Sharon Rocha awarded life ins. money

[aingael]

It's about time this was settled.





Give Laci's mom the insurance money, appeals court rules
By BEE STAFF REPORTS

last updated: October 31, 2007 02:19:21 PM


Laci Peterson's mother deserves a $250,000 payout from her daughter's life insurance, an appellate court said, affirming a decision a Stanislaus County Superior Court judge made nearly two years ago.

In a 25-page opinion, a three-judge panel from The Fifth District Court of Appeal in Fresno said the fact that Scott Peterson is appealing the double-murder conviction that sent him to death row at San Quentin State Prison is not enough hold up the payment to Sharon Rocha of Modesto.

Rocha is the executor of her daughter's estate.

Scott Peterson had been the beneficiary of the policy dated June 25, 2001, but he lost his inheritance rights when a jury said he was guilty of killing his wife and unborn son.

Peterson's attorneys argued that Rocha should not receive the insurance proceeds while the case is on appeal.

Authorities say Peterson smothered or strangled his pregnant wife just before Christmas 2002. He was convicted in November 2004 and sentenced to death a month later.


http://www.modbee.com/local/pmupdates/story/108113.html

[TopGunner]

It's about time this was settled.





Give Laci's mom the insurance money, appeals court rules
By BEE STAFF REPORTS

last updated: October 31, 2007 02:19:21 PM


Laci Peterson's mother deserves a $250,000 payout from her daughter's life insurance, an appellate court said, affirming a decision a Stanislaus County Superior Court judge made nearly two years ago.

In a 25-page opinion, a three-judge panel from The Fifth District Court of Appeal in Fresno said the fact that Scott Peterson is appealing the double-murder conviction that sent him to death row at San Quentin State Prison is not enough hold up the payment to Sharon Rocha of Modesto.

Rocha is the executor of her daughter's estate.

Scott Peterson had been the beneficiary of the policy dated June 25, 2001, but he lost his inheritance rights when a jury said he was guilty of killing his wife and unborn son.

Peterson's attorneys argued that Rocha should not receive the insurance proceeds while the case is on appeal.

Authorities say Peterson smothered or strangled his pregnant wife just before Christmas 2002. He was convicted in November 2004 and sentenced to death a month later.


http://www.modbee.com/local/pmupdates/story/108113.html


Aingael, you ROCK!!!

:rose:

Thank you for posting this, it's the best news I've heard all day. Not only did Sharon deserve that insurance money, but the murderer and his family did NOT. I hope this gives them a CLUE as to how the appeals will unfold too.

:patriot:

[Heyes]

Aingael, you ROCK!!!

:rose:

Thank you for posting this, it's the best news I've heard all day. Not only did Sharon deserve that insurance money, but the murderer and his family did NOT. I hope this gives them a CLUE as to how the appeals will unfold too.

:patriot:
OH, I bet jackies's fit to be tied!

imo

[One2Snoop]

I just read the news alert on this in my email and I'm so happy to hear that Sharon was awarded the money. She more than deserves it after all she's been through. :rose: :beer:

[Miss Bootsie]

Thanks for the update Aingael. :beer:

Congratulations to Sharon.:rose:
She more than deserves this.

I knew the Court of Appeal would make the right decision.:patriot:

[Lavindar]

It's about time this was settled.






Give Laci's mom the insurance money, appeals court rules
By BEE STAFF REPORTS

last updated: October 31, 2007 02:19:21 PM


Laci Peterson's mother deserves a $250,000 payout from her daughter's life insurance, an appellate court said, affirming a decision a Stanislaus County Superior Court judge made nearly two years ago.

In a 25-page opinion, a three-judge panel from The Fifth District Court of Appeal in Fresno said the fact that Scott Peterson is appealing the double-murder conviction that sent him to death row at San Quentin State Prison is not enough hold up the payment to Sharon Rocha of Modesto.

Rocha is the executor of her daughter's estate.

Scott Peterson had been the beneficiary of the policy dated June 25, 2001, but he lost his inheritance rights when a jury said he was guilty of killing his wife and unborn son.

Peterson's attorneys argued that Rocha should not receive the insurance proceeds while case is on appeal.

Authorities say Peterson smothered or strangled his pregnant wife just before Christmas 2002. He was convicted in November 2004 and sentenced to death a month later.


http://www.modbee.com/local/pmupdates/story/108113.html

ITA, and I'm glad that the Petersons didn't get this money.

[Mysteri]

If only it were more ! Think of all the expenses for all those months of the trial.....

Glad she got it though !
I was furious there was an appeal ! How greedy can some people get !??!?!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/31/BA49T47VV.DTL

:seeya:

[WaitN4Ever]

This is OUTRAGOUS!!

The Peterson lost a Daughter in law, grandbaby and also their son.
They made the house payments only for the Rocha's to take away from them.
I don't see justice served, I see an opportunity taken advantage of. :flamemad:
I understand the Rocha's lost their Daugher and grandson but so did the Petersons. Since there is an appeal it should be held up until they get all this settled. Soon Scott will be a free man walking among the free. It is just a matter of time before it happens.

[PsychNurse;~)]

This is OUTRAGOUS!!

The Peterson lost a Daughter in law, grandbaby and also their son.
They made the house payments only for the Rocha's to take away from them.
I don't see justice served, I see an opportunity taken advantage of. :flamemad:
I understand the Rocha's lost their Daugher and grandson but so did the Petersons. Since there is an appeal it should be held up until they get all this settled. Soon Scott will be a free man walking among the free. It is just a matter of time before it happens.

not in this lifetime, thank god. so much for you being on the fence in this case~~though you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

[PsychNurse;~)]

This is OUTRAGOUS!!

The Peterson lost a Daughter in law, grandbaby and also their son.
They made the house payments only for the Rocha's to take away from them.
I don't see justice served, I see an opportunity taken advantage of. :flamemad:
I understand the Rocha's lost their Daugher and grandson but so did the Petersons. Since there is an appeal it should be held up until they get all this settled. Soon Scott will be a free man walking among the free. It is just a matter of time before it happens.

yes, jackie lost the 'daughter' that she was hoping isp would replace with someone like the babysitter. lee lost the 'daughter' that he had no problem with isp cheating on while she was pregnant. lee and jackie lost "the baby" and "laci's baby", never referred to as their grandson is any of the interviews i saw.

now that's worth being flaming mad over, imo. the peterson clan got EXACTLY what they deserved.

:flamemad:

~~cyn~~

[Invrdv8]

If only it were more ! Think of all the expenses for all those months of the trial.....

Glad she got it though !
I was furious there was an appeal ! How greedy can some people get !??!?!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/31/BA49T47VV.DTL

:seeya:

The initial amount of the insurance was $250,000.00 but, if I'm not mistaken, the money was being held and collecting interest until the appeal was resolved. I believe I read somewhere that it was up to $256,000.00 plus some time back. Whatever the amount, I'm glad it finally went to Sharon.
I'll bet Jackie is having the fit of all fits!!!!

[Lavindar]

The initial amount of the insurance was $250,000.00 but, if I'm not mistaken, the money was being held and collecting interest until the appeal was resolved. I believe I read somewhere that it was up to $256,000.00 plus some time back. Whatever the amount, I'm glad it finally went to Sharon.
I'll bet Jackie is having the fit of all fits!!!!


I wouldn't want to be a fly on the wall in the Peterson camp right now. Or anything else that might be in the way of Jackie's wrath. Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if she called Sharon up on the phone and said something nasty to her.

[Heyes]

I wouldn't want to be a fly on the wall in the Peterson camp right now. Or anything else that might be in the way of Jackie's wrath. Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if she called Sharon up on the phone and said something nasty to her.

What do ya want to bet jackie goes to an attorney to find out if she can sue Sharon for the money?????
I wouldn't put it past her.
imo

[TopGunner]

:D I wouldn't want to be a fly on the wall in the Peterson camp right now. Or anything else that might be in the way of Jackie's wrath. Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if she called Sharon up on the phone and said something nasty to her.


Ohhh, how I'd LOVE to be a fly on the wall in the Peterson camp right now. Wearing a bullet proof vest and helmet of course, LOL!!!!:tongue:

No doubt Jackie would love to call Sharon and give her a piece of her mind, but I have a hunch she no longer has Sharon's number, roflmao.

