Greta "on the record" will discuss Scott's appeal

[attorneywan2be]

Yesterday, Greta just presented a recap of the case..however tonight she will look into possible appeal issues and she will dig into the evidence of the case..

They said: Imagine being on the street walking past Scott Peterson. His supporters have been making a case for an appeal..Greta will dig into the details of the case in a very surprising report on what might happen now..

They also said : It is a surprising and revealing look at the question of whether Peterson could actually be falsely imprisoned and whether he should have a new trial. Some surprise guests will be in that story and they were very close to Scott Peterson.

[TopGunner]

I saw this AW2B. Waited 55 minutes, as it was on the last 5 minutes of the show. Personally I believe it's much to do about nothing. He's guilty, so anything they say will just be hype. Now, they also said Scott supporters think he should have a new trial. That's not NEW news. And to me, that is at the other end of the spectrum of saying he's innocent. It's like he's guilty, but the trial was unfair, so he should have another. I say he's guilty and should rot on deathrow.

I'll be watching tonight, it'd better be good, or I'll be so mad.

BTW- it's the killers birthday today, maybe that's the reason for the 5 minutes of fuss.

[Wearing A Halo]

Originally Posted by TopGunner

I saw this AW2B. Waited 55 minutes, as it was on the last 5 minutes of the show. Personally I believe it's much to do about nothing. He's guilty, so anything they say will just be hype. Now, they also said Scott supporters think he should have a new trial. That's not NEW news. And to me, that is at the other end of the spectrum of saying he's innocent. It's like he's guilty, but the trial was unfair, so he should have another. I say he's guilty and should rot on deathrow.

I'll be watching tonight, it'd better be good, or I'll be so mad.

BTW- it's the killers birthday today, maybe that's the reason for the 5 minutes of fuss.

ITA TG,

I, too, am going to--

WATCH ON THE RECORD WITHG.

[TopGunner]

Originally Posted by Wearing A Halo

ITA TG,

I, too, am going to--

WATCH ON THE RECORD WITHG.

Well Angel, as predicted, it was much to do about N O T H I N G.

Less than nothing actually. It was 3 minutes long and they said that ISP suporters and family believe he should get a new trial because the jurors sat in the boat, because 3 jurors left, and because the concrete anchors weren't found by the divers. OMG, NO!!!!!!!!! ROFLMAO.

Same 'ol, same 'ol. What a bunch of cr*p.

Good seeing you though Ang!

[Babes]

Originally Posted by TopGunner

I saw this AW2B. Waited 55 minutes, as it was on the last 5 minutes of the show. Personally I believe it's much to do about nothing. He's guilty, so anything they say will just be hype. Now, they also said Scott supporters think he should have a new trial. That's not NEW news. And to me, that is at the other end of the spectrum of saying he's innocent. It's like he's guilty, but the trial was unfair, so he should have another. I say he's guilty and should rot on deathrow.

I'll be watching tonight, it'd better be good, or I'll be so mad.

BTW- it's the killers birthday today, maybe that's the reason for the 5 minutes of fuss.

IMO Greta isnt there tonight so maybe she's the one who will be discussing it on her show when she comes back tomorrow. We'll see.

[adnoid]

Originally Posted by TopGunner

...ISP suporters and family believe he should get a new trial because the jurors sat in the boat, because 3 jurors left, and because the concrete anchors weren't found by the divers...

What?!?!?! No mention of the ubiquitous "No...." lists? Nothing about a bathtub? NO CALCULATION OF THE ODDS?!?!?!?!

Maybe they're keeping it all secret. Yeah - "Secret Evidence"! That's it.

[TopGunner]

Originally Posted by adnoid

What?!?!?! No mention of the ubiquitous "No...." lists? Nothing about a bathtub? NO CALCULATION OF THE ODDS?!?!?!?!

Maybe they're keeping it all secret. Yeah - "Secret Evidence"! That's it.

Hiya Adnoid! It was remarkably stupid, IMO. They said nothing new at all, only that his supporters think he should get a new trial. So? His supporters say a lot of things, that doesn't make it so. Besides, even if his parents "buy" him a new trial, he'll just be convicted again and it'll give us all something to talk about, LOL.

I said on another board that I smell some PR work, which as always, will just completely backfire.

Night night.

[Wearing A Halo]

Originally Posted by TopGunner

Well Angel, as predicted, it was much to do about N O T H I N G.

