The ONE reason..

[TuscanDreams]

Please tell the number one reason you feel that Scott Peterson is innocent or guilty.

What helped you formulate your opinion?

This is a circumstantial case and both sides have interesting points to share. Let's here them, what event made your decision for you?

[JustMyOpinion]

Originally Posted by TuscanDreams

Please tell the number one reason you feel that Scott Peterson is innocent or guilty.

What helped you formulate your opinion?

This is a circumstantial case and both sides have interesting points to share. Let's here them, what event made your decision for you?

The bodies washed ashore a few miles from where he was with a boat on the day he reported them missing. For me, this was the most compelling piece of evidence in the case, and there was nothing brought by the defense to contradict or disprove this fact, IMO.

[One2Snoop]

What helped you formulate your opinion?

His fishy fishing story. Laci goes missing the same day.

Please tell the number one reason you feel that Scott Peterson is innocent or guilty.

What clenched it for me was when Laci and Conner washed ashore in the vicinity of where Scott said he went fishing.

JMO

[enlightenme]

The boat cover with gasoline on it.
The 5 trips to the bay, lying about his location.
The bodies of Laci and Conner, in the condition they were, washing ashore after a 2 day storm, 2 miles from his "fishy, fishing alibi".

Those are the biggest ones for me but there are plenty of other pieces of CE that convinced me of his absolute GUILT.

JMO

[Wudge]

Not Guilty.

Insufficient inculpatory evidence to support proof beyond a reasonable doubt for the necessary murder one elements of premeditation, deliberation and willfulness, and insufficient inculpatory evidence to support proof beyond a reasonable doubt for the necessary murder two element of malice aforethought (intent included).

[enlightenme]

Originally Posted by adnoid

If I may take this opportunity to suggest a future topic - since I can't really respond to this one because it doesn't fit me...

I've seen many posters - mostly but not exclusively NGs - that make statements including phrases such as "I will never believe..." or "Nobody will ever convince me..." or "I will never change my mind about...", etc.

I believe Scott is guilty, received a fair trial and a just sentence. However, I do not suffer from tunnel vision and I have an open mind. I could be convinced that Scott is actually innocent if the evidence could be reasonably explained to show that someone else did the crime.

It's not one single piece of evidence that convinces me, it's everything put together. I could rank, say, the top ten items that would have to be shown to be the acts of someone else in order for me to start to change my mind, but there's no single "magic bullet" item that, in isolation, convinced me of Scott's guilt.

To avoid being banned for posting off topic (or getting the dreaded red font admonishment) I will state that the bodies coming ashore where they did, when they did, in the condition they did tops the list.

I agree in principle. IF someone came forward and confessed and had details, crime scene, etc., I could change my mind. I'm human after all.

I think I have said that I will never believe the "bodies planted on the shore" theory. The reason why is that it involves too many unreasonable conclusions. Such as:

Bizarre, undetectable c-section from the top of the uterus.
Conner being preserved either in refrigerator or (sterile) plastic bag.
Body planters deciding on 1 mile apart was reasonable and feasible.
Body planters leaving plastic tape on Conner that served NO purpose.
Body planters waiting until a 2 day storm washed an incredible amount of debris ashore.
Body planters moving Laci's body and suddenly all her appendages fall off but they hide those some place else?

Now, if you were trying to convince me that someone put Laci in the bay shortly after it was discovered where Scott was fishing, I MIGHT think about it. It seems she would have been weighted down by the "real killers" if she didn't wash ashore for almost 4 months though. Why would the "real killers" do that? If they wanted to frame Scott, why not right away?

[Miss Bootsie]

The bodies washing ashore in the vicinity where Scott was boating around on the 24th + the condition of the bodies.
Driving 90 miles to the Bay on Christmas Eve, only to stay for one hour.

The sequence of events that occurred before Scott searched for and purchased the boat.

[Lili007]

... Shall I count the ways?