[TopGunner]

What do ya want to bet jackie goes to an attorney to find out if she can sue Sharon for the money?????
I wouldn't put it past her.
imo


Heys, I sincerely hope Jackie Peterson spends every last dime she has fighting for what doesn't belong to her. She will continue to fail in her attempts until there's nothing left to sue for or with.:punch:

[PsychNurse;~)]

i liked this part of the article posted on ctv's home page:

<i>In their 25-page decision, the three-judge panel disagreed, saying that the conviction was proof enough to disburse the money. The justices noted that the defense had presented no evidence of Peterson's innocence except a notice that an appeal had been filed.</i>

what happened to all the 'secret evidence' of isp's innocence we've heard referred to so many times?

:tongue: guess those silly attorneys forgot to include it in their filings with the court.

~~cyn~~

[Otter]

This is OUTRAGOUS!!

The Peterson lost a Daughter in law, grandbaby and also their son.
They made the house payments only for the Rocha's to take away from them.
I don't see justice served, I see an opportunity taken advantage of. :flamemad:
I understand the Rocha's lost their Daugher and grandson but so did the Petersons. Since there is an appeal it should be held up until they get all this settled. Soon Scott will be a free man walking among the free. It is just a matter of time before it happens.

Oh calm down my dear. :punch: Your drama is wasted. Their son was the cause of this being OUTRAGEOUS!!

You understand about the Rochas ... such compassion, bless your heart. :rolleyes:

[hankfromthebank]

Just the first of many appeals to be denied. So much for that petri dish BS..:beer:

[Otter]

Here's the published opinion from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/F049876.PDF

Lawyers for Peterson had argued that until his appeal was heard, a court could not conclude that he was responsible for the deaths.

In their 25-page decision, the three-judge panel disagreed, saying that the conviction was proof enough to disburse the money. The justices noted that the defense had presented no evidence of Peterson's innocence except a notice that an appeal had been filed.
"(W)e agree with the trial court that in the absence of any conflicting evidence, appellant's criminal conviction for the first degree murder of his wife was substantial and uncontradicted evidence that he feloniously and intentionally killed her," the justices wrote.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/110107_peterson_insurance_ctv.html

That must be the secret evidence, a notice of appeal. :rolleyes: Geragos & Geragos continues to earn their money.

IMO.

[I'mSun]

I'll bet Jackie is having the fit of all fits!!!!
I sure hope so! Just the first of many appeals they will not win.

[I'mSun]

In their 25-page decision, the three-judge panel disagreed, saying that the conviction was proof enough to disburse the money. The justices noted that the defense had presented no evidence of Peterson's innocence except a notice that an appeal had been filed. *snip*
That must be the secret evidence, a notice of appeal. :rolleyes: Geragos & Geragos continues to earn their money.


Gee Otter, it is sooooo secret that apparently they dont want ANYONE to see it! And the P's lose again! :beer:

[Otter]

Gee Otter, it is sooooo secret that apparently they dont want ANYONE to see it! And the P's lose again! :beer:

:beer: IMO, more evidence of his innocence was presented here than in the criminal trial. At least there was a notice of appeal, that's way more than MG's put in his CIC.

MG and his little pieces of paper. When will he learn that doesn't work? :no:

[Heyes]

This is OUTRAGOUS!!

The Peterson lost a Daughter in law, grandbaby and also their son.
They made the house payments only for the Rocha's to take away from them.
I don't see justice served, I see an opportunity taken advantage of. :flamemad:
I understand the Rocha's lost their Daugher and grandson but so did the Petersons. Since there is an appeal it should be held up until they get all this settled. Soon Scott will be a free man walking among the free. It is just a matter of time before it happens.


Now I am reallllllly appreciating the judges decision! :D

[Heyes]

Heys, I sincerely hope Jackie Peterson spends every last dime she has fighting for what doesn't belong to her. She will continue to fail in her attempts until there's nothing left to sue for or with.:punch:



I bet that little pay pal button on her website isn't seeing much action. Makes me wonder why all the hoopla lately over non issues regarding the appeal.
I think jackie is spending some bucks on pr for her golden boy. Since Sharon won the life insurance. I would imagine this has frosted jackie's cookies. The only way to fight back is to get the word out there that "Soon scott could be a free man". Hoping that someone will think there was an injustice and maybe hit that pay pal button. IMO
Like a fellow poster wisely said, "Follow the money" $$$$$ you'll find a peterson on the other end.
imo

[TopGunner]

I bet that little pay pal button on her website isn't seeing much action. Makes me wonder why all the hoopla lately over non issues regarding the appeal.
I think jackie is spending some bucks on pr for her golden boy. Since Sharon won the life insurance. I would imagine this has frosted jackie's cookies. The only way to fight back is to get the word out there that "Soon scott could be a free man". Hoping that someone will think there was an injustice and maybe hit that pay pal button. IMO
Like a fellow poster wisely said, "Follow the money" $$$$$ you'll find a peterson on the other end.
imo

I thought Marlene was the paypal queen? :biggrin:

[Heyes]

I thought Marlene was the paypal queen? :biggrin:

And I do believe your right. OK, princess jackie has her own pay pal button!
;)

[Invrdv8]

I thought Marlene was the paypal queen? :biggrin:

Wonder why there hasn't been any articles on PWC about Sharon getting the insurance money? Thought sure there'd be something about the "justice of it all".

[One2Snoop]

This is OUTRAGOUS!!

The Peterson lost a Daughter in law, grandbaby and also their son.
They made the house payments only for the Rocha's to take away from them.
I don't see justice served, I see an opportunity taken advantage of. :flamemad:
I understand the Rocha's lost their Daugher and grandson but so did the Petersons. Since there is an appeal it should be held up until they get all this settled. Soon Scott will be a free man walking among the free. It is just a matter of time before it happens.

You know this has been bugging me since I read it earlier today and my first thought was, :no: you got to be kidding? and my second thought on this was, I don't think you understand at all, Scott will never be free. :patriot:
JMO

[JustMyOpinion]

This is OUTRAGOUS!!

The Peterson lost a Daughter in law, grandbaby and also their son.
They made the house payments only for the Rocha's to take away from them.
I don't see justice served, I see an opportunity taken advantage of. :flamemad:
I understand the Rocha's lost their Daugher and grandson but so did the Petersons. Since there is an appeal it should be held up until they get all this settled. Soon Scott will be a free man walking among the free. It is just a matter of time before it happens.

I don't think the ruling was outrageous, it seemed consistent with the law, IMO. I thought Scott filing the appeal was outrageous, but, not surprising since he has no apparent conscience.
The Petersons didn't lose a daugher-in-law & grandbaby, their son murdered them. The Petersons haven't lost a son, he's very much alive and they are allowed to visit him, write him, speak with him on the phone.
If you can quote legal precedent in CA where a convicted murderer was allowed to collect the life insurance benefit on his/her victim to utilize in funding his/her legal appeals, I will read it with interest.

[Invrdv8]

Wonder why there hasn't been any articles on PWC about Sharon getting the insurance money? Thought sure there'd be something about the "justice of it all".

CORRECTION: S/B "INjustice" of it all.

The decision to award the money to Sharon was posted by PWC but there was no comment on it by MN or Nadia. I thought for sure she's say something about how unfair it was to Scott.

[I'mSun]

CORRECTION: S/B "INjustice" of it all.

The decision to award the money to Sharon was posted by PWC but there was no comment on it by MN or Nadia. I thought for sure she's say something about how unfair it was to Scott.Consider the lack of response a good thing! :D

[adnoid]

...I thought for sure she's say something about how unfair it was to Scott.

She's got to work it into an appeal to her followers for additional money, you know. Ho-hos aren't free.

[Lavindar]

:D


Ohhh, how I'd LOVE to be a fly on the wall in the Peterson camp right now. Wearing a bullet proof vest and helmet of course, LOL!!!!:tongue:

No doubt Jackie would love to call Sharon and give her a piece of her mind, but I have a hunch she no longer has Sharon's number, roflmao.

I have a hunch that Jackie no longer has a mind.......roflmao.