Less than nothing actually. It was 3 minutes long and they said that ISP suporters and family believe he should get a new trial because the jurors sat in the boat, because 3 jurors left, and because the concrete anchors weren't found by the divers. OMG, NO!!!!!!!!! ROFLMAO.

Same 'ol, same 'ol. What a bunch of cr*p.

Good seeing you though Ang!

Hi TG,

!LOL!

All the 'molecules' in my head are spinning. I need a caffeine fix. Why no mention of a "watch withg"? Oh wait, we still have tomorrow!

(Greta *chuckles*)

[I'mSun]

Originally Posted by adnoid

What?!?!?! No mention of the ubiquitous "No...." lists? Nothing about a bathtub? NO CALCULATION OF THE ODDS?!?!?!?!

Maybe they're keeping it all secret. Yeah - "Secret Evidence"! That's it.

Just 1 - NO concrete anchors. Looks like they're protecting that "Secret Evidence" at all costs - even ISP's! Greta said she doesn't know why the 3rd juror was sent home. LOL! ...everyone else does.

[I'mSun]

Originally Posted by TopGunner

Well Angel, as predicted, it was much to do about N O T H I N G.

Less than nothing actually. It was 3 minutes long and they said that ISP suporters and family believe he should get a new trial because the jurors sat in the boat, because 3 jurors left, and because the concrete anchors weren't found by the divers. OMG, NO!!!!!!!!! ROFLMAO.

Same 'ol, same 'ol. What a bunch of cr*p.

You are right, TG - it was NOTHING.
Not even interesting, nothing new.

[attorneywan2be]

Originally Posted by I'mSun

You are right, TG - it was NOTHING.
Not even interesting, nothing new.

We shall see..tonight Greta will discuss the appeals and she will have some guests..in the last 2 days her show basically covered the fires in CA..

[TopGunner]

Originally Posted by attorneywan2be

We shall see..tonight Greta will discuss the appeals and she will have some guests..in the last 2 days her show basically covered the fires in CA..

I agree AW2B, the last 2 shows covered the fire, and also covered enough to let us understand that there is absolutely NO new news/evidence. Unless these mystery guests are witnesses w/photographs of the REAL killer, I repeat what I've already said...this is all just some lame PR work, and Greta should be ashamed of herself.

[I'mSun]

Originally Posted by TopGunner

[snip] I repeat what I've already said...this is all just some lame PR work, and Greta should be ashamed of herself.

It's all about ratings and $$, TG. IF there was anything substantial, any new 'secret' evidence, I would think there would at least be an attorney of record for the Appeal. There isn't. And, I would think something would have been filed.

This page has the current status for ISP, Case# S132449

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.g...doc_no=S132449

Supreme Court Case: S132449
Court of Appeal Case(s): no data found
Case Caption: PEOPLE v. PETERSON (SCOTT)
Case Category: Automatic Appeal
Start Date: 03/16/2005
Case Status: awaiting counsel appt. (AA)
Issues: Automatic appeal from a judgment of death.
Case Citation: none

You can request automatic e-mail notifications about this case at the site, too.

[Heyes]

I bet greta finally got her interview with geragos. She sure waited a long time and during the trial even went so far as to back him, imo, in hopes to get the BIG interview.

I bet jackie is getting the web site all ready for those dona$ions that may roll in after the show! lol lol lol
We accept pay pal!
The petersons jag is a couple of years old now, we cannot expect them to drive up to the prison in that old thing.
lmao
imo

[Lavindar]

Originally Posted by TopGunner

I agree AW2B, the last 2 shows covered the fire, and also covered enough to let us understand that there is absolutely NO new news/evidence. Unless these mystery guests are witnesses w/photographs of the REAL killer, I repeat what I've already said...this is all just some lame PR work, and Greta should be ashamed of herself.

I blinked and missed it!!!!

As for going free, should he be granted a new trial, I believe he will remain in custody during the same. "Free" is a L O N G W A Y down the pike from where he is now.

The only way he could go free is if someone confessed to the crime. Given the quarter of a million dollars that the Petersons are offering, the criminal element is sure keeping quiet. Hasn't that reward been out there for quite a while now?

[Wearing A Halo]

Originally Posted by attorneywan2be

We shall see..tonight Greta will discuss the appeals and she will have some guests..in the last 2 days her show basically covered the fires in CA..

