Books on this case.

[TuscanDreams]

What are your favorite books on this case? I've read them all and would like to know which ones you found most informative.

Originally Posted by TuscanDreams

What are your favorite books on this case? I've read them all and would like to know which ones you found most informative.

Hi TD!

I think Catherine Crier's "A Deadly Game" was the most infomative, and the one I would advise reading for those who wish to read only one book.

Sharon Rocha's, "For Laci" was wonderful, albeit a difficult, emotional read.

Anne Bird's, "Blood Brother" offers the reader an interesting Bird's-eye view of the Peterson family dynamics.

By choice, I didn't read Amber Frey's "Witness For the Prosecution of Scott Peterson".

I forgot to include the latest book I read - "We the Jury Deciding the Scott Peterson Case", which I also enjoyed. Besides becoming better acquainted with some of the jurors, and how they arrived at their verdicts, it also gives the reader a glimpse into what went on behind closed doors during deliberations.

[concernedperson]

Originally Posted by Hey Paula

I forgot to include the latest book I read - "We the Jury Deciding the Scott Peterson Case", which I also enjoyed. Besides becoming better acquainted with some of the jurors, and how they arrived at their verdicts, it also gives the reader a glimpse into what went on behind closed doors during deliberations.

That is the only one I didn't read. Ann Byrd's book showed me the dysfunction and better explained Scott's actions. CC is always informative in everything she does...I am a big fan. Sharon I relate to as a mom and her realizatons and the bitter truth was so painful. Amber, well, is Amber. Glad she has moved on.

[TuscanDreams]

I enjoyed "Inside the Mind of Scott Peterson" it was not only informative of Scott Peterson, but other males who perpetrate this type of crime.

Want to discuss one of the books you mentioned?

[Beebee]

I've only read "Presumed Guilty" by Dalton, and I thought it was very good.

[enlightenme]

Originally Posted by Beebee

I've only read "Presumed Guilty" by Dalton, and I thought it was very good.

Don't you think that is very one-sided?

I just don't understand anyone who thought this book was good, sorry.

[Beebee]

Originally Posted by enlightenme

Don't you think that is very one-sided?

I just don't understand anyone who thought this book was good, sorry.

Why the rose?

One sided? No. It just so happens he was the only one to write a book that was actually involved in the case from an investigative standpoint. I pretty much knew the opinion and feelings of the other authors, so I didn't need to buy their books.

I know a lot of people who liked Dalton's book.

[Invrdv8]

Originally Posted by enlightenme

Don't you think that is very one-sided?

I just don't understand anyone who thought this book was good, sorry.

I totally agree with your "one-sided" comment. I would think anyone interested in this case would want to read all the books. Just like the jury who needs to hear all the evidence. I read all except Dalton's and the jurors book. From what I'd heard from those who did read Dalton's book I gathered his purpose for writing the book was to say he could have done a better job defending Scott than Geragos did. IMO it was his "pay back" for being fired by Geragos. I used CC's book as a reference book. Her's was the only one with an index that made it easier to find specific subjects.

[TuscanDreams]

Which book do you want to discuss? I loved them all! I thought Amber's book wasn't so great, no offense to her.

[aykaie]

Dr. Ablows book "In the Mind of Scott Peterson".

Hi all

[TuscanDreams]

Originally Posted by aykaie

Dr. Ablows book "In the Mind of Scott Peterson".

Hi all

I learned a lot from that book. Would you like to discuss it? I thought that the analogy of a perfect psychological storm was brilliant.

[accordn2me]

I haven't read any of the books. I've heard of all of them except the book by Dalton. Response to I8's comment as it being "payback" because Dalton felt he could have done better than MG..... HECK! When I saw MG's witness list for a client accused of capital murder - 14 witnesses, 2 of whom were the accused's parents, not to mention the LEOs.... WTF .....I think I could have done a better job! Seriously! Albeit, like MG, I think Scott's guilty also.

Anyone read or have knowledge of Stone Cold Guilty?

[concernedperson]

Originally Posted by Beebee

I've only read "Presumed Guilty" by Dalton, and I thought it was very good.

Would you be MN? Not that it matters but seriously...Dalton? His behavior set the bar back a bit but hey....defense attorneys are their own breed.

And, no, I haven't read it and no, I don't think I need to. Saw enough during those years to fulfill my need for spin and to understand it.

[TuscanDreams]

Originally Posted by accordn2me

I haven't read any of the books. I've heard of all of them except the book by Dalton. Response to I8's comment as it being "payback" because Dalton felt he could have done better than MG..... HECK! When I saw MG's witness list for a client accused of capital murder - 14 witnesses, 2 of whom were the accused's parents, not to mention the LEOs.... WTF .....I think I could have done a better job! Seriously! Albeit, like MG, I think Scott's guilty also.

