Switching Sides!

[TuscanDreams]

Ok, let's get critical thinking going on here and try this:

If you believe Scott is guilty, post why he isn't.
If you believe Scott is innocent, post why he's guilty.

Put yourself on the other side. I've done this in many cases involving my career and I've learned a lot about why others feel that way.

[TuscanDreams]

I'll start. I'm neutral, so I'll be posting on both ends.

If I believe Scott is guilty, here's my swap out response:

Scott is absolutely innocent. He was convicted upon evidence that was circumstantial, such as these:

1. Amber Frey was his mistress. If every married person killed their spouse after cheating, there'd be an awful lot of deaths.

2. People saw Laci on December 24th, 2002

3. A lady pawned a Corton watch several days after Laci went missing.

4. The tape found wound around and on Conner: WECHT: And you know that twine around the neck and over the shoulder, on the arm? How about if there is some kind of a bag that is over the baby that is held in place with that tape, and the bag dissolves and breaks apart in the water and the tape remains? There are a lot of explanations. The baby's head was 28 centimeters circumference. I measured 20 centimeters around the neck. You talk about something coming over the head, the body's floating in the water? You couldn't do that in a million years.

Other side: Posting that Scott is guilty if I believe he's innocent:

1. Scott fished in the exact location where the bodies were found. It appears he could have been setting up a defense that Laci followed him to the marina and never made it to see him, due to someone else killing her.

2. Scott spoke of Laci in the past tense when he mentioned her, prior to the body being found.

3. Scott's psychological state could indicate that he has a personality disorder, as his parents have admitted that they never told him no. When Laci flat said, "No more affairs, Scott", he killed her in a fit of rage.

4. He didn't really look for Laci.

Switch Sides- You learn a lot this way!

[Otter]

TD, great thread idea.

When I really follow a trial, as I did this one, too much in fact since I was and continue to be immersed, I put myself on the jury. I don't go as far as deliberating with myself, but I'd stand firm in his guilt.

There's nothing that would change my mind -- at this point in time. What Wecht says on a TV show doesn't mean anything to me, not just him, any of them. I only care about sworn testimony -- the same thing the jury hears.

Now, if someone came forward with solid evidence for his innocence, sure. Then I'd fall back on SP being the unluckiest person who ever walked the earth. And I'd apologize and cry from the rooftops for his release.

Ain't gonna happen.

You're rare TD, you're neutral. That's not me, I made up my mind years ago.

[accordn2me]

Scott maintains his innocence.

This crime, if committed by Laci's husband, was betrayal of the worst kind. It would mean Scott slaughtered not only his wife, but his son as well. Scott has no history of cruelty of this magnitude. Furthermore, if Scott slaughtered his wife and son, he is presently willfully and knowingly driving his aging parents to an early grave, not to mention bankruptcy. Scott must be innocent. If not, it would rank him right up there with the cruelest of cruel monsters. There is nothing in Scott's past indicating he is capable of such evil.

[JustMyOpinion]

Originally Posted by TuscanDreams

Ok, let's get critical thinking going on here and try this:

If you believe Scott is guilty, post why he isn't.
If you believe Scott is innocent, post why he's guilty.

Put yourself on the other side. I've done this in many cases involving my career and I've learned a lot about why others feel that way.

I can't think of any evidence to utilize showing Scott is innocent. The burglars weren't proven to have access, opportunity or motive, nobody showed any evidence that the Croton watch a woman pawned belonged to Laci, and there was no testimony disputing the findings of the ME, criminalist, hydrologist, petrographer, forensic anthropologist.

[TuscanDreams]

You all are awesome, at least you tried to swap places!

[deputydi]

Originally Posted by TuscanDreams

You all are awesome, at least you tried to swap places!

Honest, I've tried to swap places, but when I think of something that could point to his innocence I find several reasons that it just doesn't make sense.

For instance:
Scott has no history of domestic violence. But -- neither did many other convicted murderers. That isn't necessarily a prerequisite for being guilty of killing your spouse. There are many others, but the one that comes to mind immediately is Charles Stewart.