Yep, AW2B, we saw. Now what?

1. DRISP got a fair trial.

2. DRISP is still on death row.

3. DRISP is waiting.

[attorneywan2be]

Originally Posted by TopGunner

Greta should be ashamed of herself.

I totally agree! She didn't deliver what she promised..!! What a waste of time...

[TopGunner]

Originally Posted by attorneywan2be

I totally agree! She didn't deliver what she promised..!! What a waste of time...

Well AW2B, if you think about it.......what was there to "deliver"? He's guilty.

However, if it makes you feel any better, it wasn't all that long ago when whats-his-name (Gawd, it's too early to think) did the same thing. I'll come back when I remember.

[TopGunner]

ABRAMS! It was Dan Abrams...not to long ago he did the same thing. A whole bunch of hype about a whole bunch of nothing.

He's guilty. There's nothing to add or subtract to the story. When his appeals roll around it may stir up some debates, but in the end, he's staying put...he did it, can't get out of it.

[enlightenme]

Originally Posted by TopGunner

Well AW2B, if you think about it.......what was there to "deliver"? He's guilty.

However, if it makes you feel any better, it wasn't all that long ago when whats-his-name (Gawd, it's too early to think) did the same thing. I'll come back when I remember.

Hey TG! Are you thinking of Dan Abrams? He had good 'ol Vernon on and that's about it.

Did you read some of the NG comments to Greta's blog? Same old stuff but a few "funnies" added in. One poster said they should have sequestered the jury for the entire trial and moved it to an out of state venue. LOL! I can see it now....State of CA via FL vs Scott Lee Peterson.

[margaritaville]

Originally Posted by enlightenme

Hey TG! Are you thinking of Dan Abrams? He had good 'ol Vernon on and that's about it.

Did you read some of the NG comments to Greta's blog? Same old stuff but a few "funnies" added in. One poster said they should have sequestered the jury for the entire trial and moved it to an out of state venue. LOL! I can see it now....State of CA via FL vs Scott Lee Peterson.

LOL exactly... And would that still be concidered a jury of his "peers"?

It doesn't matter where you move it to, you could move it to Moscow and the evidence would still prove he is guilty!!! lol

IMO

[TopGunner]

Originally Posted by enlightenme

Hey TG! Are you thinking of Dan Abrams? He had good 'ol Vernon on and that's about it.

Did you read some of the NG comments to Greta's blog? Same old stuff but a few "funnies" added in. One poster said they should have sequestered the jury for the entire trial and moved it to an out of state venue. LOL! I can see it now....State of CA via FL vs Scott Lee Peterson.

LOL EM, nope, haven't gone to Greta's site, not interested in anything that's being said over there.

Wouldn't have mattered if they sequestered the jury and/or moved it to Florida. I'm 3,000 + miles away from Modesto. Everyone here thinks he's guilty too.

[Lavindar]

Originally Posted by enlightenme

Hey TG! Are you thinking of Dan Abrams? He had good 'ol Vernon on and that's about it.

Did you read some of the NG comments to Greta's blog? Same old stuff but a few "funnies" added in. One poster said they should have sequestered the jury for the entire trial and moved it to an out of state venue. LOL! I can see it now....State of CA via FL vs Scott Lee Peterson.

Too bad, too. FL executes faster than CA.

I don't think any of the NG's are the sharpest crayons in the box. I have never heard such ridiculous theories than those they come up with.

My favorite is Marlene calling the hydrologist "junk science." What is her Kermit experiment? It's not only true JUNK science, it's littering. Goes along with Dalton's tossing a ball in the water and having it come up right where he wanted it to. No one has attempted to recreate the wind velocity, weather, or anything else for their experiments so that makes them null and void. You ahve to create identical circumstances for an experiment to be valid.

[TopGunner]

Originally Posted by Lavindar

Too bad, too. FL executes faster than CA.

I don't think any of the NG's are the sharpest crayons in the box. I have never heard such ridiculous theories than those they come up with.

My favorite is Marlene calling the hydrologist "junk science." What is her Kermit experiment? It's not only true JUNK science, it's littering. Goes along with Dalton's tossing a ball in the water and having it come up right where he wanted it to. No one has attempted to recreate the wind velocity, weather, or anything else for their experiments so that makes them null and void. You ahve to create identical circumstances for an experiment to be valid.

