinee is encouraged to give a lying “yes” or “no” to certain questions so that a baseline “false” can be established.

All questions that will be asked are prepared before the test begins. They are all of a yes or no nature. Any questions that require elaboration (the “yes or no” or “maybe, but) are discussed before the test begins.

After the leads and BP cuff are attached the examiner informs the examinee that the test is to begin. There are generally three sessions using the same questions, each lasting 3-5 minutes (it’s unsafe to leave the BP cuff on for too long.)

After each session, there is a short rest. The results aren’t given until the test is complete and the examiner has the opportunity to examine the results.

The test isn’t graded as passed/failed, but passed/deceptive. The examinee isn’t allowed to be broadsided with “secret” or “explosive” or leading questions. There certainly might be questions like “did you kill...” or “did you have anything to do with the disappearance of...” but again he’s aware that the question is going to be asked, he just doesn’t know when.Thank you for this run down.

Isn't there also an inconclusive "grade?"

[kjb19500]

Thank you for this run down.

Isn't there also an inconclusive "grade?"

Sorry, should have been passed/inconclusive/deceptive.

Also in parenthesis it should have read "yes and no"... this is to clarify ambiguous questions or answers before the test begins.
If you've ever seen the original made for tv Helter Skelter, in one scene the kid is taking the LDT and is asked, "Do you feel responsible for the death of Steven Parent?" The response was, "in that he even knew me, yes." Tester: "What do you mean?" "In that he even knew me. If he hadn't known me he wouldn't have been there." Survivor guilt, maybe? Anyway, then the tester changed the question to "Did you kill Steven Parent?" (iirc). Response: No.

[Lavindar]

BROCCHINI: Would you be willing to take a polygraph?
SCOTT: Sure.
BROCCHINI: So what you’re telling me, Scott, is there no, you have no idea where Laci is?
SCOTT: None.
BROCCHINI: The only, just to eliminate you as a suspect you’d be willing to take…
SCOTT: Yeah.
BROCCHINI: Would you be willing to take a polygraph?
SCOTT: Yeah…They’re accurate, right?
BROCCHINI: Yeah, yeah, I mean I, it’s not nothing that can be used against you, but yeah, I believe
they’re accurate.
SCOTT: No, I’m certainly willing.
BROCCHINI: It wouldn’t be now, it’d be, ya know, in a day or two.
SCOTT: Now….
BROCCHINI: It’s just like the next step in this thing.
SCOTT: Sure.

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Timelines/Brocchini's%20Interview/Peoples%2068A.htm

That is my proof that he was willing to take one.

Edit to add: It didn't show the previous quote. This is the proof that Peterson was willing to take a polygraph. Brocchini was willing to set it up with in a day or two.
Why didn't Brocchini set it up?

Please tell me, if he was so willing, why he declined to do it? Do you have a reason for that?, Erika?

[deputydi]

Please tell me, if he was so willing, why he declined to do it? Do you have a reason for that?, Erika?
I have TWO reasons:

1. He only agreed because he was blindsided by the question. IMO he never intended to go through with it.

2. He lawyered up immediately.

[accordn2me]

Sorry, should have been passed/inconclusive/deceptive.

Also in parenthesis it should have read "yes and no"... this is to clarify ambiguous questions or answers before the test begins.
If you've ever seen the original made for tv Helter Skelter, in one scene the kid is taking the LDT and is asked, "Do you feel responsible for the death of Steven Parent?" The response was, "in that he even knew me, yes." Tester: "What do you mean?" "In that he even knew me. If he hadn't known me he wouldn't have been there." Survivor guilt, maybe? Anyway, then the tester changed the question to "Did you kill Steven Parent?" (iirc). Response: No.Again, thank you. Your insight has been very helpful to my understanding of this process. Someone told me their result was "inconclusive." That's the reason I asked for the clarification. :seeya:

[Lavindar]

I have TWO reasons:

1. He only agreed because he was blindsided by the question. IMO he never intended to go through with it.

2. He lawyered up immediately.

Here's my problem with that. His lawyer told him NOT to take one as any good defense lawyer would do.

He told his parents that the police said he was too emotional to take one.

Why lie???? His lawyer telling him was sufficient answer. Why lie about it? I Think he gave the police a different reason for backing out of it too.