• Scott buys a boat one day after he tells Amber he lost his wife
• Scott stores the boat in his warehouse and doesn't want people to know about it
• Scott makes several concrete anchors, traces of which are seen in the warehouse
• traces of concrete are found in the boat
• Scott pours remants of loose concrete in his driveway, thinking it will "set with the rain" and "fix" his driveway without him lifting another finger after sprinkling the concrete dust on
• Laci goes "missing" on the day when Scott first takes his boat to Berkely Marina
• Scott comes back to empty house, puts his clothes in the drier, takes a shower, eats pizza and then rings Sharon Rocha to enquire after Laci
• He then says Laci is "missing"
• When LE come around to help look, and ask Scott if they can take a look inside the house, Scott says yes,
• During the search, Scott is then observed throwing the searchlight to the ground, outside the window, while using an expletive and the officer said he seemed very annoyed (I can get the literal quotes from transcripts, if anyone likes)
• Scott gives a statement to LE but the sound is lost because the tape recorder didn't work - Defense can make anything of that, since the Prosecution can only play the video without sound and testify to what was said
• Peterson is released on bail
• Peterson makes a point of turning up to the search centre after 9.00 am, for reasons of 'avoiding the press', I believe - please correct me if I'm wrong
• Peterson tapes up a note thanking volunteers who were looking for his "missing" wife and signs it "Laci's husband".
• While volunteers are walking all around the neighbourhood posting MISSING posters about Laci, Scott is sitting in his SUV in a parking lot nearby talking to Amber on one of his mobiles
• Peterson also went searching for his "missing" wife at the Superbowl - guess what? he didn't find her there
• Peterson also didn't find Laci in Champs Elysees, or wherever he was celebrating with his pals Francois and Pascal
• And he didn't catch any fish during that trip to Alaska just before
• He also didn't spend his Christmas holidays in Maine with his family

Laci and baby Conner came to surface in San Francisco Bay, where their faithful and loving husband and father went "fishing" the day they both "disappeared" until they turned up dead.

At that stage, even though Sharon Rocha tries to reach Scott after having it confirmed that forensics had identified the bodies as Laci and Conner, Scott just doesn't return her call.

He knew all too well what it was about.

Instead, he led LE. who were following him, all over the place, and in the end proceeded to Torrey Pines Golfing Course, as though that's where he was heading for the last couple of hours.

In the car, he had camping and survival gear for a trip to Nepal, let alone Mexico. Also some $14,000 in cash, his brother's Driver's Licence, as well as his half-sister's credit card and a car in his mother's name - except of course, when he bought it, he registered it in the name of Jackie Peterson and convinced those people who sold it to them that his name was "Jackie".

Of course, the fact that that car also contained all the camping and survival gear he could need for a very long time, as well as all the change in clothing he would have use for, including shoes, I'm sure that the proximity of the Mexican Border had nothing to do with it.

JMO

[TuscanDreams]

Originally Posted by adnoid

If I may take this opportunity to suggest a future topic - since I can't really respond to this one because it doesn't fit me...
To avoid being banned for posting off topic (or getting the dreaded red font admonishment) I will state that the bodies coming ashore where they did, when they did, in the condition they did tops the list.

You don't get banned for posting off topic here, if that was the case, I'd have been banned a long time ago.

[Otter]

I've been pondering this thread.

I mentioned this on another thread and its always stuck with me because I knew she was dead.

The tv interview, an outtake, his cell went off and he apologized and said he would turn the phone off. The camera panned to the kitchen with the blackboard where Laci wrote "Merry Christmas".

He came back, sat down, apologized again and continued the interview. He had simply turned the phone off.

He knew what happened, he knew what he did and he knew where she was. I knew then too. NO ONE acts like that. NO ONE.

Cold as ice. I can't find a link, not with that part.

[cookiewench]

I knew in my heart on the day after Christmas that Scott had murdered his wife. The fact that he went fishing on Christmas eve (weird) combined with, "Peterson has admitted that no one in his family knew about the boat but himself."

I just knew it. I mean....who has a "secret boat" and just happens to decide to go fishing with it on Christmas eve on the same day that his wife gets "lost".

All of the rest of it - all of the evidence and testimony and facts and Amber tapes - just confirmed to my head what my heart already knew.

Of course - I could have never been on the jury, because I would have told that I believed 100% that Scott was guilty the minute I saw his smug mug and strut on TV.

[JustMyOpinion]

Originally Posted by Otter

I've been pondering this thread.

I mentioned this on another thread and its always stuck with me because I knew she was dead.

The tv interview, an outtake, his cell went off and he apologized and said he would turn the phone off. The camera panned to the kitchen with the blackboard where Laci wrote "Merry Christmas".

He came back, sat down, apologized again and continued the interview. He had simply turned the phone off.

He knew what happened, he knew what he did and he knew where she was. I knew then too. NO ONE acts like that. NO ONE.