[Lavindar]

I don't think the ruling was outrageous, it seemed consistent with the law, IMO. I thought Scott filing the appeal was outrageous, but, not surprising since he has no apparent conscience.
The Petersons didn't lose a daugher-in-law & grandbaby, their son murdered them. The Petersons haven't lost a son, he's very much alive and they are allowed to visit him, write him, speak with him on the phone.
If you can quote legal precedent in CA where a convicted murderer was allowed to collect the life insurance benefit on his/her victim to utilize in funding his/her legal appeals, I will read it with interest.

I believe they can also touch him. Sharon sure can't touch Laci.

[Amy]

This is OUTRAGOUS!!

The Peterson lost a Daughter in law, grandbaby and also their son.
They made the house payments only for the Rocha's to take away from them.
I don't see justice served, I see an opportunity taken advantage of. :flamemad:
I understand the Rocha's lost their Daugher and grandson but so did the Petersons. Since there is an appeal it should be held up until they get all this settled. Soon Scott will be a free man walking among the free. It is just a matter of time before it happens.

I remember all the California laws being posted at the time, and this verdict is the LAWFUL one. One cannot profit from the murder of another. Plain and simple. He was found guilty, he does NOT get any monies, real estate, etc etc etc related to the one he murdered. The LAW states that one who is [I]convicted[I]of the murder is considered to have predeceased the murder victim. Which means all the murderer had goes to the estate of the murder victim, and the murderer is not considered to be elligble for ANYTHING of the estate of his victim.

So, in all cases (because appeal is automatic in DP cases) all insurance money and homes and everything should be held in limbo for the time it takes for appeal? Heck that can be YEARS.

[Amy]

i liked this part of the article posted on ctv's home page:

<i>In their 25-page decision, the three-judge panel disagreed, saying that the conviction was proof enough to disburse the money. The justices noted that the defense had presented no evidence of Peterson's innocence except a notice that an appeal had been filed.</i>

what happened to all the 'secret evidence' of isp's innocence we've heard referred to so many times?

:tongue: guess those silly attorneys forgot to include it in their filings with the court.

~~cyn~~


Perhaps they have not given all the "evidence" to the attorneys? Or, maybe they did and the attorneys wisely did not include their revelations?

[enlightenme]

Perhaps they have not given all the "evidence" to the attorneys? Or, maybe they did and the attorneys wisely did not include their revelations?

There is and never will be any exonerating evidence. Scott knows that better than anyone. Which makes me smile. :D

[Otter]

There is and never will be any exonerating evidence. Scott knows that better than anyone. Which makes me smile. :D

No EM! Its double secret! All those little teasers that are thrown out just kept bringing to mind Animal House, being Otter notwithstanding.:cool:

Double Secret Probation is a condition of arbitrarily imposed scrutiny of a given person or group's activities in an organizational or academic setting without procedural warning. In the film, Dean Vernon Wormer tells Inter-Fraternity Council President Greg Marmalard that he has already placed the offending Delta Tau Chi house on "double secret probation". The expanded release of the original movie on DVD in 2003, was titled the Double Secret Probation Edition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Lampoon's_Animal_House#Double_Secret_Prob ation

Oddly, it all ties in. They're right, the jury was wrong based on abritrary scrutiny; i.e., the affair. Lol, this is how ridiculous it all has become. :rolleyes: And this is all my most humble opinion.

[adnoid]

I believe they can also touch him...

Eeew. That's gross.

[I'mSun]

Perhaps they have not given all the "evidence" to the attorneys? Or, maybe they did and the attorneys wisely did not include their revelations?
Why would it be wise to NOT include evidence that someone thinks might exonerate DRISP? That makes no sense at all.

[Amy]

Why would it be wise to NOT include evidence that someone thinks might exonerate DRISP? That makes no sense at all.

Well, IF they really had any "evidence" which I think is sooo unlikely (otherwise--it would have been blasted from the hilltops) it probably still had to do with the dark-skinned fellows at the brown van/white van, the homeless folk in the park, or the artists at the bay.

It was meant to be a facicious remark--I just can't figure out which icon is the one to use.

[Lili007]

This is OUTRAGOUS!!

The Peterson lost a Daughter in law, grandbaby and also their son.
They made the house payments only for the Rocha's to take away from them.
I don't see justice served, I see an opportunity taken advantage of. :flamemad:
I understand the Rocha's lost their Daugher and grandson but so did the Petersons. Since there is an appeal it should be held up until they get all this settled. Soon Scott will be a free man walking among the free. It is just a matter of time before it happens.

Dream on. I hope you have a nice time. :)

JMO

[Lili007]

The initial amount of the insurance was $250,000.00 but, if I'm not mistaken, the money was being held and collecting interest until the appeal was resolved. I believe I read somewhere that it was up to $256,000.00 plus some time back. Whatever the amount, I'm glad it finally went to Sharon.
I'll bet Jackie is having the fit of all fits!!!!

Sharon and Ron are the natural recipients of the insurance policy that was (IMO) one of the reasons Scott killed Laci and Conner for. I'm not sure that it will cover their court expenses because I've no idea what they are, but it's a judgement for justice, and that's all good.

JMO

[Invrdv8]

Sharon and Ron are the natural recipients of the insurance policy that was (IMO) one of the reasons Scott killed Laci and Conner for. I'm not sure that it will cover their court expenses because I've no idea what they are, but it's a judgement for justice, and that's all good.

JMO

I don't believe Ron was a "natural recipient" of the insurance money. The money is going to Sharon, IMO, because she was Laci's next of kin and Administrator of Laci's estate. If Scott's intention was to claim the insurance money he would have had to wait 7 years before he could have Laci declared dead and collect. Thank goodness his plan to have her "disappear" forever didn't work! I haven't seen it reported anywhere how much Sharon actually will collect. I'm pretty sure the money was sitting somewhere collecting interest until the appeal was resolved.

JMO

[Lili007]

I don't believe Ron was a "natural recipient" of the insurance money. The money is going to Sharon, IMO, because she was Laci's next of kin and Administrator of Laci's estate. If Scott's intention was to claim the insurance money he would have had to wait 7 years before he could have Laci declared dead and collect. Thank goodness his plan to have her "disappear" forever didn't work! I haven't seen it reported anywhere how much Sharon actually will collect. I'm pretty sure the money was sitting somewhere collecting interest until the appeal was resolved.

JMO

I meant Sharon, of course. I included Ron because he is her partner. Also, he seemed to care for Laci very much. Much more than Laci's husband did, anyway.

I don't think Sharon cares much at all about how much she will collect. It's not about the money - it's about the principle.

As to how Scott expected to collect the insurance money, if he did, I don't think he was thinking straight at the time, to say the least.

He was pawning Laci's jewelery, romancing his mistress, buying a boat, making imaginary trips to Paris with imaginary friends like Pasqual and Francois... His whole world was make believe. I wouldn't be in the least surprised if he'd thought that all he had to do was put out his hand for that insurance money. He was living in la-la land, where everything is as you wish it to be.

Just My Opinion

[Invrdv8]

I meant Sharon, of course. I included Ron because he is her partner. Also, he seemed to care for Laci very much. Much more than Laci's husband did, anyway.

I don't think Sharon cares much at all about how much she will collect. It's not about the money - it's about the principle.

As to how Scott expected to collect the insurance money, if he did, I don't think he was thinking straight at the time, to say the least.

He was pawning Laci's jewelery, romancing his mistress, buying a boat, making imaginary trips to Paris with imaginary friends like Pasqual and Francois... His whole world was make believe. I wouldn't be in the least surprised if he'd thought that all he had to do was put out his hand for that insurance money. He was living in la-la land, where everything is as you wish it to be.

Just My Opinion

I'm sure Sharon doesn't care how much she'll collect. I'm the one that's curious to know what the payout was including interest. :) Since Scott thought he could sell the house without Laci he probably did think once she "disappeared" he could collect the insurance.

I think Scott's whole life has been one big "fantasy". He may physically be on DR in SQ but mentally I'll bet he's still in "Paris".:biggrin:

[Amy]

I'm sure Sharon doesn't care how much she'll collect. I'm the one that's curious to know what the payout was including interest. :) Since Scott thought he could sell the house without Laci he probably did think once she "disappeared" he could collect the insurance.

I think Scott's whole life has been one big "fantasy". He may physically be on DR in SQ but mentally I'll bet he's still in "Paris".:biggrin:


I can just see SP having conversations with Pasqual and Francois. Wonder if he invites them to a tea party like 3 y/o Suzie has with her little imaginary friends?