Anyone read or have knowledge of Stone Cold Guilty?

I forgot about that book and haven't read it. Thus, I erred when I posted that I'd read them all.

Why did Dalton leave the team? I can't remember and wasn't there an ethical issue surrouding that book?

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by TuscanDreams

I forgot about that book and haven't read it. Thus, I erred when I posted that I'd read them all.

Why did Dalton leave the team? I can't remember and wasn't there an ethical issue surrouding that book?

Beats me. This board was the first I've heard of it.

[Invrdv8]

Originally Posted by accordn2me

Beats me. This board was the first I've heard of it.

It's been a while ago but, I believe Geragos did fire Dalton. If memory serves me it had something to do with Dalton speaking to the "wrong people" or breaking the gag order. I'm sure somebody here could give you the exact cause. IIRC Dalton also tried to talk Scott into coming over to the law firm that he worked for. I think that might be the reason for him being accused of being unethical.

[Lili007]

I thought Anne Bird's book was the most interesting. It didn't have an agenda, it was written by someone who was almost an outsider, but who also provided a lot of help and shelter to Scott.

I find her description of Scott's oddities and peculiar behaviour to be completely honest, as she saw it. It's an insight into Scott's mind and personality that I didn't get from any of the other books.

JMO, though.

[TuscanDreams]

Originally Posted by Lili007

I thought Anne Bird's book was the most interesting. It didn't have an agenda, it was written by someone who was almost an outsider, but who also provided a lot of help and shelter to Scott.

I find her description of Scott's oddities and peculiar behaviour to be completely honest, as she saw it. It's an insight into Scott's mind and personality that I didn't get from any of the other books.

JMO, though.

I don't own that book, I just read a friend's copy. Could you post some of the oddities that you mentioned? I remember a few and don't know what page they are on, etc.

[concernedperson]

Originally Posted by TuscanDreams

I don't own that book, I just read a friend's copy. Could you post some of the oddities that you mentioned? I remember a few and don't know what page they are on, etc.

I remember couple of them. One, he was watching news coverage of his missing wife and asked Anne what she thought of his goatee. Also, never acting distressed or crying but was quite able to enjoy a bottle of wine. One more, when her babysitter showed up he started acting all flirty with her and this was about the 3rd week Laci was missing. Oops, one more, during Anne's son Thomas's christening Scott had some tears and the pastor looked away...as if to not be involved in evil (Anne's perception) he ordered two porn channels right after the christening.

[Beebee]

Originally Posted by Lili007

I thought Anne Bird's book was the most interesting. It didn't have an agenda, it was written by someone who was almost an outsider, but who also provided a lot of help and shelter to Scott.

I find her description of Scott's oddities and peculiar behaviour to be completely honest, as she saw it. It's an insight into Scott's mind and personality that I didn't get from any of the other books.

JMO, though.

I e-mailed with Anne Bird quite a bit during Scott's trial. She either lied through her teeth in the e-mails or in her $$$$$$$$ book.

You decide.

[A_seeker]

Originally Posted by Beebee

I e-mailed with Anne Bird quite a bit during Scott's trial. She either lied through her teeth in the e-mails or in her $$$$$$$$ book.

You decide.

And we are to decide this based on what exactly? Are you going to post her emails?

[Beebee]

Originally Posted by A_seeker

And we are to decide this based on what exactly? Are you going to post her emails?

I should have been more clear. In all her e-mails (probably 25 of them) she is nothing but 100% supportive of Scott. This was well after his arrest, obviously, so Anne had already witnessed the so called strange behavior.

I'm not going to post the e-mails. They have been preserved/copied, and Scott's defense has them.

Sorry, I can't prove I have them on this board, but I couldn't help but point out based on my personal experience with Anne, she most definately $old out for $$$$.

[A_seeker]

Originally Posted by Beebee

I should have been more clear. In all her e-mails (probably 25 of them) she is nothing but 100% supportive of Scott. This was well after his arrest, obviously, so Anne had already witnessed the so called strange behavior.

I'm not going to post the e-mails. They have been preserved/copied, and Scott's defense has them.

Sorry, I can't prove I have them on this board, but I couldn't help but point out based on my personal experience with Anne, she most definately $old out for $$$$.

Surely you can see how saying definitively, that someone sold out, yet offering no proof, might be questioned. Take for instance, if to prove a point I mention my own emails with Scott....where he confesses to everything...that kind of puts a new light on things, right? You decide.