Cold as ice. I can't find a link, not with that part.

Here is a link to transcript of that interview:
http://www.courttv.com/trials/peters...ew.html?page=4

[Wudge]

Originally Posted by TuscanDreams

You don't get banned for posting off topic here, if that was the case, I'd have been banned a long time ago.

Given the comfort of safe harbor for going O/T, I am happy to offer up the real victim in the Duke lacrosse case.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/0...rosse-players/

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by TuscanDreams

Please tell the number one reason you feel that Scott Peterson is innocent or guilty.

What helped you formulate your opinion?

This is a circumstantial case and both sides have interesting points to share. Let's here them, what event made your decision for you?

Finding out Scott foresaw 2 weeks into the future that this would be his first Christmas without Laci whom he had "lost."

[Lili007]

Originally Posted by Wudge

Given the comfort of safe harbor for going O/T, I am happy to offer up the real victim in the Duke lacrosse case.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/0...rosse-players/

This is still the Peterson case. If you choose to opine on lacrosse, you have ample opportunity to do it in this forum:

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/forumdisplay.php?f=359

I suppose you don't bother to post there, because no-one reads it.

JMO

[Anne2719]

Originally Posted by Lili007

This is still the Peterson case. If you choose to opine on lacrosse, you have ample opportunity to do it in this forum:

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/forumdisplay.php?f=359

I suppose you don't bother to post there, because no-one reads it.

JMO

If you had clicked on the link and watched the clip, you might have seen that it was more relevant to this case than you'd think.

[Lili007]

Originally Posted by Anne2719

If you had clicked on the link and watched the clip, you might have seen that it was more relevant to this case than you'd think.

I see. It refers to crooks and liars. I should have seen the relationship to Scott Peterson straightaway. My mistake.

JMO

[JustMyOpinion]

Originally Posted by adnoid

Wow. Re-reading that stuff just confirms guilt.

"...at that time it wasn't appropriate to comment about because it's not relevant..."

Hey buddy, your wife is missing, you have ASKED the police and the world to help. When you then decide to LIE because, in your opinion, the TRUTH is "not relevant", you look guilty. And that's because you ARE guilty.

One wonders if Scott was offended that the police were allowed to investigate this case. Maybe he thought he was so clever and superior to these detectives/officers, that he should have been annointed to lead the investigation ( & deciding what information was relevant). When he and his family set-up the alternative tip line, ( and didn't turn over a "tip" to police that might have implicated Scott per Brochinni's testimony at prelim) it became quite obvious to me that Scott wasn't "cooperating" with police, IMO. They were working against the police, and trying to obstruct their investigation, IMO. The conversations detailed between he & Jackie ( in Crier's book) are quite telling as to Scott & Jackie's true feelings about the police. IMO.

[cookiewench]

Originally Posted by TopGunner

I got chills reading that again JMO. Lie after lie after lie. Even when he knew others would know he was lying, it didn't "put the brakes" on it, to use his own words. How anyone can listen to his own words and still defend him is just weird to me. Then again, HE'S BEEN ALL THOSE PLACES, so, like, what do I ever know?

To some people, those lies are just nothing - or are "normal" lies.

Some of Scott's defenders say that the reason he didn't tell LE about Amber was because he thought that Laci would be back in a few days and so, didn't want to let the cat out of the bag on that one.

But then - Scott himself says that Laci already knew about Amber. Was he lying about that?

[Otter]

Originally Posted by cookiewench

To some people, those lies are just nothing - or are "normal" lies.

Some of Scott's defenders say that the reason he didn't tell LE about Amber was because he thought that Laci would be back in a few days and so, didn't want to let the cat out of the bag on that one.

But then - Scott himself says that Laci already knew about Amber. Was he lying about that?

Oh yeah! And she was "okay with it". We were then cautioned that "no one knew their relationship but them". Gee, that's true. He told us the truth on that didn't he?

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peters...ew.html?page=3

[Wudge]

Originally Posted by Anne2719

If you had clicked on the link and watched the clip, you might have seen that it was more relevant to this case than you'd think.

I totally agree Anne.

Going to a crime forum's archives to review this case (Peterson case) from the beginning will reveal all the rumors, myths, lies, falsehoods, etc., that had been tossed out to the public as fact.