This is one of the things about Scott that I cannot comiprehend - he lies when he does even have to lie. He's pathological

[Luke Davis]

Here's my problem with that. His lawyer told him NOT to take one as any good defense lawyer would do.

He told his parents that the police said he was too emotional to take one.

Why lie???? His lawyer telling him was sufficient answer. Why lie about it? I Think he gave the police a different reason for backing out of it too.

This is one of the things about Scott that I cannot comiprehend - he lies when he does even have to lie. He's pathological

It looks to me that you answered your own question. Pathological liars don't need a reason.

[Sturgeon_Moon]

I know a man whose defense attorney got him a lie detector test rather than take the police-arranged one. He passed so the defense atty flaunted it all over the place.Probably made a good impression on a jury pool.

imo

[accordn2me]

Probably made a good impression on a jury pool.

imo:no: It's not supposed to!

ETA: Even though it's not supposed to matter, it would score some points with me, albeit secretly, if a defendant took a lie detector test and testified in their own defense even if they did a miserable job. For me, that would be better than not taking the test and exercising their right to remain silent - not testify....even if they bombed on both....and with as much evidence as the state had in this case....I wouldn't hesitate to return a guilty verdict....but it might take me longer than no test and no testimony. And if I'm wrong for that, I'm wrong for that! :no:

[Luke Davis]

:no: It's not supposed to!

ETA: Even though it's not supposed to matter, it would score some points with me, albeit secretly, if a defendant took a lie detector test and testified in their own defense even if they did a miserable job. For me, that would be better than not taking the test and exercising their right to remain silent - not testify....even if they bombed on both....and with as much evidence as the state had in this case....I wouldn't hesitate to return a guilty verdict....but it might take me longer than no test and no testimony. And if I'm wrong for that, I'm wrong for that! :no:

In this case, I doubt it would have made any difference.

[Lili007]

If you were in Scott's shoes, would you have taken one?

If you were in Geragos' shoes (the shoes he was wearing after his head was turned around), would you have advised Scott to take one?

Would you be interested in a spontaneous polygraph of Scott today?

If I or my shoes weren't guilty, ABSOLUTELY!

If I were in Geragos's shoes, I'd give them back to him (Heh!) Wouldn't know how I got into them in the first place? :eek:

Spontaneous poly by Scott? Certainly. But I don't think I'll hold my breath on that one, if that's OK.

JMO

[Luke Davis]

I finally saw the Amber movie last night. It confirmed what I always knew. No matter, Scott was never going to take a polygraph. He was too guilty and his parents making excuses for him are pathetic. Didn't Jackie tell him "deny, deny, deny" because she knew he did it?

:cuss:
Did anyone take a LDT in that case?

[adnoid]

Did anyone take a LDT in that case?

IIRC several members of Laci's family did, but I don't have anything to back that up handy.

[accordn2me]

IIRC several members of Laci's family did, but I don't have anything to back that up handy.
Amber took one, didn't she?

[Lavindar]

I finally saw the Amber movie last night. It confirmed what I always knew. No matter, Scott was never going to take a polygraph. He was too guilty and his parents making excuses for him are pathetic. Didn't Jackie tell him "deny, deny, deny" because she knew he did it?



:cuss:
That movie was erroneous about Scott and the lie detector test. No detective confronted him there at all. The detective was parked in the area, not right at the location and Scott spotted him. The detective did not approach Scott.

[Luke Davis]

Amber took one, didn't she?IIRC eight witnesses were given a polygraph and some witnesses were hypnotised. Three witnesses demanded to be given a polygraph but were denied. Their testimony didn't agree with the one-day timeline.


MOO

[Mysteri]

Karen Sevres testified that on Christmas Day when she was dining with Scott and his lovely parents that he said LE didn't want him to take the LDT because he was too 'emotional' but that he had offered to. I doubt anyone believed him except his mother.

imo

[Lili007]

Karen Sevres testified that on Christmas Day when she was dining with Scott and his lovely parents that he said LE didn't want him to take the LDT because he was too 'emotional' but that he had offered to. I doubt anyone believed him except his mother.

imo

I think his mother enabled him, rather than 'believed' him. I think she was in protect mode from the start, and from a position of knowledge of what he did. The "deny, deny" comment is hard to ignore, as are her other actions. She knew Laci wasn't coming back - and I think she knew it from the source of her "dissapearance", and I think she meant to protect him no matter what.