LITTERING..... !!!! OMG, ROFLMAO!!!! ****!!! LOL!!!!!!!

[WaitN4Ever]

Originally Posted by Lavindar

Too bad, too. FL executes faster than CA.

I don't think any of the NG's are the sharpest crayons in the box. I have never heard such ridiculous theories than those they come up with.

My favorite is Marlene calling the hydrologist "junk science." What is her Kermit experiment? It's not only true JUNK science, it's littering. Goes along with Dalton's tossing a ball in the water and having it come up right where he wanted it to. No one has attempted to recreate the wind velocity, weather, or anything else for their experiments so that makes them null and void. You ahve to create identical circumstances for an experiment to be valid.

I understand he was convicted in a court of law. But when I look at the evidence it is all circumstancial and doens't proove he did it in my eyes.
He admitted to fishing in the bay and that was personally a set up for teh real killers to now know where to place Laci and Conner. This is a crazy case but since it started this is the things that I had observed. I do feel that the police were under media pressure to convict someone and Scott Peterson was the first and foremost subject. Evidence is very easily manuplated to make it appear that the husband did it. No crime scene but they can make it look as he did it because there was no crime scene.

[PsychNurse;~)]

it was just a coincidence that he told amber he'd LOST his wife, this would be his FIRST holidays without her, and he'd be FREE to spend more time with amber by the end of january.

it was just a coincidence that the very next day he's searching for a boat to buy (keeping in mind he'd not owned a single boat in all the years he and laci were together).

it was just a coincidence that laci disappeared on the very day isp took the boat out, driving at least 3.5 to 4.0 total hours to spend less than 1 hour on the water.

it was just a coincidence that about 10 days after telling amber the items in paragraph #1 they were all true.

it was also just a coincidence that the badly decomposed remains of laci and conner peterson were found washed ashore 4 months later, in the vicinity isp placed himself the day they disappeared, after a storm.

if i ever kill anyone i sure hope all you ng's will be on my jury!

~~cyn~~

[WaitN4Ever]

Originally Posted by PsychNurse;~)

it was just a coincidence that he told amber he'd LOST his wife, this would be his FIRST holidays without her, and he'd be FREE to spend more time with amber by the end of january.

it was just a coincidence that the very next day he's searching for a boat to buy (keeping in mind he'd not owned a single boat in all the years he and laci were together).

it was just a coincidence that laci disappeared on the very day isp took the boat out, driving at least 3.5 to 4.0 total hours to spend less than 1 hour on the water.

it was just a coincidence that about 10 days after telling amber the items in paragraph #1 they were all true.

it was also just a coincidence that the badly decomposed remains of laci and conner peterson were found washed ashore 4 months later, in the vicinity isp placed himself the day they disappeared, after a storm.

if i ever kill anyone i sure hope all you ng's will be on my jury!

~~cyn~~

answer to 1st paragraph,
Most cheating men will give a sob story to the mistress to gain more compassion in a relationship. That was no surprise to me.

answer to 2nd paragraph,
Keep in mind that Scott desired fishing and my husband and myself hadn't owned a boat in the years we were together but that doesn't make it apparent that we don't want one or desire a boat. We plan on it when we get the $ to afford one. When that day comes I hope that no one will look at us for purchasing a boat since we've never had one prior.

answer to 3rd paragraph,
Is it just coincidence that the Medinas house was robbed the same day that Laci came up missing as well? That Scott was so far away when apparently Laci confronted the robbers and then she came up missing.

answer to 4th paragraph,
It apparenlty does appear as a coincidence in this case. I've seen things happen to people when they say something and it actually happen or even think something and it happen.

answer to 5th paragraph,
That wasn't a coincidence, that was planned. I do believe that Laci was abducted, possibly taken for her baby, so much of that happens even today. When things went wrong and it appeard that the media was running strong with this then it came apparent that the people that abducted Laci had to dispose of her and what better place could they do it. It would appear that Scott did it and the heat would be removed from anyone ever thinking that anyone else had done it.

[Lavindar]

Originally Posted by WaitN4Ever

answer to 1st paragraph,
Most cheating men will give a sob story to the mistress to gain more compassion in a relationship. That was no surprise to me.