As Nancy did in the Duke Lacrosse case, she (and other "analysts") have done the same thing in the Peterson case and other cases, which is to present to the public uncorroborated rumor, myth, planted lies, etc., as if the defendant(s) need to explain a myth, rumor, falsehood, etc..


Larry King Live 1/20/03

GRACE: I think we are looking at the evidence as it is unfolding before us. However, the danger in this is if it turns up to be some totally unknown perpetrator, all this attention focused on Scott Peterson, a, is detracting the police, and b, can be used as a defense at trial. The real perp can say, look, it was really Scott Peterson, not me. And in fact, the police believe that. Even the cable networks believe it.

So, that's a problem. I was going to follow up on what Candice said. Everybody made a big to do about this $250,000 life insurance policy. I think it is even bigger than that. When you're expecting a new child, I would assume the father would take out an insurance policy on himself. At the same time so he can support the child even after death, but that did not happen. He took it out on her. I'm interested did she sign for that policy? KING: And -- but it is also, true, isn't it, Mark, that some fathers take out insurance on the mother in case of the death in childbirth?

Same show and here's another example of a false assumption being presented as hard fact

GRACE: Right, I agree. Right now I don't think there is enough to go to a grand jury or a jury.

But something interesting, we know forensic evidence was taken out of the home, the car, the boat. We don't know what it is. But I do know this. I know that it was sent to the serology unit of the Department of Justice crime lab. And as Mark can tell you that means bodily fluid that's got to be saliva, semen or blood. That will be a big indicator if that helps the state that could be the evidence they need to go forward.

Same show and here's yet another example of a false assumption (the house had no drapes) being presented as hard fact.

GRACE: It's absolutely possible and I agree with the caller. Now Mark Geragos and I got into an argument about this last week. He says the drape evidence means nothing. But all of you viewers, and, Larry, don't you have a routine every morning? Don't you do the same thing every morning?

Editorial note: I've counted over 80 shows that Larry King had on the Peterson case and trial.

http://www-cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/lkl.html

More than a few times, I've reviewed all of the Larry King Live transcipts that related to the Peterson case. Taken cumulatively, in my mind, the amount of myths, rumors, falsehoods, etc., that were falsely portrayed as hard fact or "evidence" by Nancy (or others) on Larry King's show "alone" is of mind-boggling proportion (is it just me). And the Larry King Live show was but one of many shows and media sources that closely followed the Peterson case.

I think it is safe to say that there were more than a few other sources that did the exact same same thing. Moreover, I consider the Larry King Live show coverage of the Peterson case to be one the more balanced shows.

Of course, by the time the Duke lacrosse case came into the public light, Nancy Grace had her own show (gasping for breath here...why is the room spinning?).

[enlightenme]

Originally Posted by Wudge

I totally agree Anne.

Going to a crime forum's archives to review this case (Peterson case) from the beginning will reveal all the rumors, myths, lies, falsehoods, etc., that had been tossed out to the public as fact.

As Nancy did in the Duke Lacrosse case, she (and other "analysts") have done the same thing in the Peterson case and other cases, which is to present to the public uncorroborated rumor, myth, planted lies, etc., as if the defendant(s) need to explain a myth, rumor, falsehood, etc..


Larry King Live 1/20/03

GRACE: I think we are looking at the evidence as it is unfolding before us. However, the danger in this is if it turns up to be some totally unknown perpetrator, all this attention focused on Scott Peterson, a, is detracting the police, and b, can be used as a defense at trial. The real perp can say, look, it was really Scott Peterson, not me. And in fact, the police believe that. Even the cable networks believe it.

So, that's a problem. I was going to follow up on what Candice said. Everybody made a big to do about this $250,000 life insurance policy. I think it is even bigger than that. When you're expecting a new child, I would assume the father would take out an insurance policy on himself. At the same time so he can support the child even after death, but that did not happen. He took it out on her. I'm interested did she sign for that policy? KING: And -- but it is also, true, isn't it, Mark, that some fathers take out insurance on the mother in case of the death in childbirth?

Same show and here's another example of a false assumption being presented as hard fact

GRACE: Right, I agree. Right now I don't think there is enough to go to a grand jury or a jury.

But something interesting, we know forensic evidence was taken out of the home, the car, the boat. We don't know what it is. But I do know this. I know that it was sent to the serology unit of the Department of Justice crime lab. And as Mark can tell you that means bodily fluid that's got to be saliva, semen or blood. That will be a big indicator if that helps the state that could be the evidence they need to go forward.