[Rachel Cory]

He was pawning Laci's jewelery,

Just My Opinion

Which pieces?

[Otter]

Which pieces?

If you would do a search in this room, you'd find your answers. :) Its been discussed to death.

Sorry you missed it. Its all in the transcripts.

[Otter]

Oh, nonsense.

Just trying to be helpful since you asked the question. No reason to be hostile.

Here, I'll get you started.

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/search.php

[I'mSun]

Just trying to be helpful since you asked the question. No reason to be hostile.

Here, I'll get you started.

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/search.phpMaybe a link to the pictures would be more appropriate. No reading required.

[Lili007]

Maybe a link to the pictures would be more appropriate. No reading required.

LOL!

Sorry I can't find them right now. Those were the pics "they", meaning Scott, IMO, photographed for ebay. But there were pieces of jewelry that Scott pawned with Laci.

I don't mean any disrespect to Laci, I just think he "persuaded" her to go to the pawn shop with him to pawn her jewlery!

After he pawned some of her jewelery he went and rented a tux to take his mistress to a Christmas party, while leaving his wife to go to another, alone.

Soon thereafter he bought a boat with cash from a guy whose surname was Peterson, which he never bothered to register in his own name. Then he took his boat to SF Bay and his wife disappearead on the same day, only to wash out where he took the boat to "test" it without anyone knowing about it.

The pictures of the jewelery "they" were selling on ebay included some where it is obvious that it's a man's hand holding an item, not a woman's. Some might say that it's because Laci was taking the photos, but I don't think so. Why would a man hold a lady's watch for a lady to photograph, instead of having the lady "model" it on her wrist while HE took photos??

I, like billions of other people, have a digital camera and a digital video recorder. I can hold someting at arm's length or put it on some surface and hold it up for a better view, with absolutely no trouble at all, and take a shot of it with either.

All those shots that were published on the web were very close shots. SOme of those shots showed part of a hand, and none of them belonged to a female hand, particularly one as as delicate as a woman's the size of Laci. One of the last photos taken of her was at that Christmas party that Scott left her to go to on her own, while he romanced his mistress with roses and champagne and took her to a Christmas party that very night, got photos taken in stupid Santa hats with her in his arms and all but making love to her right there in the car.

Point being that, even at that stage of pregnancy, Laci's hands and fingers were not swollen, or remotely looking like a man's, and it's VERY clear from that picture. The fingers in the ebay jewelery pics are definitely a man's, and since they were taken and posted before Laci "disappeared" and at a time when he was trying to pawn other jewelery for immediate cash during his affair, I think it's pretty safe to assume that Scott took them and was trying to sell them whatever way he could.

I believe he was trying to get as much money together from whatever sources he could, to facilitate an escape because he knew what he was going to do a long time before he did it, In My Opinion.

Remember the CD he sent to Amber, titled "Come Away With Me"? I think he started thinking of going away as soon as he realised that he wouldn't get away with it.

JMO

[Otter]

Oh Lili, I stand in agreement.

Are you a psychiatrist? You have DRISP nailed, IMO. *shivering*

[Lili007]

Oh Lili, I stand in agreement.

Are you a psychiatrist? You have DRISP nailed, IMO. *shivering*

No, Otter, just a Medical Science graduate with studies in psychology and and an interest in what moves people to do what they do.

It's just that this case is so obvious - to me - that I can't understand why some people can't see it. That's OK - everyone's entitled to their own.

But when you get people living in a blantantly fantasy world and their wife and baby go "missing" where they went "fishing" and then they start growing beards, and when the dead bodies of his wife and child wash up where he went "fishing", he buys a car under the name of "Jackie", stocks it with all sorts of camping and personal gear, driving it in the vicinity of the Mexican boarder, while pretending he was going "golfing" using his brother's licence while he had some $10,000 stored in the car, as well...

IMO, whoever thinks he's "innocent" and want him released on appeal, may want to make sure he won't marry or have a close relationship with any of their relatives that they care about. :shrug:

JMO

[Otter]

No, Otter, just a Medical Science graduate with studies in psychology and and an interest in what moves people to do what they do.

It's just that this case is so obvious - to me - that I can't understand why some people can't see it. That's OK - everyone's entitled to their own.

But when you get people living in a blantantly fantasy world and their wife and baby go "missing" where they went "fishing" and then they start growing beards, and when the dead bodies of his wife and child wash up where he went "fishing", he buys a car under the name of "Jackie", stocks it with all sorts of camping and personal gear, driving it in the vicinity of the Mexican boarder, while pretending he was going "golfing" using his brother's licence while he had some $10,000 stored in the car, as well...

IMO, whoever thinks he's "innocent" and want him released on appeal, may want to make sure he won't marry or have a close relationship with any of their relatives that they care about. :shrug:

JMO

This isn't eloquent on my part, but :beer:

Yep, and I've noticed that after all these years, those points are not addressed by the apologists. They have been asked, but all inquiries are ignored. They attempt to deflect, to no effect though. It weakens their argument, whatever their argument is. :)

As if they had one to begin with. When this forum started, these questions were put out there and they were ignored. Not a surprise.

I'm pleased to know you Lili, I've always admired your posts, very much!

[Lili007]

This isn't eloquent on my part, but :beer:

Yep, and I've noticed that after all these years, those points are not addressed by the apologists. They have been asked, but all inquiries are ignored. They attempt to deflect, to no effect though. It weakens their argument, whatever their argument is. :)

As if they had one to begin with. When this forum started, these questions were put out there and they were ignored. Not a surprise.

I'm pleased to know you Lili, I've always admired your posts, very much!

Otter, thank you - and me yours. We obviously think alike, but not just for that reason alone. You're a thoughtful and courteous poster. I've never looked for acollades, I never will. I'm just glad we agree:)

I don't know why precisely, except for the obvious reasons, but Laci's case really touched me. A young woman pregnant with her first baby, making a home for her husband, her child and herself, being so enthusiastic about it (think of Conner's nursery!), all to be brought down and killed because her husband found someone else and couldn't be bothered with responsibility.

This is what I think so selfish and evil. He COULD have divorced Laci if he waned to. He COULD have left Laci and lived with Amber and her daughter, he COULD have divorced Laci if he wanter a marriage with Amber... He could have just run away and invite his new love interest to "come away" with him.

He could... he could... he could...

Sad thing for everyone concerned, he didn't. He chose to kill instead.

JMO

[Lavindar]

Otter, thank you - and me yours. We obviously think alike, but not just for that reason alone. You're a thoughtful and courteous poster. I've never looked for acollades, I never will. I'm just glad we agree:)

I don't know why precisely, except for the obvious reasons, but Laci's case really touched me. A young woman pregnant with her first baby, making a home for her husband, her child and herself, being so enthusiastic about it (think of Conner's nursery!), all to be brought down and killed because her husband found someone else and couldn't be bothered with responsibility.

This is what I think so selfish and evil. He COULD have divorced Laci if he waned to. He COULD have left Laci and lived with Amber and her daughter, he COULD have divorced Laci if he wanter a marriage with Amber... He could have just run away and invite his new love interest to "come away" with him.

He could... he could... he could...

Sad thing for everyone concerned, he didn't. He chose to kill instead.

JMO

He could have, but under California community property laws, he would have lost half of his salary. Laci only made about $6000 a year from substitute teaching and she didn't have the credentials to be a full-time teacher - She would have required at least one more year of college that he would have had to help pay for.

I think it was more about the money than about the affair. He wanted to be FREE and KEEP all the money. Couldn't be done in California. He not only would lose about half his income, but he'd lose possession of the house (when kids are involved, custodial parent usually gets the residence) And he'd lose half his free time as he'd be assigned visitation every other weekend. There goes his freedom right there.

[Lili007]

He could have, but under California community property laws, he would have lost half of his salary. Laci only made about $6000 a year from substitute teaching and she didn't have the credentials to be a full-time teacher - She would have required at least one more year of college that he would have had to help pay for.

I think it was more about the money than about the affair. He wanted to be FREE and KEEP all the money. Couldn't be done in California. He not only would lose about half his income, but he'd lose possession of the house (when kids are involved, custodial parent usually gets the residence) And he'd lose half his free time as he'd be assigned visitation every other weekend. There goes his freedom right there.