That's what mothers do.

BUT Laci had a mother who loved her and didn't deserve to lose her, and Laci was going to be a mother herself, until she, along with her baby were killed by her husband.

No matter how it's spinned, Laci and Conner died a horrible death at the hands of their supposed "protector", husband and father-to-be. All for a fling with someone he met, an obssession with himself and his fantasies and the compulsive desire to steer away from ANY kind of responsibility. Especially one that would involve years and years of commitment, emotional and financial. He couldn't cope with it, IMO.

Well, there's a myriad of solutions out there for people like that. Killing your pregnant wife and taking the life of your unborn child in the process as well, is not one of them, IMO.

JMO

[Invrdv8]

I think his mother enabled him, rather than 'believed' him. I think she was in protect mode from the start, and from a position of knowledge of what he did. The "deny, deny" comment is hard to ignore, as are her other actions. She knew Laci wasn't coming back - and I think she knew it from the source of her "dissapearance", and I think she meant to protect him no matter what.

That's what mothers do.

BUT Laci had a mother who loved her and didn't deserve to lose her, and Laci was going to be a mother herself, until she, along with her baby were killed by her husband.

No matter how it's spinned, Laci and Conner died a horrible death at the hands of their supposed "protector", husband and father-to-be. All for a fling with someone he met, an obssession with himself and his fantasies and the compulsive desire to steer away from ANY kind of responsibility. Especially one that would involve years and years of commitment, emotional and financial. He couldn't cope with it, IMO.

Well, there's a myriad of solutions out there for people like that. Killing your pregnant wife and taking the life of your unborn child in the process as well, is not one of them, IMO.

JMO

I agree with you except for your comment "All for a fling with someone he met...". If you're referring to Amber, I don't believe Scott dating her had anything to do with him killing Laci and Conner. I think Scott wanted to be free to have a fling with many "Ambers". I think he would have tired of Amber after a while and moved on especially when she had already made it clear she wanted to get married and have more children. JMO

[Luke Davis]

I agree with you except for your comment "All for a fling with someone he met...". If you're referring to Amber, I don't believe Scott dating her had anything to do with him killing Laci and Conner. I think Scott wanted to be free to have a fling with many "Ambers". I think he would have tired of Amber after a while and moved on especially when she had already made it clear she wanted to get married and have more children. JMO

That sounds like a reason not to murder Laci and Conner.

[Lili007]

I take both points, from Luke and Invrdv8.

Amber, even if one in a long line of "Ambers" was the woman he was romancing at the time, the one he told he'd "lost" his wife and that was going to be his first Christmas without her (!!) and the one he lied to telling her he was living it up on the streets of Paris with Pasqual and whoever (I forget the other name), when he was actually at his "missing" wife's memorial.

Nothing against Amber at all - she was duped and hurt and she didn't deserve it. She seems to be a very devoted mother and an honest and respectable person, as well as being gorgeous. This is NOT about Amber.

It's about how Scott fantasized about another life, another woman, an escape from responsibility which drove him to kill his wife and unborn child. There are a lot of clues there... the CD he gave to Amber called "Come Away With Me", his Great Coat and quotes of Russian poetry, his reference to Jack "Cadillac" and how he'd like to emulate his lifestyle... etc.

He was on a mission to escape any responsibility whatsoever, especially that which would tie him up very closely and for decades, IMO.

JMO

[Mysteri]

I think his mother enabled him, rather than 'believed' him. I think she was in protect mode from the start, and from a position of knowledge of what he did. The "deny, deny" comment is hard to ignore, as are her other actions. She knew Laci wasn't coming back - and I think she knew it from the source of her "dissapearance", and I think she meant to protect him no matter what.

That's what mothers do.

BUT Laci had a mother who loved her and didn't deserve to lose her, and Laci was going to be a mother herself, until she, along with her baby were killed by her husband.

No matter how it's spinned, Laci and Conner died a horrible death at the hands of their supposed "protector", husband and father-to-be. All for a fling with someone he met, an obssession with himself and his fantasies and the compulsive desire to steer away from ANY kind of responsibility. Especially one that would involve years and years of commitment, emotional and financial. He couldn't cope with it, IMO.

Well, there's a myriad of solutions out there for people like that. Killing your pregnant wife and taking the life of your unborn child in the process as well, is not one of them, IMO.