Scott's demeanor immediately before and immediately following the report that Laci was missing. Knowing he was expected to pick up the fruit basket and not calling Amy or returning her calls to him could have been forgetfulness and/or rudeness. That doesn't mean he killed his wife. His reluctance to make eye contact with Sharon that night could have been simply because he felt guilty about leaving Laci alone that day. I don't have a problem believing he would have called Laci first when he realized he wasn't going to be able to pick up the fruit basket, but when he couldn't reach her why didn't he then call Amy? Could he have been THAT thoughtless?

The boat. He told no one (we'll never know if Laci knew) about the boat. Not even when he had a conversation with his father apparently when he was on the boat. He never told anyone he was fishing and he never told anyone he was putting his new boat in the water to see if it was seaworthy. The first anyone knew of this was that night when he volunteered the marina ticket.

Did anyone actually see Laci after Scott left for Berkely? Several people claimed to have seen her walking McKenzie that morning. If all of them were correct, Laci had to have been an Olympic class sprinter. She couldn't have been everywhere she was seen at the times they claim to have seen her. Maybe one or two of them actually did see her and the others saw someone who looked like her. If these witnesses were so reliable why didn't any of them testify? They would have been the defense's best witnesses.

The New Years Eve conversation with Amber. Men cheat on their wives all the time. Not a nice thing to do, but it doesn't necessarily mean they plan to kill her. Scott's affair all by itself doesn't mean much to me, personally. The continued contact he had with Amber while the search was going on for his "beloved" wife could have been rationalized away for many reasons -- except for that Dec 31 conversation. What man would have the presence of mind to make up an elaborate lie like the one Scott told Amber that night? And, DURING a candlelight vigil for Laci.

And, last but not least, there's that little problem of the bodies washing ashore (coincidentally?) almost exactly where Scott had spent the afternoon. This one is the biggie that I just could never get past nor could I find any rational explanation for.

[Wearing A Halo]

Hmmm, but,

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than have to have a frontal lobotomy.

Anyways, DRISP's innocent 'cause:

Scotty's so hottie!

He is the internation man of mystery!

He doesn't cheat on his girlfriends!

He only lies with exceptions!

He only wants to kill dogs that bark too loud!

This ordeal would kill his mother!

Otherwise Laci would never had existed!

He is the golden child!

He lost his muscular build he had since high school!

He forgot to call his sweetie right before leaving the warehouse on his way to 90+ miles/1.5+hours away!

Mackenzie "ran" to Karen Servas!

Ron called and left a message for him (and him only) to bring whipped cream!

He can't drive 55 with a trailer hitched!

His mortiser is "yeah big!"

He forgot to tell LE that Laci was on the computer the morn' of the 24th!

He was homeless and living like a nomad out of his car!

He and the Ps are shiny happy people!

Since DRISP was investigated, suspected, arrrested, incarcerated, charged, indicted, tried, convicted, condemned and sooner or later executed, it can happen to you and me. Although I am still waiting, are you?

[JustMyOpinion]

Originally Posted by TuscanDreams

You all are awesome, at least you tried to swap places!

I have never understood why Geragos made the statements he did prior to taking the case, and then claimed Scott's parents had turned his head around and then declared his new belief that Scott was factually innocent. Does anyone seriously believe Geragos allowed the emotions/denial of his client's parents to inform his own opinion and become the basis for a defense strategy in a capital case?( i.e. proving factual innocence, promising a jury he would prove he was stone, cold innocent)?? Was Geragos representing Jackie & Lee, or..was he representing Scott?

[JustMyOpinion]

Originally Posted by adnoid

I $erio$ly $u$pect the $ource of Gerago$'$ $ignificant $witch of po$ition wa$ $omething $ignificantly $eperate from his di$cu$ion$ with the Peter$on$.

LOL, Adnoid, I agree. $eriously. Mr Hollywood was pursuing his own fame & fortune, IMO. Scott would have fared better with a public defender, IMO.

I think this is a great thread idea! It is something I always do when getting involved in discussing these tragedies.

Sadly, in this case, I cannot find anything positive to say which might present Scott in an innocent light. I think his jury also tried to do this, but was unsuccessful. In reading their book, "We the Jury...", they did not want to believe Scott was capable of this heinous crime. There is simply too much evidence for me to view Scott as anything but guilty BARD. Hence, I agree with the jury's verdict.