Same show and here's yet another example of a false assumption (the house had no drapes) being presented as hard fact.

GRACE: It's absolutely possible and I agree with the caller. Now Mark Geragos and I got into an argument about this last week. He says the drape evidence means nothing. But all of you viewers, and, Larry, don't you have a routine every morning? Don't you do the same thing every morning?

Editorial note: I've counted over 80 shows that Larry King had on the Peterson case and trial.

http://www-cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/lkl.html

More than a few times, I've reviewed all of the Larry King Live transcipts that related to the Peterson case. Taken cumulatively, in my mind, the amount of myths, rumors, falsehoods, etc., that were falsely portrayed as hard fact or "evidence" by Nancy (or others) on Larry King's show "alone" is of mind-boggling proportion (is it just me). And the Larry King Live show was but one of many shows and media sources that closely followed the Peterson case.

I think it is safe to say that there were more than a few other sources that did the exact same same thing. Moreover, I consider the Larry King Live show coverage of the Peterson case to be one the more balanced shows.

Of course, by the time the Duke lacrosse case came into the public light, Nancy Grace had her own show (gasping for breath here...why is the room spinning?).

So what? All of us know what the rumors and false reports were by now.
The media ALWAYS gets things wrong in the beginning of a story. Either they hear a rumor and run with it or they don't check their facts.

In this VT shooting rampage, I've heard dozens and dozens of rumor or mis-statements by the media that later turned out not to be true.

If you think us, or the general public, think Scott is guilty based on the rumors and wrong reporting EARLY on in this case, I think you are mistaken.

JMO

[Lili007]

Originally Posted by Wudge

I totally agree Anne.

snip............

Of course, by the time the Duke lacrosse case came into the public light, Nancy Grace had her own show (gasping for breath here...why is the room spinning?).

Tried breathing, lately?

Oxygen is good for you.

Lili

[JustMyOpinion]

Originally Posted by enlightenme

So what? All of us know what the rumors and false reports were by now.
The media ALWAYS gets things wrong in the beginning of a story. Either they hear a rumor and run with it or they don't check their facts.

In this VT shooting rampage, I've heard dozens and dozens of rumor or mis-statements by the media that later turned out not to be true.

If you think us, or the general public, think Scott is guilty based on the rumors and wrong reporting EARLY on in this case, I think you are mistaken.

JMO

Media covered both sides in this case, IMO, and I agree with you that rumours had nothing to do with the fact that Scott was suspected, arrested, indicted and convicted, IMO.
I think it would have served Scott better had his family not given interviews to various press/media offering explanations/excuses for his behavior, IMO..and been better for Scott's case had he not given his own media interviews ( which it appears was McCallister's advice). Although it is tempting to utilize the media spotlight to try and manipulate public perception, it is risky, IMO. By the time those media interviews Scott taped were introduced as evidence at trial, they likely proved very "damning" evidence as to Scott's character & state of mind, IMO.

[Anne2719]

Hmmm.

[SARCASM]

Originally Posted by Lili007

I see. It refers to crooks and liars. I should have seen the relationship to Scott Peterson straightaway. My mistake.

JMO

[/SARCASM]

I take it you still haven't watched the clip.

[Wearing A Halo]

Originally Posted by Wudge

I totally agree Anne.

Going to a crime forum's archives to review this case (Peterson case) from the beginning will reveal all the rumors, myths, lies, falsehoods, etc., that had been tossed out to the public as fact.

As Nancy did in the Duke Lacrosse case, she (and other "analysts") have done the same thing in the Peterson case and other cases, which is to present to the public uncorroborated rumor, myth, planted lies, etc., as if the defendant(s) need to explain a myth, rumor, falsehood, etc..


Larry King Live 1/20/03

GRACE: I think we are looking at the evidence as it is unfolding before us. However, the danger in this is if it turns up to be some totally unknown perpetrator, all this attention focused on Scott Peterson, a, is detracting the police, and b, can be used as a defense at trial. The real perp can say, look, it was really Scott Peterson, not me. And in fact, the police believe that. Even the cable networks believe it.

So, that's a problem. I was going to follow up on what Candice said. Everybody made a big to do about this $250,000 life insurance policy. I think it is even bigger than that. When you're expecting a new child, I would assume the father would take out an insurance policy on himself. At the same time so he can support the child even after death, but that did not happen. He took it out on her. I'm interested did she sign for that policy? KING: And -- but it is also, true, isn't it, Mark, that some fathers take out insurance on the mother in case of the death in childbirth?