Absolutely right, Lavindar - that's what I always thought. It's just that i thought he'd want Amber along for companionship.

His desire for "freedom", or at least freedom from any responsibility is obvious at every turn.

He had an affair with Amber while his wife was pregnant - he didn't want the responsibility of looking after Laci or their baby.

He treated Conner's nursery as a store-room the first chance he got, after saying on camera that no-one goes in that room until "there's a little guy to put in there" (words to that effect).

I think he was almost "comfortable" with Amber's child because he had no responsibility for her whatsoever, and whatever he "bestowed" on her would earn him BIG brownie points with her mother. If he were interested in a child, he would have been interested in his own SON. But he didn't want him, IMO.

IMO, he wanted the care-free, duty-free, responsibility-free, fantasy-full life of a teenager. I don't think he ever grew up. Having seen his parents in and out or court during the trial, and the antics they got up to around LACI's home, I'm not in the least surprised.

JMO

[Invrdv8]

Otter, thank you - and me yours. We obviously think alike, but not just for that reason alone. You're a thoughtful and courteous poster. I've never looked for acollades, I never will. I'm just glad we agree:)

I don't know why precisely, except for the obvious reasons, but Laci's case really touched me. A young woman pregnant with her first baby, making a home for her husband, her child and herself, being so enthusiastic about it (think of Conner's nursery!), all to be brought down and killed because her husband found someone else and couldn't be bothered with responsibility.

This is what I think so selfish and evil. He COULD have divorced Laci if he waned to. He COULD have left Laci and lived with Amber and her daughter, he COULD have divorced Laci if he wanter a marriage with Amber... He could have just run away and invite his new love interest to "come away" with him.

He could... he could... he could...

Sad thing for everyone concerned, he didn't. He chose to kill instead.

JMO

There are alot of people that believe Scott murdered Laci to be with Amber. But I can't see it. Had everything gone his way, he may have continued a relationship with Amber until Laci's "disappearance" had died down, but eventually would have moved on. I think Scott wanted his freedom and he wouldn't have attained that with Amber. She obviously wanted to be married and have more children. If he stayed with Amber he'd be right back where he was with Laci. I think he wanted all the money to himself and he wanted to be able to play the field. He probably would have gotten a vasectomy which would have solved the problem or ever being tied down with or responsible for a biological child. Had Laci not been found he would have had no responsibilities, the house, his money to himself and, eventually, Laci's insurance money. Killing Laci to be with Amber, whom he'd only dated a few times, just doesn't make sense even for Scott.

[Lili007]

There are alot of people that believe Scott murdered Laci to be with Amber. But I can't see it. Had everything gone his way, he may have continued a relationship with Amber until Laci's "disappearance" had died down, but eventually would have moved on. I think Scott wanted his freedom and he wouldn't have attained that with Amber. She obviously wanted to be married and have more children. If he stayed with Amber he'd be right back where he was with Laci. I think he wanted all the money to himself and he wanted to be able to play the field. He probably would have gotten a vasectomy which would have solved the problem or ever being tied down with or responsible for a biological child. Had Laci not been found he would have had no responsibilities, the house, his money to himself and, eventually, Laci's insurance money. Killing Laci to be with Amber, whom he'd only dated a few times, just doesn't make sense even for Scott.

I agree, Invrdv8.

By the way - my name is not Lili, but it has a certain siginficance to me, as well as being user-friendly.

I'm as eloquent as they come, but I'm not good with obscure nics. If you care to tell, I would like to know where it comes from. It intrigues me - "inverted 8", maybe?? But that's not possible - a figure of 8 can't be 'inverted' - well, it can, but so what? It's perfectly simmetrical. Whichever way you turn it is either the figure eight or the symbol for infinity.

JMO

[Lili007]

There are alot of people that believe Scott murdered Laci to be with Amber. But I can't see it. Had everything gone his way, he may have continued a relationship with Amber until Laci's "disappearance" had died down, but eventually would have moved on. I think Scott wanted his freedom and he wouldn't have attained that with Amber. She obviously wanted to be married and have more children. If he stayed with Amber he'd be right back where he was with Laci. I think he wanted all the money to himself and he wanted to be able to play the field. He probably would have gotten a vasectomy which would have solved the problem or ever being tied down with or responsible for a biological child. Had Laci not been found he would have had no responsibilities, the house, his money to himself and, eventually, Laci's insurance money. Killing Laci to be with Amber, whom he'd only dated a few times, just doesn't make sense even for Scott.


Killing Laci to be with Amber, whom he'd only dated a few times, just doesn't make sense even for Scott.[/QUOTE]


What do you mean? That he didn't kill Laci?

JMO

[Invrdv8]

I agree, Invrdv8.

By the way - my name is not Lili, but it has a certain siginficance to me, as well as being user-friendly.

I'm as eloquent as they come, but I'm not good with obscure nics. If you care to tell, I would like to know where it comes from. It intrigues me - "inverted 8", maybe?? But that's not possible - a figure of 8 can't be 'inverted' - well, it can, but so what? It's perfectly simmetrical. Whichever way you turn it is either the figure eight or the symbol for infinity.

JMO

Check your PM's. :D

[Lili007]

There are alot of people that believe Scott murdered Laci to be with Amber. But I can't see it. Had everything gone his way, he may have continued a relationship with Amber until Laci's "disappearance" had died down, but eventually would have moved on. I think Scott wanted his freedom and he wouldn't have attained that with Amber. She obviously wanted to be married and have more children. If he stayed with Amber he'd be right back where he was with Laci. I think he wanted all the money to himself and he wanted to be able to play the field. He probably would have gotten a vasectomy which would have solved the problem or ever being tied down with or responsible for a biological child. Had Laci not been found he would have had no responsibilities, the house, his money to himself and, eventually, Laci's insurance money. Killing Laci to be with Amber, whom he'd only dated a few times, just doesn't make sense even for Scott.

I don't think he killed Laci for the sake of being with Amber. I think Amber may have been his excuse and "refuge". He didn't "date" Amber - he romanced her with roses being stroked down her chest (and goodness knows what else) and champagne with strawberries. That's a cassanova approach.

I never thought he killed Laci to be with Amber. I just thought Amber was an interest and an excuse at the time, and after he murdered his wife Laci, maybe someone to share lonely nights with in Mexico. Or maybe he had other thoughts when he asked Amber to meet him at the lake, BEFORE his planned trip to Mexico.

Whatever.

JMO

[Invrdv8]

Killing Laci to be with Amber, whom he'd only dated a few times, just doesn't make sense even for Scott.


What do you mean? That he didn't kill Laci?

JMO[/QUOTE]

No, I believe he killed Laci, I just don't think he did it so he could be with Amber.

[Lili007]

There are alot of people that believe Scott murdered Laci to be with Amber. But I can't see it. Had everything gone his way, he may have continued a relationship with Amber until Laci's "disappearance" had died down, but eventually would have moved on. I think Scott wanted his freedom and he wouldn't have attained that with Amber. She obviously wanted to be married and have more children. If he stayed with Amber he'd be right back where he was with Laci. I think he wanted all the money to himself and he wanted to be able to play the field. He probably would have gotten a vasectomy which would have solved the problem or ever being tied down with or responsible for a biological child. Had Laci not been found he would have had no responsibilities, the house, his money to himself and, eventually, Laci's insurance money. Killing Laci to be with Amber, whom he'd only dated a few times, just doesn't make sense even for Scott.

Theory is good - and it stops with the last full stop after the last sentence
Scott never made any "sense". Killing his wife and child never made any sense. "dating" Amber never made any sense. None of it does, or ever will. That's why he's sitting in SQ on DR.

JMO

[Invrdv8]

I don't think he killed Laci for the sake of being with Amber. I think Amber may have been his excuse and "refuge". He didn't "date" Amber - he romanced her with roses being stroked down her chest (and goodness knows what else) and champagne with strawberries. That's a cassanova approach.

I never thought he killed Laci to be with Amber. I just thought Amber was an interest and an excuse at the time, and after he murdered his wife Laci, maybe someone to share lonely nights with in Mexico. Or maybe he had other thoughts when he asked Amber to meet him at the lake, BEFORE his planned trip to Mexico.

Whatever.