IMO

[packy]

Good thread

If it was true that her curtains were still closed that day and she habitually opened them, then it's hard to believe she went for a walk before opening them.

On the other hand, several people saying they saw her and it was not totally clear how they all got it wrong besides I do think Vivian Mitchell was credible about knowing what day it was, so I tend to think she did take a walk.

[ekg]

Great idea for a topic....

I've never been afraid to talk about the things that weren't right.. or felt the need excuse everything that came out against 'my' side...

IMO, the bodies being in the bay are a huge obstacle . Sure there are other suspects, but this is a hard fact to get over at 1st blush.

Eurotrip... I will never understand it..

Selling the car. Ok, I can see both sides here..... but it just doesn't look right IMO.. at the very least he shouldn't have done it for appearance sake.

Amber played no part at all in any of this other than emotion.. why ppl credit her with anything more than that I'll never know...But Scott should have been upfront about her in his 1st conversations with LE...maybe not with the family, but definitely LE.

the 4 full glasses of water on the counter.... did 'dirty and skeeter' get thirsty?

Not being more visible in the beginnning.. I think he didn't want Amber to see him and come forward..b/c it would have looked bad and Laci wouldn't have liked it if she was found and Amber was publicly exposed. But he should have been out in public more regardless b/c it was just the right thing to do.

I'm sure theres more... but thats my start...it'll be interesting to see how some of the others play in your thread...

[attorneywan2be]

Originally Posted by ekg

IMO, the bodies being in the bay are a huge obstacle . Sure there are other suspects, but this is a hard fact to get over at 1st blush.

IMO, the evidence surrounding the bodies tells us that the point of origin was not the same for both bodies..which indicates they were possibly placed separately...in addition, IMO, the twine around Conner's neck could not have been a debris...the ME testified that the mineral deposits that were on Laci's pants were due to repeated cycles of wetting and drying , how could that have occurred if she was at the bottom of the bay?..

Originally Posted by ekg

Eurotrip... I will never understand it..

Scott told Amber on Nov 19th, the day he met her, that he was going to be in Europe in January..IMO, he lied to Amber about that because he knew he was not going to be able to see her during the holidays, and he realized that he was going to stay closer to Laci as the due date was getting closer..

Originally Posted by ekg

Selling the car. Ok, I can see both sides here..... but it just doesn't look right IMO.. at the very least he shouldn't have done it for appearance sake.

As you know he needed a truck for his work..IMO, the fact that he didn't care about how it was going to look is an indication of consciousness of innocence...

Originally Posted by ekg

Amber played no part at all in any of this other than emotion.. why ppl credit her with anything more than that I'll never know...But Scott should have been upfront about her in his 1st conversations with LE...maybe not with the family, but definitely LE.

I agree..I think Scott should have told LE about Amber from the beginning..

Originally Posted by ekg

the 4 full glasses of water on the counter.... did 'dirty and skeeter' get thirsty?

I personally do not think that this story has any merit..

Originally Posted by ekg

Not being more visible in the beginnning.. I think he didn't want Amber to see him and come forward..b/c it would have looked bad and Laci wouldn't have liked it if she was found and Amber was publicly exposed. But he should have been out in public more regardless b/c it was just the right thing to do.

I definitely can see your point..and I also can see his point..IMO, he was afraid that if the affair would come to light, the media would start talking about it rather than focusing on Laci being missing...in fact, that's exactly what happened, if I remember correctly, people stopped searching for Laci..and the MPD was looking for Laci's body...!

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by JustMyOpinion

LOL, Adnoid, I agree. $eriously. Mr Hollywood was pursuing his own fame & fortune, IMO. Scott would have fared better with a public defender, IMO.

What do you believe they could have/would have done differently or better than Hollywood Mark?

[JustMyOpinion]

Originally Posted by accordn2me

What do you believe they could have/would have done differently or better than Hollywood Mark?

For starters, they would have launched a thorough and exhaustive mitigation investigation, IMO.

[ekg]

Originally Posted by attorneywan2be

IMO, the evidence surrounding the bodies tells us that the point of origin was not the same for both bodies..which indicates they were possibly placed separately...in addition, IMO, the twine around Conner's neck could not have been a debris...the ME testified that the mineral deposits that were on Laci's pants were due to repeated cycles of wetting and drying , how could that have occurred if she was at the bottom of the bay?..