JMO

Oh I think she initially believed every word out of his pouting mouth. That was just the day after the Crime and I am convinced she still hung on his every word. Albeit I think Lee knew from Day 1 that Scott had eliminated his tiny family.

As I see it, Scott had determined to kill Laci before he even met Frey. He was looking for a gf to replace his wife when Frey came on the scene. He was fast running out of time. The baby was due VERY soon. He had to get on with it and Frey was the last effort he plotted before the Kill. It seems he had already ordered the false graduation certificates before he met Frey and perhaps acquired the PO box.

Scott of course is just one of a multitude of fiends who end pregnancis by murder. Far too many of his ilk can't bear to be usurped by an infant...they can't bear the competition.

I truly think both of his parents should have been given lie detector tests. Rick Distaso expressed his comtempt for the blatant lies.


imo

i

[Lili007]

Oh I think she initially believed every word out of his pouting mouth. That was just the day after the Crime and I am convinced she still hung on his every word. Albeit I think Lee knew from Day 1 that Scott had eliminated his tiny family.

As I see it, Scott had determined to kill Laci before he even met Frey. He was looking for a gf to replace his wife when Frey came on the scene. He was fast running out of time. The baby was due VERY soon. He had to get on with it and Frey was the last effort he plotted before the Kill. It seems he had already ordered the false graduation certificates before he met Frey and perhaps acquired the PO box.

Scott of course is just one of a multitude of fiends who end pregnancis by murder. Far too many of his ilk can't bear to be usurped by an infant...they can't bear the competition.

I truly think both of his parents should have been given lie detector tests. Rick Distaso expressed his comtempt for the blatant lies.


imo

i

I agree - she would have believed, or wanted to believe anything and everything. But at some point Scott's mother KNEW, IMO. And instead of doing the right thing, she became possessive and acquiring and completely careless about what happened to her daughter-in-law, even as she was carrying her grandchild. I suppose her experience in giving away her own children for adoption might have steeled her that way. Asking for her "missing" daughter-in-law's jewellery was just CRASS, IMO. But it doesn't surprise me one bit, taken in context.

JMO

[Luke Davis]

I take both points, from Luke and Invrdv8.

Amber, even if one in a long line of "Ambers" was the woman he was romancing at the time, the one he told he'd "lost" his wife and that was going to be his first Christmas without her (!!) and the one he lied to telling her he was living it up on the streets of Paris with Pasqual and whoever (I forget the other name), when he was actually at his "missing" wife's memorial.

Nothing against Amber at all - she was duped and hurt and she didn't deserve it. She seems to be a very devoted mother and an honest and respectable person, as well as being gorgeous. This is NOT about Amber.

It's about how Scott fantasized about another life, another woman, an escape from responsibility which drove him to kill his wife and unborn child. There are a lot of clues there... the CD he gave to Amber called "Come Away With Me", his Great Coat and quotes of Russian poetry, his reference to Jack "Cadillac" and how he'd like to emulate his lifestyle... etc.

He was on a mission to escape any responsibility whatsoever, especially that which would tie him up very closely and for decades, IMO.

JMO

You may well be right Lili007, I think many agree with you. This part has always confused me but then who can figure how Scott thinks. It is just so easy for Scott to have girlfriends but tell them he doesn't want to hurt his family.

"Ambers" have fallen for the forbidden fruit and hung on for years. By Scott murdering Laci and Conner he is less attractive. It is just so complicated. He loses all his friends. Does he quit his job?

[Lili007]

You may well be right Lili007, I think many agree with you. This part has always confused me but then who can figure how Scott thinks. It is just so easy for Scott to have girlfriends but tell them he doesn't want to hurt his family.

"Ambers" have fallen for the forbidden fruit and hung on for years. By Scott murdering Laci and Conner he is less attractive. It is just so complicated. He loses all his friends. Does he quit his job?


I believe he got fired, in the end? Unless by "job" you mean something else?

JMO

[Luke Davis]

I believe he got fired, in the end? Unless by "job" you mean something else?

JMOI meant was part of his plan to quit his job?

[Lili007]

I meant was part of his plan to quit his job?

I don't know. Maybe so - it would fit the pattern. No responsibility. But he needed to eat, and more importantly, he needed to brag about his social standing. :shrug:

On the other hand, there's the car he bought as "Jackie" packed with camping and survival gear... maybe he was getting ready to follow the tracks of Jack Cadillac. Or just to escape justice. Or a mixture of both.