JMO

The first time they saw each other was actually a "blind date". I think the Xmas party was a date. I think their trip to the park with Ayiana and buying a tree was a date. Yes, he did romance Amber but isn't that what guys do, at least on the first few dates, to make a big impression and win a girl over? If a guy invites a girl for dinner and a movie wouldn't you call that a date? The "romancing" is just part of that picture. Amber was an "interest" at the time, I agree, but IMO not an excuse. IMO he killed Laci for very specific reasons and none of them had anything to do with Amber per se.

Whatever?:confused:

JMO

[Lili007]

[/B]


What do you mean? That he didn't kill Laci?

JMO

No, I believe he killed Laci, I just don't think he did it so he could be with Amber.[/QUOTE]

I don't know why you keep wanting to have sparring games with me.

Let me just say this, once and for all:

I believe Scott killed his wife Laci and their baby Conner.

The logistics and conundrums will always be there in cyberspace.

I'm just trying to argue a right against a wrong.

If you disagree with it, you have a lot of latitude to do so, and you obviously exercise it alredy, so the last thing you need is my "permission" or "blessing" to do whatever you're going to do in cyberspace.

My backyard is another matter. :biggrin: We have mean dogs and cats that will lick you unconscious at any time of day. :)

JMO

[Invrdv8]

No, I believe he killed Laci, I just don't think he did it so he could be with Amber.

I don't know why you keep wanting to have sparring games with me.

Let me just say this, once and for all:

I believe Scott killed his wife Laci and their baby Conner.

The logistics and conundrums will always be there in cyberspace.

I'm just trying to argue a right against a wrong.

If you disagree with it, you have a lot of latitude to do so, and you obviously exercise it alredy, so the last thing you need is my "permission" or "blessing" to do whatever you're going to do in cyberspace.

My backyard is another matter. :biggrin: We have mean dogs and cats that will lick you unconscious at any time of day. :)

JMO[/QUOTE]

Excuse me??? I don't know how you did it but the comment you quoted is mine, not yours.

I'm not "playing sparring games" with anyone here. Your opinion seems to be that Amber had something to do with why Scott killed Laci. I'm only expressing my opinion that she did not. He wanted his freedom to live the single life and be free of the responsibilities of a husband and father. He didn't, IMO, kill Laci because he loved Amber, wanted to be with Amber or anything else that had to do with Amber.

I totally agree....Scott killed Laci and their baby Connor.

There is no "right" in what Scott did only "wrong" so what is there to agrue?

It's understood that we all have the right to agree or disagee. We also have the option to "agree to disagree". Which, I think, is exactly what we should do.

Since we agreed to ask before jumping to conclusions, what do you mean by your "mean dogs and cats" comment?:confused:

JMO

[Invrdv8]

I don't know what went wrong but the quote in post #67 is Lili007's not mine and post #68 is all mixed up. The quoted comment in post #68 is mine not Lili007's plus both her post and mine are in #68. ?????????

[Amy]

There are alot of people that believe Scott murdered Laci to be with Amber. But I can't see it. Had everything gone his way, he may have continued a relationship with Amber until Laci's "disappearance" had died down, but eventually would have moved on. I think Scott wanted his freedom and he wouldn't have attained that with Amber. She obviously wanted to be married and have more children. If he stayed with Amber he'd be right back where he was with Laci. I think he wanted all the money to himself and he wanted to be able to play the field. He probably would have gotten a vasectomy which would have solved the problem or ever being tied down with or responsible for a biological child. Had Laci not been found he would have had no responsibilities, the house, his money to himself and, eventually, Laci's insurance money. Killing Laci to be with Amber, whom he'd only dated a few times, just doesn't make sense even for Scott.


I agree with this. It never was about AMBER, or even LACI and CONNOR. It was always, always, always about SCOTT. I don't believe that he and Amber wouild ever have stayed together. About the time she (Amber) would mention the C word, the M word, the F work (Commitment, Marriage, Father--just so I am not misunderstood lol) he would have ran like the dickens, IMO. Amber was a fling, an ego trip. There would always be a new fling around every corner.

[Otter]

I agree with this. It never was about AMBER, or even LACI and CONNOR. It was always, always, always about SCOTT. I don't believe that he and Amber wouild ever have stayed together. About the time she (Amber) would mention the C word, the M word, the F work (Commitment, Marriage, Father--just so I am not misunderstood lol) he would have ran like the dickens, IMO. Amber was a fling, an ego trip. There would always be a new fling around every corner.

I absolutely agree! I always thought it was providential (in his mind), that her name began with an "A". I could just visualize him wanting to go through the alphabet and then start all over again.

Amber to Zoe, its just so cosmopolitan and worthy of him to have all his desires fulfilled. :rolleyes:

[Lili007]

I don't know why you keep wanting to have sparring games. [edited]

My backyard is another matter. :biggrin: We have mean dogs and cats that will lick you unconscious at any time of day. :)



Excuse me??? I don't know how you did it but the comment you quoted is mine, not yours.

[edited]

Since we agreed to ask before jumping to conclusions, what do you mean by your "mean dogs and cats" comment?:confused:

JMO


Of course I quoted YOUR comment - I would hardly quote my own. I didn't "do" anything to your comment - I just quoted it.

As to my comment about the dogs and cats, it was meant as a joke, Invrdv8. It's supposed to be funny. I guess it wasn't, for you.

What i meant was that our "mean" dogs love everyone and they lick and cuddle up to them - the antithesis of "mean" dogs, in other words. Our two cats are home bodies who don't stray from the porch or terrace for anyone, but like to curl around people's legs and purr.

It was a comment made in jest. I suppose that not everyone is a fan of humour - especially the typically Brittish kind. Sorry.

I think you and I might be better off steering clear of each other, at least for a while, since we seem to be misunderstanding each other's posts or reading things into them that are not there.

Lili :seeya:

[Invrdv8]

Of course I quoted YOUR comment - I would hardly quote my own. I didn't "do" anything to your comment - I just quoted it.

As to my comment about the dogs and cats, it was meant as a joke, Invrdv8. It's supposed to be funny. I guess it wasn't, for you.

What i meant was that our "mean" dogs love everyone and they lick and cuddle up to them - the antithesis of "mean" dogs, in other words. Our two cats are home bodies who don't stray from the porch or terrace for anyone, but like to curl around people's legs and purr.

It was a comment made in jest. I suppose that not everyone is a fan of humour - especially the typically Brittish kind. Sorry.

I think you and I might be better off steering clear of each other, at least for a while, since we seem to be misunderstanding each other's posts or reading things into them that are not there.

Lili :seeya:

Just for the record go back and read the posts again. In post #67 the quote says the "original post" was by ME but the comment in that quote is YOURS. In post #68 the quote says "original post" is by YOU but the comment in that quote is MINE. Plus both your comments AND mine are showing on the SAME post. I didn't say YOU did anything to my comment. I merely said something wasn't quite right about those two posts.

To be honest your comment about "mean dogs and cats" sounded like an insult. We weren't talking about cats and dogs. Had you thrown it in as an afterthought and worded it the way you have here it would have made things much more clear. If it was indeed "a joke" where was the punch line???!!

Because I don't agree with some of your comments doesn't mean I misunderstood them. I determine what you mean by what you write. If the two don't coincide the problem isn't mine.

I see no reason to avoid each others posts. We are adults and should be able to discuss comments made here without getting personal. If you chose to ignore my comments, that's your perogative.

:shrug:

JMO

[Invrdv8]

Again, the quote in post #72 says the "original post" was by ME but the comments in that quote are Lili007's. The quote within that quote are MY comments. I have no idea how things are getting mixed up this way. There's no problem with post #73. ???????

[Invrdv8]

I absolutely agree! I always thought it was providential (in his mind), that her name began with an "A". I could just visualize him wanting to go through the alphabet and then start all over again.

Amber to Zoe, its just so cosmopolitan and worthy of him to have all his desires fulfilled. :rolleyes:

Now that you mentioned it there was a Janet and Katy before Laci!!!! :mad:

[Invrdv8]

I agree with this. It never was about AMBER, or even LACI and CONNOR. It was always, always, always about SCOTT. I don't believe that he and Amber wouild ever have stayed together. About the time she (Amber) would mention the C word, the M word, the F work (Commitment, Marriage, Father--just so I am not misunderstood lol) he would have ran like the dickens, IMO. Amber was a fling, an ego trip. There would always be a new fling around every corner.