Scott told Amber on Nov 19th, the day he met her, that he was going to be in Europe in January..IMO, he lied to Amber about that because he knew he was not going to be able to see her during the holidays, and he realized that he was going to stay closer to Laci as the due date was getting closer..



As you know he needed a truck for his work..IMO, the fact that he didn't care about how it was going to look is an indication of consciousness of innocence...



I agree..I think Scott should have told LE about Amber from the beginning..



I personally do not think that this story has any merit..



I definitely can see your point..and I also can see his point..IMO, he was afraid that if the affair would come to light, the media would start talking about it rather than focusing on Laci being missing...in fact, that's exactly what happened, if I remember correctly, people stopped searching for Laci..and the MPD was looking for Laci's body...!

I agree with everything you've brought up... but I'm playing a 'G' remember--LOL ... and the things I listed will always be troublesome until they are resolved in court.

I don't buy the 'dirty/skeeter' thing either...... but the 4 full glasses of water had to be for someone... so thinking like a 'g' I pulled whoever I could out of my head to 'give' them too.

no, the 'Eurotrip' I mean is the barking dog, falling down in Paris call... that was whacked and I don't think any explanation other than "I was stupid" would explain it...

and I also think that 95% of everything he did, shows consciousness of innocence...he went about like he wasn't afraid of anything...If he had the capability of being a cold blooded,brutal killer without any emotion, I think it would have presented itself sometime in his life before that Christmas eve... and since it didn't I'm left with only assuming he wasn't pure evil and acted the way he did b/c he was innocent and he had faith that the innocent don't go to jail....

[attorneywan2be]

Originally Posted by ekg

I agree with everything you've brought up... but I'm playing a 'G' remember--LOL ... and the things I listed will always be troublesome until they are resolved in court.

I don't buy the 'dirty/skeeter' thing either...... but the 4 full glasses of water had to be for someone... so thinking like a 'g' I pulled whoever I could out of my head to 'give' them too.

no, the 'Eurotrip' I mean is the barking dog, falling down in Paris call... that was whacked and I don't think any explanation other than "I was stupid" would explain it...

and I also think that 95% of everything he did, shows consciousness of innocence...he went about like he wasn't afraid of anything...If he had the capability of being a cold blooded,brutal killer without any emotion, I think it would have presented itself sometime in his life before that Christmas eve... and since it didn't I'm left with only assuming he wasn't pure evil and acted the way he did b/c he was innocent and he had faith that the innocent don't go to jail....

Oops..I forgot you were playing a "G"...lol

All I'm saying is that the lie about Europe started as far back as Nov 19th, before Laci went missing...

I agree..IMO, his actions = consciousness of innocence

[thinkaboutit]

Originally Posted by attorneywan2be

Oops..I forgot you were playing a "G"...lol

All I'm saying is that the lie about Europe started as far back as Nov 19th, before Laci went missing...

I agree..IMO, his actions = consciousness of innocence

LOL! She did good - didn't she?!!! EKG gets an A for effort!!

I'll just second what EKG said - especially the part about the bodies turning up where they did.

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by ekg

I agree with everything you've brought up... but I'm playing a 'G' remember--LOL ... and the things I listed will always be troublesome until they are resolved in court.

I don't buy the 'dirty/skeeter' thing either...... but the 4 full glasses of water had to be for someone... so thinking like a 'g' I pulled whoever I could out of my head to 'give' them too.

no, the 'Eurotrip' I mean is the barking dog, falling down in Paris call... that was whacked and I don't think any explanation other than "I was stupid" would explain it...

and I also think that 95% of everything he did, shows consciousness of innocence...he went about like he wasn't afraid of anything...If he had the capability of being a cold blooded,brutal killer without any emotion, I think it would have presented itself sometime in his life before that Christmas eve... and since it didn't I'm left with only assuming he wasn't pure evil and acted the way he did b/c he was innocent and he had faith that the innocent don't go to jail....