OK...see how that works?

[Lili007]

Originally Posted by Beebee

I e-mailed with Anne Bird quite a bit during Scott's trial. She either lied through her teeth in the e-mails or in her $$$$$$$$ book.

You decide.

That's cheap. And the only comment it deserves.

Originally Posted by Beebee

I should have been more clear. In all her e-mails (probably 25 of them) she is nothing but 100% supportive of Scott. This was well after his arrest, obviously, so Anne had already witnessed the so called strange behavior.

I'm not going to post the e-mails. They have been preserved/copied, and Scott's defense has them.

Sorry, I can't prove I have them on this board, but I couldn't help but point out based on my personal experience with Anne, she most definately $old out for $$$$.

Good Morning BB!

I think AB was in a tough spot, having been recently united with her biological family, and having been placed in such an awkward position by Jackie, who asked her to take Scott into her household and have him live with her and her family, disrupting their lives.

Under such conditions, people can live in denial for a number of reasons - chief among them, perhaps not wanting to believe a biological sibling could be capable of murdering his pregnant wife. Throughout this time, they will be supportive of their family member, just as Susan Caudillo was once the family spokesperson until she quietly began to question Scott, and withdrew from that position, replaced by Janie Peterson.

I believe Anne's husband, Tim, forced her to see what she didn't want to believe. Then after coming to grips with her subconscious fears, and the oddities of Scott's behavior, which she dismissed even though she recognized them as strange, Anne prepared a list of all the things she had swept into the corners of her mind.

While she might have made money from the book, her account was truthful, since nothing she wrote in it has ever been challenged by the Petersons.

IMO

[Beebee]

Originally Posted by Hey Paula

Good Morning BB!

I think AB was in a tough spot, having been recently united with her biological family, and having been placed in such an awkward position by Jackie, who asked her to take Scott into her household and have him live with her and her family, disrupting their lives.

Under such conditions, people can live in denial for a number of reasons - chief among them, perhaps not wanting to believe a biological sibling could be capable of murdering his pregnant wife. Throughout this time, they will be supportive of their family member, just as Susan Caudillo was once the family spokesperson until she quietly began to question Scott, and withdrew from that position, replaced by Janie Peterson.

I believe Anne's husband, Tim, forced her to see what she didn't want to believe. Then after coming to grips with her subconscious fears, and the oddities of Scott's behavior, which she dismissed even though she recognized them as strange, Anne prepared a list of all the things she had swept into the corners of her mind.

While she might have made money from the book, her account was truthful, since nothing she wrote in it has ever been challenged by the Petersons.

IMO

Hi Paula,

Just a couple things, and then that's all I'm going to say about Anne Bird.

Anne also praised Jackie in those e-mails, and talked about how amazing she is, more than once. Also, I had lunch with Susan several months ago. Where are you getting the idea that she does not support Scott? The day I saw her she had just had a visit with Scott the day before! With the exception of Anne, Scott's whole family is behind him 100%.

People assume way too much in this case, imo.

[Lili007]

Originally Posted by TuscanDreams

I don't own that book, I just read a friend's copy. Could you post some of the oddities that you mentioned? I remember a few and don't know what page they are on, etc.

Sure. Please give me a few hours, though... it's 12.08 am here and I don't have the book at hand. I will get to it tomorrow, if that's OK.

Originally Posted by Beebee

Hi Paula,

Just a couple things, and then that's all I'm going to say about Anne Bird.

Anne also praised Jackie in those e-mails, and talked about how amazing she is, more than once. Also, I had lunch with Susan several months ago. Where are you getting the idea that she does not support Scott? The day I saw her she had just had a visit with Scott the day before! With the exception of Anne, Scott's whole family is behind him 100%.

People assume way too much in this case, imo.

I didn't say Susan no longer supported Scott, only that she retired from the frontline position of family spokesperson, and was no longer seen as often as she'd been before. It was Susan's telecon with Brent Rocha and the ensuing questions which prompted Jackie's advice to "deny, deny deny", IIRC.

IMO

[JustMyOpinion]

Originally Posted by Beebee

Hi Paula,

Just a couple things, and then that's all I'm going to say about Anne Bird.

Anne also praised Jackie in those e-mails, and talked about how amazing she is, more than once. Also, I had lunch with Susan several months ago. Where are you getting the idea that she does not support Scott? The day I saw her she had just had a visit with Scott the day before! With the exception of Anne, Scott's whole family is behind him 100%.

People assume way too much in this case, imo.

Interesting you believe Scott's whole family is behind him 100 percent. Why do you believe Mark Peterson did not attend one day of preliminary or trial or sentencing if he supports Scott 100 percent?