So glad you cleared that up about the C, M, and F words, I mean. :D I think Scott knew that his comment about not wanting kids didn't sit well with Amber. I don't think he ever intended to tie himself down again with a wife or kids. You're right, it's always been about Scott and IMO Jackie instilled that in Scott.

JMO

[Lavindar]

So glad you cleared that up about the C, M, and F words, I mean. :D I think Scott knew that his comment about not wanting kids didn't sit well with Amber. I don't think he ever intended to tie himself down again with a wife or kids. You're right, it's always been about Scott and IMO Jackie instilled that in Scott.

JMO

Do you think it could be because Jackie always went for the superficial. High tea? OMG, that is so transparent. Guess she wanted to be royalty too.

[Invrdv8]

Do you think it could be because Jackie always went for the superficial. High tea? OMG, that is so transparent. Guess she wanted to be royalty too.

I think so. I think Jackie doted on and pampered Scott and made him feel that no one mattered but him. I don't think she thought any girl was good enough for him. According to Anne Bird Jackie seemed to find fault with everything Laci did. I sometimes wonder what Scott thought after finding out Jackie had three illegitimate kids that she never bothered to tell him about until shortly before he married Laci.

[I'mSun]

Here is an interesting article explaining "Why a California Court of Appeal Held that Scott Peterson Won't Be Collecting on the Insurance Policy For His Wife and Murder Victim, Laci."

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20071127_abramovsky.html

[Amy]

Here is an interesting article explaining "Why a California Court of Appeal Held that Scott Peterson Won't Be Collecting on the Insurance Policy For His Wife and Murder Victim, Laci."

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20071127_abramovsky.html

Thanks for the link.

[cookiewench]

Kind of OT at this point, but I believe that Scott was thinking of killing his wife long before he met Amber.

He made moves on Shawn in October, and told her that he was unmarried. If she'd taken him up on his offer, he would have had the same problem he had when he hooked up with Amber - lack of freedom to pursue the affair.

The Amber affair may have solidified or sped up the plan, but I think he would have murdered her either way, before Conner was born.

I've always thought that Conner was Scott's main target - he just couldn't let him be born, because you can divorce a mate but not a child.

In that sense, the jury's verdict is a mystery to me.

[deputydi]

Kind of OT at this point, but I believe that Scott was thinking of killing his wife long before he met Amber.

He made moves on Shawn in October, and told her that he was unmarried. If she'd taken him up on his offer, he would have had the same problem he had when he hooked up with Amber - lack of freedom to pursue the affair.

The Amber affair may have solidified or sped up the plan, but I think he would have murdered her either way, before Conner was born.

I've always thought that Conner was Scott's main target - he just couldn't let him be born, because you can divorce a mate but not a child.

In that sense, the jury's verdict is a mystery to me.

I can agree with parts of your post, but not that Conner was his main target. I don't think Scott ever considered Conner a real person. I hate to use this term, but I can't think of a better way to describe it -- I believe Conner was just collateral damage as far as Scott was concerned. Amber IMO was not the reason Laci had to die, but she did represent a lifestyle that Scott desperately wanted to live. I seriously doubt that relationship would have lasted beyond a few months. Scott's parents had always been blind to his faults and he was considered the "golden boy". A divorce would have tarnished that image and been a financial burden for many years to come. The missing wife scenario would have made him the victim of a mysterious tragedy.

I agree 100% with the jury's verdict. I was puzzled by it at first but it makes sense to me now.

[Amy]

I can agree with parts of your post, but not that Conner was his main target. I don't think Scott ever considered Conner a real person. I hate to use this term, but I can't think of a better way to describe it -- I believe Conner was just collateral damage as far as Scott was concerned. Amber IMO was not the reason Laci had to die, but she did represent a lifestyle that Scott desperately wanted to live. I seriously doubt that relationship would have lasted beyond a few months. Scott's parents had always been blind to his faults and he was considered the "golden boy". A divorce would have tarnished that image and been a financial burden for many years to come. The missing wife scenario would have made him the victim of a mysterious tragedy.

I agree 100% with the jury's verdict. I was puzzled by it at first but it makes sense to me now.

I also don't think he killed Laci and Connor because of Amber, but, exactly as you put it.

Divorce (altho it seems good ol' dad had a divorce under his belt) would put him in a "bad" light. Better to be widow and garner sympathy than to get a divorce--admitting that your marriage failed. "Perfect" people, "Golden Boys" don't FAIL.

Bet being a widower, "poor fella, he lost his wife" would be a more productive pick-up line than, "he's divorced, wonder how many times, and was it because he isn't good husband material?" IMO

[Lili007]

I also don't think he killed Laci and Connor because of Amber, but, exactly as you put it.

Divorce (altho it seems good ol' dad had a divorce under his belt) would put him in a "bad" light. Better to be widow and garner sympathy than to get a divorce--admitting that your marriage failed. "Perfect" people, "Golden Boys" don't FAIL.

Bet being a widower, "poor fella, he lost his wife" would be a more productive pick-up line than, "he's divorced, wonder how many times, and was it because he isn't good husband material?" IMO

Deputy, Amy, Cookie,

I agree with all you've said. Scott wasn't capable of telling the truth. His hunting trips, fishing trips, from Maine to Alaska, his jaunts in Europe, New Year's in Paris while he was attending his "missing" wife's vigil...

The extent to which he was a fake is scary to contemplate - at least he's behind bars... but how many more like him are out there? *shiver*

JMO

[deputydi]

Deputy, Amy, Cookie,

I agree with all you've said. Scott wasn't capable of telling the truth. His hunting trips, fishing trips, from Maine to Alaska, his jaunts in Europe, New Year's in Paris while he was attending his "missing" wife's vigil...

The extent to which he was a fake is scary to contemplate - at least he's behind bars... but how many more like him are out there? *shiver*

JMO
Boy, you are so right. I was fascinated listening to the Amber tapes and his ability to spin the most outrageous stories. If we hadn't known exactly where he was, I probably would have believed the Eiffel Tower story. He just sounded so convincing. Amazing!

[margaritaville]

I also don't think he killed Laci and Connor because of Amber, but, exactly as you put it.


Bet being a widower, "poor fella, he lost his wife" would be a more productive pick-up line IMO

He already tested it out too.. And it worked to be a great tool for him.
Look at the sympathy he got from Amber....
Sick>>>>

[TopGunner]

Boy, you are so right. I was fascinated listening to the Amber tapes and his ability to spin the most outrageous stories. If we hadn't known exactly where he was, I probably would have believed the Eiffel Tower story. He just sounded so convincing. Amazing!

My chin hit the floor when I heard those tapes DD, not because of the "amazing" stories he was able to fabricate, but because his wife and son were MISSING......and he was in "party" mode. I've been devastated when my dog ran away (we got her back), I mean....nothing else mattered, but he was just la de da, I'm in Paris, the crowds are wild, and how are you?

Those tapes IMO, showed clearly exactly how a sociapth who murdered his family sounds after the fact, he could absolutely CARE LESS. That's what everyone means when they say he showed no remorse. He didn't, he showed no fear, no sadness, no trama......NOTHING. Just another day in the park. Or in Paris.

:no:

[cookiewench]

My chin hit the floor when I heard those tapes DD, not because of the "amazing" stories he was able to fabricate, but because his wife and son were MISSING......and he was in "party" mode. I've been devastated when my dog ran away (we got her back), I mean....nothing else mattered, but he was just la de da, I'm in Paris, the crowds are wild, and how are you?

Those tapes IMO, showed clearly exactly how a sociapth who murdered his family sounds after the fact, he could absolutely CARE LESS. That's what everyone means when they say he showed no remorse. He didn't, he showed no fear, no sadness, no trama......NOTHING. Just another day in the park. Or in Paris.

:no:

That's the way I looked at it. I'd have a hard time sitting down to Christmas dinner if my dog was missing. I'd be thinking about her and wondering if she was cold and lonely, or being hurt by someone. It would drive me wild - but Scott was concerned with his wine and his tortellini.


I still can't help but think that Conner was his main target, though. If it was just Laci he had to deal with, he could have gone on with his cheating ways forever. I think it was the combo of not wanting children, combined with the fact that his business was failing and he didn't want any more responsibility.