(my bold)

For my switching side argument, I used this "nothing in his past to indicate evil." But since you brought it up and are supposed to be giving a guilty argument, I have to point out...things I'm sure you are well aware of...

pardon my starting with a question - how old was Scott 12/24/02? about 30, right? Many people don't really get their feet off the ground until their 30s.

The reason nothing in his past indicates evil of this magnitude.....he had no reason to kill someone. Nothing had gotten in his way or threatened to rob him of the Jack Cadillac lifestyle he wanted.

[ekg]

Originally Posted by accordn2me

(my bold)

For my switching side argument, I used this "nothing in his past to indicate evil." But since you brought it up and are supposed to be giving a guilty argument, I have to point out...things I'm sure you are well aware of...

pardon my starting with a question - how old was Scott 12/24/02? about 30, right? Many people don't really get their feet off the ground until their 30s.

The reason nothing in his past indicates evil of this magnitude.....he had no reason to kill someone. Nothing had gotten in his way or threatened to rob him of the Jack Cadillac lifestyle he wanted.

/removing guilty hat


I think somewhere down the line someone... a school playmate, an ex-girlfriend, a crabby neighbor that always finds something wrong with the neighborhood kids.. someone or some kind of issue would have showed up...IIRC the DA couldn't find anyone(other than uncle harvey) who had anything bad to say about Scott...

I find that odd for a man who was to have supposedly done what they said he did, not to show some kind of anger somewhere in his lifetime... spoiled or not, he had to have been told NO by someone before the age of 30.

and who says he was told NO anyway? it's speculation that she put her foot down this time.... Their history indicates that she would have been pissed about it, but would have gotten over it and stayed with him....so what indicates this time was any different?

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by ekg

/removing guilty hat


I think somewhere down the line someone... a school playmate, an ex-girlfriend, a crabby neighbor that always finds something wrong with the neighborhood kids.. someone or some kind of issue would have showed up...IIRC the DA couldn't find anyone(other than uncle harvey) who had anything bad to say about Scott...

I find that odd for a man who was to have supposedly done what they said he did, not to show some kind of anger somewhere in his lifetime... spoiled or not, he had to have been told NO by someone before the age of 30.

and who says he was told NO anyway? it's speculation that she put her foot down this time.... Their history indicates that she would have been pissed about it, but would have gotten over it and stayed with him....so what indicates this time was any different?

You jusssst about lost me, sistah.....

I'm not saying anything about the affair....NO! I believe Scott killed Laci because he got a serious, abnormal case of "cold feet" about being a daddy. Divorce her? Still a daddy. He didn't want Conner - the responsibility - morally or financially. He was still getting money from his parents for things...he wasn't ready for a child, period.

imo

[TuscanDreams]

Originally Posted by JustMyOpinion

I have never understood why Geragos made the statements he did prior to taking the case, and then claimed Scott's parents had turned his head around and then declared his new belief that Scott was factually innocent. Does anyone seriously believe Geragos allowed the emotions/denial of his client's parents to inform his own opinion and become the basis for a defense strategy in a capital case?( i.e. proving factual innocence, promising a jury he would prove he was stone, cold innocent)?? Was Geragos representing Jackie & Lee, or..was he representing Scott?

IMO, Geragos took on this case because he'd looked like a horses pattot in the Ryder trial and the other high profile cases he lost. I think he took the Peterson's money and figured he'd do the best he could and not worry about the rest.

My thoughts are that Geragos knows Peterson is guilty and wanted to represent him for the media coverage and the financial gain he received.

[ekg]

Originally Posted by accordn2me

You jusssst about lost me, sistah.....

I'm not saying anything about the affair....NO! I believe Scott killed Laci because he got a serious, abnormal case of "cold feet" about being a daddy. Divorce her? Still a daddy. He didn't want Conner - the responsibility - morally or financially. He was still getting money from his parents for things...he wasn't ready for a child, period.

imo

oh, sorry I misunderstood....

and since I'm supposed to be a 'guilty' I'm not going to argue with you.......... BUT, I don't agree..

[TuscanDreams]

Originally Posted by accordn2me

You jusssst about lost me, sistah.....