Most men don't go as far as Scott did in claiming he LOST his wife. They tend more towards 'my wife doesn't understand me.'

answer to 2nd paragraph, Keep in mind that Scott desired fishing and my husband and myself hadn't owned a boat in the years we were together but that doesn't make it apparent that we don't want one or desire a boat. We plan on it when we get the $ to afford one. When that day comes I hope that no one will look at us for purchasing a boat since we've never had one prior.

I sure hope you don't disappear some day.

answer to 3rd paragraph,
Is it just coincidence that the Medinas house was robbed the same day that Laci came up missing as well? That Scott was so far away when apparently Laci confronted the robbers and then she came up missing.

There's no evidence that the Medina's house was robbed that morning. They didn't leave until 10:33. The mailman was on the street from abt 10:30-10:50. The dog was returned to the yard BEFORE the Medina's left. So she wasn't out walking the dog or the mailman would have seen her. That morning is pretty much covered by testimony and NONE of them saw or heard anything unusual at the Medina's house.

answer to 4th paragraph,
It apparenlty does appear as a coincidence in this case. I've seen things happen to people when they say something and it actually happen or even think something and it happen.

How many coincidences does it take to prove it's not coincidence. PsychNuse gave you five. Can you show where there is ONE OTHER PERSON to whom those five "coincidences" apply? Geragos sure couldn't

answer to 5th paragraph,
That wasn't a coincidence, that was planned. I do believe that Laci was abducted, possibly taken for her baby, so much of that happens even today. When things went wrong and it appeard that the media was running strong with this then it came apparent that the people that abducted Laci had to dispose of her and what better place could they do it. It would appear that Scott did it and the heat would be removed from anyone ever thinking that anyone else had done it.

People who seek to "frame" someone do NOT hide a body where it won't be found for months. If they wanted to implicate Scot, why dump the bodies underwater - why not just leave them on the shore? No, these doofuses have to get a boat and take her out on the BAY WHICH IS BEING PATROLLED AT THIS TIME BY THE COAST GUARD and dump her where she will stay for some time.

[WaitN4Ever]

Originally Posted by Lavindar

Most men don't go as far as Scott did in claiming he LOST his wife. They tend more towards 'my wife doesn't understand me.'
I sure hope you don't disappear some day.

Not everyone thinks on the same level. Everyone does things diffently. So why would Scott be like every other man. He isn't. He is his own person and did what he could to gain the compassion of another person. That is wrong what he did but cheating isn't a felony.

Originally Posted by Lavindar

There's no evidence that the Medina's house was robbed that morning. They didn't leave until 10:33. The mailman was on the street from abt 10:30-10:50. The dog was returned to the yard BEFORE the Medina's left. So she wasn't out walking the dog or the mailman would have seen her. That morning is pretty much covered by testimony and NONE of them saw or heard anything unusual at the Medina's house.
How many coincidences does it take to prove it's not coincidence. PsychNuse gave you five. Can you show where there is ONE OTHER PERSON to whom those five "coincidences" apply? Geragos sure couldn't

Theres no proff that it wasn't robbed that morning either. Tehre is proof however that it was robbed. If I remember this correctly the neighbor couldn't remember the exact time but had to rely on a paper reciept as to the time. So when she returned it could've actually happened any time prior to that reciept. How long was the dog out running around before she noticed.

Originally Posted by Lavindar

People who seek to "frame" someone do NOT hide a body where it won't be found for months. If they wanted to implicate Scot, why dump the bodies underwater - why not just leave them on the shore? No, these doofuses have to get a boat and take her out on the BAY WHICH IS BEING PATROLLED AT THIS TIME BY THE COAST GUARD and dump her where she will stay for some time.

No one knows what they had done with the bodies until they were found. Can you say for sure that they were in the bay? They sure didn't find them when they were looking for them, so apparently they may have not been there either. No one knows for sure where they were. All the people can do is speculate this sceniero.

[Lavindar]

Originally Posted by WaitN4Ever

Not everyone thinks on the same level. Everyone does things diffently. So why would Scott be like every other man. He isn't. He is his own person and did what he could to gain the compassion of another person. That is wrong what he did but cheating isn't a felony.





Theres no proff that it wasn't robbed that morning either. Tehre is proof however that it was robbed. If I remember this correctly the neighbor couldn't remember the exact time but had to rely on a paper reciept as to the time. So when she returned it could've actually happened any time prior to that reciept. How long was the dog out running around before she noticed.

She testified that she put the dog in the yard BEFORE she ran her errands. The dog was not runninr around either. He was standing in the middle of the street. She was home prior to leaving and she didn't notice anything either.