Same show and here's another example of a false assumption being presented as hard fact

GRACE: Right, I agree. Right now I don't think there is enough to go to a grand jury or a jury.

But something interesting, we know forensic evidence was taken out of the home, the car, the boat. We don't know what it is. But I do know this. I know that it was sent to the serology unit of the Department of Justice crime lab. And as Mark can tell you that means bodily fluid that's got to be saliva, semen or blood. That will be a big indicator if that helps the state that could be the evidence they need to go forward.

Same show and here's yet another example of a false assumption (the house had no drapes) being presented as hard fact.

GRACE: It's absolutely possible and I agree with the caller. Now Mark Geragos and I got into an argument about this last week. He says the drape evidence means nothing. But all of you viewers, and, Larry, don't you have a routine every morning? Don't you do the same thing every morning?

Editorial note: I've counted over 80 shows that Larry King had on the Peterson case and trial.

http://www-cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/lkl.html

More than a few times, I've reviewed all of the Larry King Live transcipts that related to the Peterson case. Taken cumulatively, in my mind, the amount of myths, rumors, falsehoods, etc., that were falsely portrayed as hard fact or "evidence" by Nancy (or others) on Larry King's show "alone" is of mind-boggling proportion (is it just me). And the Larry King Live show was but one of many shows and media sources that closely followed the Peterson case.

I think it is safe to say that there were more than a few other sources that did the exact same same thing. Moreover, I consider the Larry King Live show coverage of the Peterson case to be one the more balanced shows.

Of course, by the time the Duke lacrosse case came into the public light, Nancy Grace had her own show (gasping for breath here...why is the room spinning?).

Yep, the most glaring example of a "false assumption being presented as hard fact" was Dr. Wecht, "never in a million years." So "obviously" exagerated that he never testified. Go figure.

[Lili007]

Originally Posted by Anne2719

Hmmm.

[SARCASM][/SARCASM]

I take it you still haven't watched the clip.

Hmm... I love your doggie pic. We have two of our own. We love them and treat them like our kids.

Lili

[TuscanDreams]

Originally Posted by Lili007

Hmm... I love your doggie pic. We have two of our own. We love them and treat them like our kids.

Lili

There are times that I prefer my 2 dogs to my children.

[Anne2719]

Originally Posted by Lili007

Hmm... I love your doggie pic. We have two of our own. We love them and treat them like our kids.

Lili

Thanks! Still working on training (he's 9 months old now), but it's going pretty well. He's a very sweet boy, my Bendix.

[JustMyOpinion]

Originally Posted by Anne2719

Thanks! Still working on training (he's 9 months old now), but it's going pretty well. He's a very sweet boy, my Bendix.

Hi Anne
I have a year and a half y/old dobie mix. We're still working on training, too.
He's dominant, pushy, protective, smart and "sweet" for brief moments. LOL.
BTW, I adore boxers. ( we had one when I was a child).

[Anne2719]

Originally Posted by JustMyOpinion

Hi Anne
I have a year and a half y/old dobie mix. We're still working on training, too.
He's dominant, pushy, protective, smart and "sweet" for brief moments. LOL.
BTW, I adore boxers. ( we had one when I was a child).

Our dog trainer has a sweet boxer who comes to all the classes (Ben is a yellow Lab). I want to train him as a therapy dog and visit Alzheimer's patients -- he's very sociable and most of the time is calm (not at this moment, though).

Sorry to be O/T!

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by TopGunner

Hey Anne & JMO,

Can't help myself - I have 2 Beagles and 2 Chihuahua's. They are my children and I am their People. They are very controlling, manipulative (we have to spell the "w" word), demanding, and uncivilized. They own me hook, line, and sinker. I am their slave.........I love it. (them too!)

The "w" word? Spell it....

[One2Snoop]

Originally Posted by TopGunner

Hey Anne & JMO,

Can't help myself - I have 2 Beagles and 2 Chihuahua's. They are my children and I am their People. They are very controlling, manipulative (we have to spell the "w" word), demanding, and uncivilized. They own me hook, line, and sinker. I am their slave.........I love it. (them too!)

Is the "W" word - Walk? If it is, we have to spell it too otherwise our half chihuahua/fox terrier goes crazy until we're out the door.