[Rachel Cory]

Maybe a link to the pictures would be more appropriate. No reading required.
Ha, ha. I didn't have to read the Peterson video (IIRC, it wasn't closed-captioned), but if you had seen it, you would have heard Laci's voice while Scott was taking the pictures of the things they wanted to sell on E-Bay. He didn't sell anything she didn't know about.

[Lavindar]

Ha, ha. I didn't have to read the Peterson video (IIRC, it wasn't closed-captioned), but if you had seen it, you would have heard Laci's voice while Scott was taking the pictures of the things they wanted to sell on E-Bay. He didn't sell anything she didn't know about.

I didn't hear her discuss the golf bag he was selling and I don't hear her talking about the fake college diplomas he ordered or the Christmas present he bought Amber. If you think that Scott was honest with Laci, I think someone has a bridge for sale.

[TopGunner]

I didn't hear her discuss the golf bag he was selling and I don't hear her talking about the fake college diplomas he ordered or the Christmas present he bought Amber. If you think that Scott was honest with Laci, I think someone has a bridge for sale.

How much? :biggrin:

[cookiewench]

Ha, ha. I didn't have to read the Peterson video (IIRC, it wasn't closed-captioned), but if you had seen it, you would have heard Laci's voice while Scott was taking the pictures of the things they wanted to sell on E-Bay. He didn't sell anything she didn't know about.

Which video was this? The only video I heard of is the one where they taped the jewelry for insurance purposes. You don't take videos of items you are going to sell on Ebay.

[I'mSun]

How much? :biggrin:How many do you want to buy? :D

[Invrdv8]

Snipped

Bet being a widower, "poor fella, he lost his wife" would be a more productive pick-up line than, "he's divorced, wonder how many times, and was it because he isn't good husband material?" IMO

I don't believe Scott ever contemplated being labelled "a widower". IMO, he never believed that Laci would be found. Had his plan worked he would have been the "guy whose wife is missing". That would have garnered him sympathy for much longer and would have been his "way out" in any relationship he entered into. His pat line would have been "I can't get serious, marry or have children until I know what happened to my wife". NOW he's "a widower" and all it got him is a cell in SQ. :)

JMO

[Invrdv8]

How many do you want to buy? :D

How many you got?:D

[Amy]

I don't believe Scott ever contemplated being labelled "a widower". IMO, he never believed that Laci would be found. Had his plan worked he would have been the "guy whose wife is missing". That would have garnered him sympathy for much longer and would have been his "way out" in any relationship he entered into. His pat line would have been "I can't get serious, marry or have children until I know what happened to my wife". NOW he's "a widower" and all it got him is a cell in SQ. :)

JMO

Good point there!!! And, as many have tho't that the life ins. wasn't any part of the motive, that would fit in. I don't know how long one has to be "missing" before being "dead" in the eyes of the ins co in CA, but it would stand to reason that he would NOT receive LI proceeds for some time, for a "missing" wife.

That would certainly give him a few years to not be able to "get serious" with anyone. Of course, the "missing" part wouldn't work with Amber, as he had already said he "lost" his wife. Well, maybe it would. I seem to remember one of their conversations where she confronted him about the "lost" wife, and he was trying to tell her Laci WAS "lost" as in missing, on Dec 23/24 JUST has he had "predicted."

Ah, if there JUST hadn't been all that publicity!!! He could have moved on from Amber without having to explain whether or not his wife was dead. She would have con't to assume so, and he would have broken it off with her before (or when) the issue of meeting his family came up. IMO

[Invrdv8]

Good point there!!! And, as many have tho't that the life ins. wasn't any part of the motive, that would fit in. I don't know how long one has to be "missing" before being "dead" in the eyes of the ins co in CA, but it would stand to reason that he would NOT receive LI proceeds for some time, for a "missing" wife.

That would certainly give him a few years to not be able to "get serious" with anyone. Of course, the "missing" part wouldn't work with Amber, as he had already said he "lost" his wife. Well, maybe it would. I seem to remember one of their conversations where she confronted him about the "lost" wife, and he was trying to tell her Laci WAS "lost" as in missing, on Dec 23/24 JUST has he had "predicted."

Ah, if there JUST hadn't been all that publicity!!! He could have moved on from Amber without having to explain whether or not his wife was dead. She would have con't to assume so, and he would have broken it off with her before (or when) the issue of meeting his family came up. IMO

I'm not absolutely positive about the amount of time that has to pass before a missing person can be legally declared dead. IIRC I've heard 7 years and I think that would only apply if there was never any indication that the missing person could have been murdered. I think Scott could have made it thru 7 years very easily knowing there was $250,000.00 waiting for him.

I think you're right, he would have moved on from Amber. She represented everything he wanted to get away from.

[Lili007]

I believe he would have "moved on" from anyone, at that point. He was aspiring to be another "Jack Cadillac", after all.

I think he loved Laci until a few years 'blunted' the passion and, to top it all off, he was going to be responsible for a baby, as well. I think he couldn't cope with that, because what he wanted was to live the fun life forever. Pregnant wives and babies didn't figure in his equation, IMO.

JMO

[cildawg1]

What do ya want to bet jackie goes to an attorney to find out if she can sue Sharon for the money?????
I wouldn't put it past her.
imo

There may be an argument that the Roches didn't pay the premiums. Also, the legal bills need to be paid. They may end up settling it in the end to finally end it. Appeals can go on forever.

[TopGunner]

There may be an argument that the Roches didn't pay the premiums. Also, the legal bills need to be paid. They may end up settling it in the end to finally end it. Appeals can go on forever.


Where did you hear the Rocha's didn't pay the premiums? They wouldn't have to pay them, the policies didn't belong to them.

[cildawg1]

Where did you hear the Rocha's didn't pay the premiums? They wouldn't have to pay them, the policies didn't belong to them.


Maybe I made a bad assumption. If the Rochas paid the premiums, then the life insurance money would have belonged to them. There would be no need to go to court to get the proceeds. I assumed that Scott Peterson took out the life insurance and that the insurance was probably one of his motives for the murder. But to be honest, I don't know. You know what they say about "assume."

[deputydi]

There may be an argument that the Roches didn't pay the premiums. Also, the legal bills need to be paid. They may end up settling it in the end to finally end it. Appeals can go on forever.
It doesn't matter who paid the premiums. Once the insured has died, the premiums stop and, since Scott has been convicted of Laci's murder, he can't profit from her death. That's why the money goes to Sharon -- her next of kin. See how simple that is?

Whose legal bills are you referring to? Certainly you can't mean you think Laci's insurance money should go toward Scott's legal bills! The state prosecuted him so Sharon wouldn't have that financial responsibility.

[Amy]

There may be an argument that the Roches didn't pay the premiums. Also, the legal bills need to be paid. They may end up settling it in the end to finally end it. Appeals can go on forever.


The premiums seem to have been paid by Scott and Laci Peterson. All the estate went to Laci when her "husband" was legally considered to have predeceased her by virtue of the fact that he murdered her.

So, it would be part of Laci's estate.

[Invrdv8]

Maybe I made a bad assumption. If the Rochas paid the premiums, then the life insurance money would have belonged to them. There would be no need to go to court to get the proceeds. I assumed that Scott Peterson took out the life insurance and that the insurance was probably one of his motives for the murder. But to be honest, I don't know. You know what they say about "assume."

Your assumption was correct. Scott DID take out the insurance on Laci with her knowledge. IMO, he would have been named the beneficiary but since he was convicted of murdering Laci he can't collect the death benefit.

[Lili007]

It doesn't matter who paid the premiums. Once the insured has died, the premiums stop and, since Scott has been convicted of Laci's murder, he can't profit from her death. That's why the money goes to Sharon -- her next of kin. See how simple that is?

Whose legal bills are you referring to? Certainly you can't mean you think Laci's insurance money should go toward Scott's legal bills! The state prosecuted him so Sharon wouldn't have that financial responsibility.

And then there's the $25 million wrongful death civil suit... :beer:

It's not about the money, but Scott should not see one cent from "writing" any book or other account (IF he ever intends to do so), so that IF he does, all the proceeds go to the family whose daughter and unborn child he killed so callously, IMO.

JMO