No one knows what they had done with the bodies until they were found. Can you say for sure that they were in the bay? They sure didn't find them when they were looking for them, so apparently they may have not been there either. No one knows for sure where they were. All the people can do is speculate this sceniero.

Experts testified that Laci's body was in the water for 3-6 months. They can use their EXPERTISE in the field to make their conclusions. Oddly enough, Dr. Boyd Stephens told Grogan exactly what shape Laci was in after being in the Bay for e months. Dr. Stephens is the "expert" on bodies in the Bay because he was the medical examiner in San Francisco.

[aingael]

Originally Posted by WaitN4Ever

I do believe that Laci was abducted, possibly taken for her baby, so much of that happens even today. When things went wrong and it appeard that the media was running strong with this then it came apparent that the people that abducted Laci had to dispose of her and what better place could they do it. It would appear that Scott did it and the heat would be removed from anyone ever thinking that anyone else had done it.

First, the incidence of a pregnant woman being killed by her spouse, significant other, the baby's father is MUCH greater than fetus-napping. This fetus-napping has become the ~new~ reason that Scott didn't do it and it doesn't float. There is no proof at all, compared to the proof that Scott did this reprehensible (using his words to describe himself) deed himself.

I would like you to answer this. When and were did they ~plant~ the bodies and where were they kept until they were planted.

Please, think carefully because I have other questions.

[Lavindar]

Originally Posted by aingael

First, the incidence of a pregnant woman being killed by her spouse, significant other, the baby's father is MUCH greater than fetus-napping. This fetus-napping has become the ~new~ reason that Scott didn't do it and it doesn't float. There is no proof at all, compared to the proof that Scott did this reprehensible (using his words to describe himself) deed himself.

I would like you to answer this. When and were did they ~plant~ the bodies and where were they kept until they were planted.

Please, think carefully because I have other questions.

I have to add this. pregnant women who are kidnapped for their fetuses - those are crimes committed by WOMEN, not men. It's usually a woman who has told her SO that she was pregnant and is trying to cover herself by appearing with a baby. I have found no MEN who commit this crime in my research.

[WaitN4Ever]

Originally Posted by aingael

First, the incidence of a pregnant woman being killed by her spouse, significant other, the baby's father is MUCH greater than fetus-napping. This fetus-napping has become the ~new~ reason that Scott didn't do it and it doesn't float. There is no proof at all, compared to the proof that Scott did this reprehensible (using his words to describe himself) deed himself.

I would like you to answer this. When and were did they ~plant~ the bodies and where were they kept until they were planted.

Please, think carefully because I have other questions.

If I remember this correctly, it went something like this.
I think there was a man named Dolton or something like that and he had eye witnesses that seen someone in a boat in the bay dumping something that looked like a body. I don't remember the exact date but it was during the time after she came up missing and after Scott said he went fishing in Berkley. This could very well be the incident. I also think that the other scenerio was that there was some place down by the bay that had some witch craft going on and that was also and area of concern when it came to Laci's disappearence.

[WaitN4Ever]

Originally Posted by Lavindar

I have to add this. pregnant women who are kidnapped for their fetuses - those are crimes committed by WOMEN, not men. It's usually a woman who has told her SO that she was pregnant and is trying to cover herself by appearing with a baby. I have found no MEN who commit this crime in my research.

ok, so where did I say that it was a man that actually committed this crime?
The actual perpatraiter has never been caught since they think Scott did it and they think they have their man.

[TopGunner]

Originally Posted by WaitN4Ever

ok, so where did I say that it was a man that actually committed this crime?
The actual perpatraiter has never been caught since they think Scott did it and they think they have their man.

But wait Wait. When did they take Laci? Where did they keep Laci? If they took her for Conner, why didn't they keep him? Why did they throw him in the bay? He was perfectly healthy before ISP kicked him, breaking Laci's ribs, and tossing him in the bay. And oh, where is the evidence that you're so convinced there should be?

[WaitN4Ever]

Originally Posted by TopGunner

But wait Wait. When did they take Laci? Where did they keep Laci? If they took her for Conner, why didn't they keep him? Why did they throw him in the bay? He was perfectly healthy before ISP kicked him, breaking Laci's ribs, and tossing him in the bay. And oh, where is the evidence that you're so convinced there should be?