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by One2Snoop

Is the "W" word - Walk? If it is, we have to spell it too otherwise our half chihuahua/fox terrier goes crazy until we're out the door.

LOL! of course! I would love to see a pic of your dog. Some people say Elmo is part chihuahua/fox terrier. I'm always changing my mind about what I think he is. For a while I told people he was part blood hound because he is so sensitive. He looks absolutely nothing like a blood hound...it's just the sensitive side you understand. Then I watched a show on Carolina dogs and "American dingos." So then, I'm thinking that's what he is but he only weighs about 13 pounds and they weigh about 35+ pounds. He would have to be a "toy" Carolina dog....but he's purely from Hawaii, no doubt about that. He's gotten real picky about his food lately. And these looks he gives me, nearly kill me....

Now I'm thinking he's really a baby trapped in a dog's body.....he's cute as all get out, whatever he is!

[Otter]

Nice to see all mabudis feeling sassy!

[One2Snoop]

Originally Posted by accordn2me

LOL! of course! I would love to see a pic of your dog. Some people say Elmo is part chihuahua/fox terrier. I'm always changing my mind about what I think he is. For a while I told people he was part blood hound because he is so sensitive. He looks absolutely nothing like a blood hound...it's just the sensitive side you understand. Then I watched a show on Carolina dogs and "American dingos." So then, I'm thinking that's what he is but he only weighs about 13 pounds and they weigh about 35+ pounds. He would have to be a "toy" Carolina dog....but he's purely from Hawaii, no doubt about that. He's gotten real picky about his food lately. And these looks he gives me, nearly kill me....

Now I'm thinking he's really a baby trapped in a dog's body.....he's cute as all get out, whatever he is!

LOL - ours is female - and she's definitely sensitive....

(sorry about the red eyes - we haven't mastered the how not to do that yet)



Apologies for the offtopic Tuscan.

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by One2Snoop

LOL - ours is female - and she's definitely sensitive....

(sorry about the red eyes - we haven't mastered the how not to do that yet)



Apologies for the offtopic Tuscan.

OMG! She and Momo would give us beautiful grandbabies! Awwwwwww

I will try to post a pic when I get back. B/f is eyeing the computer and I'm supposed to get ready to go out for SUSHI!!! LOVE IT!

You've seen a pic of Max on myspace (if you looked at my pics) but it's not a good pic. Elmo looks almost exactly like him.

Here's the link for anyone who's curious:

http://www.myspace.com/samanthajuneisqueen

Never mind my crazy friends and mean azz kid! And I'm 42, not 24...LOL!

[One2Snoop]

Originally Posted by accordn2me

OMG! She and Momo would give us beautiful grandbabies! Awwwwwww

I will try to post a pic when I get back. B/f is eyeing the computer and I'm supposed to get ready to go out for SUSHI!!! LOVE IT!

You've seen a pic of Max on myspace (if you looked at my pics) but it's not a good pic. Elmo looks almost exactly like him.

Here's the link for anyone who's curious:

http://www.myspace.com/samanthajuneisqueen

Never mind my crazy friends and mean azz kid! And I'm 42, not 24...LOL!

I think I'm blind. I only remember seeing a cat - where's the dog on that Myspace page? LOL

[One2Snoop]

Originally Posted by TopGunner

OMG Snoops, she's ALMOST identical to one of my Chihuahua's, the one named SNOOPIE! LMAO!!! My Snoops is 6 pounds (the other is four), but has the exact same features, ears, etc. She looks like a BIG little dog (great dane) and she's all fawn, no white. Sorry no picts., my daughter took all the picture taking gear to college.

ChaCha is a year old in people years and weighs about 12 or 13 lbs maybe a little more by now. She's a joy to have but no doubt spoiled rotten.

[Anne2719]

Originally Posted by accordn2me

OMG! She and Momo would give us beautiful grandbabies! Awwwwwww

I will try to post a pic when I get back. B/f is eyeing the computer and I'm supposed to get ready to go out for SUSHI!!! LOVE IT!

You've seen a pic of Max on myspace (if you looked at my pics) but it's not a good pic. Elmo looks almost exactly like him.

Here's the link for anyone who's curious:

http://www.myspace.com/samanthajuneisqueen

Never mind my crazy friends and mean azz kid! And I'm 42, not 24...LOL!

Your cat looks like mine! (My two boy cats have extra thumbs.)