[A_seeker]

Originally Posted by adnoid

Well I must say As, your posts have been fantastic, and a it's been a real pleasure reading you this morning. Your analysis of this case is impressive.

Keep up the good work!

Why thank you A! The pleasure is all mine.

[thinkaboutit]

Originally Posted by JustMyOpinion

Interesting you believe Scott's whole family is behind him 100 percent. Why do you believe Mark Peterson did not attend one day of preliminary or trial or sentencing if he supports Scott 100 percent?

JMO, I think you're assuming that Mark is not behind Scott. Have you ever heard Mark speak out against Scott?

[Invrdv8]

Originally Posted by Jim Jones

"Corners of her mind" - great phrase. When I read her (ghost written by the guy who wrote "If I Did It" for OJ) book, I immediately clicked on to GSA. That is the strongest impression I had from her - that she was VERY attracted to Scott. That, IMO, is why she was so angered by his alleged 'flirting' with the baby sitter, which looked like it was more on the baby sitter's part than on Scott's.

Of course YMMV, but that's what I got from the book - plus that the "33 Reasons" were rubbish made up to sell it.

What was your purpose in calling attention to the fact that Anne's book was written by the same ghost writer that wrote OJ's "If I Did It"? It was your opinion that she was "VERY attracted to Scott"? LOL You state "alleged" flirting as if to say you don't believe Scott flirted with the baby sitter. So if that's the case why would you have the opinion that Anne was "so angered" by it? How can you say "looked like it was more on the baby sitter's part"? Were you there to observe what took place? I'm beginning to think you'll twist just about anything in order to make Scott look good. I think you've taken your screen name to heart. You aren't going to find many "followers" here and certainly no one that's going to drink your Kool-Aid. JMO

[JustMyOpinion]

Originally Posted by thinkaboutit

JMO, I think you're assuming that Mark is not behind Scott. Have you ever heard Mark speak out against Scott?

If you re-read my post, I made no such statement and asked you why you believe Mark did not attend even one day of prelim or trial. If you don't want to offer an opinion on that, okay by me. No, I've not heard Mark Peterson say anything against Scott, but his absence from all proceedings doesn't indicate 100 percent support, ( to me). I have no idea what Mark feels about his brother's guilt or innocence. I do feel bad for him if there is any truth to the report that his father stopped speaking to him for years because of a business dispute, and told him if he attended Laci's memorial service he would cut him off again. I don't think attending Laci's memorial was an act that would be construed by most as non-supportive of Scott or Scott's case. It would have been an act demonstrating compassion and empathy for her family and showing respect for Laci, IMO.

[TuscanDreams]

Originally Posted by Jim Jones

Did you read up on GSA? Do that, then re-read her book. It will look a lot different to you after that. I own it BTW, and that's what leaped out at me.

What is GSA?

[Toggie]

My favorite book is "For Laci". Sharon wrote from her heart. I read it twice and cried each time...

I am so glad Sharon shared Laci with all of us.

[cookiewench]

Originally Posted by Beebee

I should have been more clear. In all her e-mails (probably 25 of them) she is nothing but 100% supportive of Scott. This was well after his arrest, obviously, so Anne had already witnessed the so called strange behavior.

I'm not going to post the e-mails. They have been preserved/copied, and Scott's defense has them.

Sorry, I can't prove I have them on this board, but I couldn't help but point out based on my personal experience with Anne, she most definately $old out for $$$$.

Why in the world would you think the defense team would have use for some emails from a half-sister of the defendent who never even testified at the trial? What bearing would her opinion of or support/lack thereof have to do with anything?

What silliness.

If Peterson's family supports him 100%, I take it then, Anne Bird is no longer considered a part of the "family?"

I mean, she was welcomed into it at one time, correct?

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by cookiewench

Why in the world would you think the defense team would have use for some emails from a half-sister of the defendent who never even testified at the trial? What bearing would her opinion of or support/lack thereof have to do with anything?

What silliness.

Read it here cookiewench....I'll bill ya....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7047103/

[thinkaboutit]

Originally Posted by Invrdv8

I totally agree with your "one-sided" comment. I would think anyone interested in this case would want to read all the books. Just like the jury who needs to hear all the evidence. I read all except Dalton's and the jurors book. From what I'd heard from those who did read Dalton's book I gathered his purpose for writing the book was to say he could have done a better job defending Scott than Geragos did. IMO it was his "pay back" for being fired by Geragos. I used CC's book as a reference book. Her's was the only one with an index that made it easier to find specific subjects.

I read them all - and yes - that was one good thing about Crier's book - the index in the back.