I think he used his job for his own purposes, other than just earning a living.

JMO

[Mysteri]

Very true. His job gave him the constant opportunity to travel throughout his area. His mother gave him such large sums of money he didn't need to earn.

He could never pass a LDT !!

imo

[Luke Davis]

Very true. His job gave him the constant opportunity to travel throughout his area. His mother gave him such large sums of money he didn't need to earn.

He could never pass a LDT !!

imoI really think Scott was dead inside. Didn't have feelings. He might have passed a LDT or at least been inconclusive. His emotions always seemed faked to me.

[Mysteri]

I really think Scott was dead inside. Didn't have feelings. He might have passed a LDT or at least been inconclusive. His emotions always seemed faked to me.


'Dead inside' describes him to a T. And yet he had those deep yearnings to Be Someone - Someone with a holiday home at Kennebunkport, who traveled to spend holidays in European capitols, who had diplomas from prestigious universities. No doubt he aspired to those things because they impressed HIS MOTHER. Still he was a paradox who didn't have much regard for her either.

You may well be right about the Lie Detector Test...it would be interesting to see. The man who invented the Polygraph once told me that a kleptomaniac could pass the test easily because they didn't consider what they did to be theft !!


imo

[deputydi]

I really think Scott was dead inside. Didn't have feelings. He might have passed a LDT or at least been inconclusive. His emotions always seemed faked to me.

You are so right. I, too, think he could have passed a LDT. I like your description -- his emotionless demeanor made him appear to be "dead inside".

[Lavindar]

Oh I think she initially believed every word out of his pouting mouth. That was just the day after the Crime and I am convinced she still hung on his every word. Albeit I think Lee knew from Day 1 that Scott had eliminated his tiny family.

As I see it, Scott had determined to kill Laci before he even met Frey. He was looking for a gf to replace his wife when Frey came on the scene. He was fast running out of time. The baby was due VERY soon. He had to get on with it and Frey was the last effort he plotted before the Kill. It seems he had already ordered the false graduation certificates before he met Frey and perhaps acquired the PO box.

Scott of course is just one of a multitude of fiends who end pregnancis by murder. Far too many of his ilk can't bear to be usurped by an infant...they can't bear the competition.

I truly think both of his parents should have been given lie detector tests. Rick Distaso expressed his comtempt for the blatant lies.


imo

i

IIRC, he got the diplomas on Dec 16th, and the mailbox on Dec 23rd. He was a budy boy on the 23rd - and not at work. He got the mailbox, worked out at Del Rio, went to doc with Laci and got a hair cut. Nothing about selling any fertilizer that day.

I think naive Amber who was tall and thin, versus short and fat as he thought Laci was, was the perfect transition person in his mind. Amber believed him.

[Mysteri]

IIRC, he got the diplomas on Dec 16th, and the mailbox on Dec 23rd. He was a budy boy on the 23rd - and not at work. He got the mailbox, worked out at Del Rio, went to doc with Laci and got a hair cut. Nothing about selling any fertilizer that day.

I think naive Amber who was tall and thin, versus short and fat as he thought Laci was, was the perfect transition person in his mind. Amber believed him.

Thanks for the exact dates, Lavindar !

Right, Amber was the surfer blonde type, a complete opposite of Laci wh had colouring more like Jackie, though that's where the resemblance ended.


imo

[Lili007]

Yet Laci was so beautiful. She had a magic smile, and if she was a bit large it's because she was carrying the baby her husband fathered.

IMO, if he didn't want a child, he should have been buying contraceptives, not Viagra.

I think Laci was gorgeous right down to her last day. Pity her husband didn't, and felt he was entitled to kill her over it, or whatever else was going through his vacuous mind at the time, IMO.

JMO

[deputydi]

Yet Laci was so beautiful. She had a magic smile, and if she was a bit large it's because she was carrying the baby her husband fathered.

IMO, if he didn't want a child, he should have been buying contraceptives, not Viagra.

I think Laci was gorgeous right down to her last day. Pity her husband didn't, and felt he was entitled to kill her over it, or whatever else was going through his vacuous mind at the time, IMO.

JMO
ITA. I love your posts -- ALL of them. You manage to hit the nail on the head every time.