I'm not saying anything about the affair....NO! I believe Scott killed Laci because he got a serious, abnormal case of "cold feet" about being a daddy. Divorce her? Still a daddy. He didn't want Conner - the responsibility - morally or financially. He was still getting money from his parents for things...he wasn't ready for a child, period.

imo

I heard a theory on why Scott killed Laci. Scott was never told no as a child- by admission of his parents.

Laci had always tolerated Scott's affairs in the past. So, when she became pregnant, she became one big "NO" to Scott and he killed her, because he is narcisstic and refused to be told no.

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by TuscanDreams

I heard a theory on why Scott killed Laci. Scott was never told no as a child- by admission of his parents.

Laci had always tolerated Scott's affairs in the past. So, when she became pregnant, she became one big "NO" to Scott and he killed her, because he is narcisstic and refused to be told no.

Interesting way of looking at it.

Did you hear some story about 4-year old Scott punching Lee in the stomach over something? Was that a NO?


I have no idea where this story came from either. It must be something I'm recalling from my friends who were into the case when it was a current news item.

[Wearing A Halo]

Originally Posted by ekg

Great idea for a topic....

I've never been afraid to talk about the things that weren't right.. or felt the need excuse everything that came out against 'my' side...

IMO, the bodies being in the bay are a huge obstacle . Sure there are other suspects, but this is a hard fact to get over at 1st blush.

Eurotrip... I will never understand it..

Selling the car. Ok, I can see both sides here..... but it just doesn't look right IMO.. at the very least he shouldn't have done it for appearance sake.

Amber played no part at all in any of this other than emotion.. why ppl credit her with anything more than that I'll never know...But Scott should have been upfront about her in his 1st conversations with LE...maybe not with the family, but definitely LE.

the 4 full glasses of water on the counter.... did 'dirty and skeeter' get thirsty?

Not being more visible in the beginnning.. I think he didn't want Amber to see him and come forward..b/c it would have looked bad and Laci wouldn't have liked it if she was found and Amber was publicly exposed. But he should have been out in public more regardless b/c it was just the right thing to do.

I'm sure theres more... but thats my start...it'll be interesting to see how some of the others play in your thread...

"Laci wouldn't have liked it if she was found."

Just what do you mean by this statement? Are you saying this as an NG or G?

[ekg]

Originally Posted by accordn2me

Interesting way of looking at it.

Did you hear some story about 4-year old Scott punching Lee in the stomach over something? Was that a NO?


I have no idea where this story came from either. It must be something I'm recalling from my friends who were into the case when it was a current news item.

when my 15yro was 2 or 3 she got mad and hauled off and kicked me in the shin.....

should I lock her in the nuthouse now?

[JustMyOpinion]

Originally Posted by ekg

when my 15yro was 2 or 3 she got mad and hauled off and kicked me in the shin.....

should I lock her in the nuthouse now?

The OP wondered if the punch was in response to being told "no". IIRC, John told the story, and it was in response to getting a spank from Lee. John never said what happened after Scott punched Lee in the stomach.

[cookiewench]

Originally Posted by attorneywan2be

Oops..I forgot you were playing a "G"...lol

All I'm saying is that the lie about Europe started as far back as Nov 19th, before Laci went missing...

I agree..IMO, his actions = consciousness of innocence

Don't you find it strange and creepy that, (even if the Nov. 19th lie wasn't part of "the plan") he didn't miss a beat when his wife and child went missing and were possibly/probably murdered?

Scott was always a slime, even before he was a murderer. His history with women is just sickening. Was there even one he was honest with or faithful to?

[deputydi]

Originally Posted by attorneywan2be

<snipped because of length>

I think you missed the point of this thread. You were supposed to take the "other" side. For you, that means list any points that COULD show his guilt.

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by ekg

when my 15yro was 2 or 3 she got mad and hauled off and kicked me in the shin.....

should I lock her in the nuthouse now?

ut oh! you're in trouble now if you've waited this long!

what did you do?

[JustMyOpinion]

Originally Posted by TuscanDreams

I heard a theory on why Scott killed Laci. Scott was never told no as a child- by admission of his parents.

Laci had always tolerated Scott's affairs in the past. So, when she became pregnant, she became one big "NO" to Scott and he killed her, because he is narcisstic and refused to be told no.

Profiler Sharon Hagen suggested Peterson is a narcissist. If this is so, he essentially may have killed Laci because she no longer reflected the image he desired to see ( Laci was just a mirror) In part, Scott needed a new source of narcissistic supply, a new mirror.. which became Amber Frey. With her, he could sucessfully project the golden image for awhile ( single, successful, wealthy, romantic, charming, perfect) I thought it was telling when Scott told Amber he needed to see her, to look into her eyes.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/081704_ctv.html
But Peterson continued pressing for a meeting. He told her he desperately needed to look into her eyes.

"What would my eyes do for you?" a skeptical Frey asked.

"I think they'd do so much ... I guess they'd either hurt really bad or they'd do so much," he said.

[ekg]

Originally Posted by accordn2me

ut oh! you're in trouble now if you've waited this long!

what did you do?

I don't remember exactly what I said to her... something like "HEY,NO, You don't ever do something like that to someone" but probably alot meaner , ... then I picked her up, carried her into her room and put her to bed..

(then went to my room and laughed out loud,but quietly b/c the look on her face when she did it was hilarious )

never had another problem tho...never had to deal with a tantrum and never had to deal with the 'grocery store syndrome'

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by ekg

I don't remember exactly what I said to her... something like "HEY,NO, You don't ever do something like that to someone" but probably alot meaner , ... then I picked her up, carried her into her room and put her to bed..

(then went to my room and laughed out loud,but quietly b/c the look on her face when she did it was hilarious )
never had another problem tho...never had to deal with a tantrum and never had to deal with the 'grocery store syndrome'

hmmmm.....sounds like what LP would have done

just kiddin' ya! seriously....all of these "after the deed" opinions of SLP and what he is....it's too bad these experts can't see it coming, isn't it. but you can't. because many people have it so much worse and so much better and they don't kill their spouses or anyone. i'm not a person that believes killers are made without a genetic predisposition. when it comes to the nature/nurture argument, i believe it's both.

[ekg]

Originally Posted by ekg

never had another problem tho...never had to deal with a tantrum and never had to deal with the 'grocery store syndrome'

well, with the exception of tantrums of the.... 'but why can't I can't I date until I'm 17, all my friends do and they're younger than me' or 'it's not fair that all my friends can talk on the phone until 11 during the week and I can't' variety these days....LOL:lol:

[ekg]

Originally Posted by accordn2me

hmmmm.....sounds like what LP would have done

just kiddin' ya! seriously....all of these "after the deed" opinions of SLP and what he is....it's too bad these experts can't see it coming, isn't it. but you can't. because many people have it so much worse and so much better and they don't kill their spouses or anyone. i'm not a person that believes killers are made without a genetic predisposition. when it comes to the nature/nurture argument, i believe it's both.

yes, it would be nice if they could.... but then again, a 'minority report' world would be just as scary.. b/c as you say, just b/c they may be inclined to do it b/c of nature/nurture.....doesn't mean they will..

I believe in both also.... a good kid can be turned into something evil...... just as a child can be born truly evill.. I hate to think it...but if there's good being born and raised in the world then there has to be evil being born and raised also....

g'night A2M .. it's time for 24

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by ekg

yes, it would be nice if they could.... but then again, a 'minority report' world would be just as scary.. b/c as you say, just b/c they may be inclined to do it b/c of nature/nurture.....doesn't mean they will..

I believe in both also.... a good kid can be turned into something evil...... just as a child can be born truly evill.. I hate to think it...but if there's good being born and raised in the world then there has to be evil being born and raised also....

g'night A2M .. it's time for 24

g'night...still 4 more hours for me to wait....i hope they don't "Jump the shark" as Anne says.

[attorneywan2be]

Originally Posted by deputydi

I think you missed the point of this thread. You were supposed to take the "other" side. For you, that means list any points that COULD show his guilt.

No, I didn't miss the point of this thread..I simply cannot find one thing that would point to guilt...believe me, I tried...!

[deputydi]

Originally Posted by attorneywan2be

No, I didn't miss the point of this thread..I simply cannot find one thing that would point to guilt...believe me, I tried...!

LOL. As I posted earlier on this thread, I tried and tried to go along with the game and find reasons he was innocent. I couldn't do that either.