HELLO!!!!

I think I covered this, but here goes again.
They kidnapped Laci weather it be for Conner of their own unknown reasons. The reason they didn't keep Conner is because the media hype was putting pressure on them. They had to dispose of both of them. Thanks to the media. There was someone that even witnesses someone tossing something into the bay shaped like a body. It was dark and the person was never caught. Good thing or Scott would've been out a free man. But instead, that must have been SCott that went back and disposed of her. HUH?

[aingael]

Originally Posted by WaitN4Ever

If I remember this correctly, it went something like this.
I think there was a man named Dolton or something like that and he had eye witnesses that seen someone in a boat in the bay dumping something that looked like a body. I don't remember the exact date but it was during the time after she came up missing and after Scott said he went fishing in Berkley. This could very well be the incident. I also think that the other scenerio was that there was some place down by the bay that had some witch craft going on and that was also and area of concern when it came to Laci's disappearence.

No, I was asking for your opinion, since Laci and Conner were found on the shore, they either had to have been placed in the bay or on the shore by ~someone~ who wanted to frame Scott.

My question to you is, since you don't believe Scott did this horrendous act someone did and from your posts it appears you believe the bodies were planted.

What I am asking you is, when and where were the bodies planted. Were they planted on shore? Where they placed in the bay? Also, when were they planted (not exactly, but an approximate range).

Ohh BTW, I read Daltons book and I wont even consider anything in it as true, there were so many inconsistencies from actual testimony and from actual statements by the Peterson's themselves that I won't even talk about it.

[WaitN4Ever]

Originally Posted by aingael

No, I was asking for your opinion, since Laci and Conner were found on the shore, they either had to have been placed in the bay or on the shore by ~someone~ who wanted to frame Scott.

My question to you is, since you don't believe Scott did this horrendous act someone did and from your posts it appears you believe the bodies were planted.

What I am asking you is, when and where were the bodies planted. Were they planted on shore? Where they placed in the bay? Also, when were they planted (not exactly, but an approximate range).

Ohh BTW, I read Daltons book and I wont even consider anything in it as true, there were so many inconsistencies from actual testimony and from actual statements by the Peterson's themselves that I won't even talk about it.

I believe the bodies were dumped in the bay after the time that Scott went fishing. I believe the reason that Scott only fished for an hour, is he realized that his boat was too small for the bay and decided to leave.
I don't know where the bodies were planted, I just remember on cross examination that Geragos asked Helton if police investigated the tip about Laci being held in a home near Tracy.

Helton said helicopters with heat-seeking devices flew over the area searching for signs of life, but he acknowledged that authorities never searched the buildings on the property, confirming Geragos' theory that someone held Laci until after hearing Peterson's fishing story, then dumped her body in the bay.

[aingael]

Originally Posted by WaitN4Ever

I believe the bodies were dumped in the bay after the time that Scott went fishing. I believe the reason that Scott only fished for an hour, is he realized that his boat was too small for the bay and decided to leave.
I don't know where the bodies were planted, I just remember on cross examination that Geragos asked Helton if police investigated the tip about Laci being held in a home near Tracy.

Helton said helicopters with heat-seeking devices flew over the area searching for signs of life, but he acknowledged that authorities never searched the buildings on the property, confirming Geragos' theory that someone held Laci until after hearing Peterson's fishing story, then dumped her body in the bay.

Interesting thoughts but......

If someone else had Laci and placed her in the bay, they would have to be very good at determining where Scott was in the bay. The San Francisco Bay is roughly the size of New Jersey, so placing the bodies in the location that Scott was, so that they would eventually come ashore with the trajectory of where Scott was would be greater than anyone can imagine. Either they were lucky or it could not have happened. I tend to think it could not have happened the odds are far to extreme to even remotely consider this as a plausible scenario.


Next, I will hazard the guess by your post that Conner was never taken from Laci in a crude C-section. If that is the case then fetus-napping was not a reason for her being taken. I mean, why go to all the trouble of kidnapping her for the baby and never taking it. Even with this being a high profile case, this person/person's could be caught either way and why not finish what they started. If they held her captive, they were already getting away with it so why give up and dump her to frame Scott? It doesn't make any sense at all.


Using the heat seeking equipment and not using it on buildings was another one of Geragos's wild fish stories. If she was kept in one of the buildings, there would be evidence that she was kept there. All that needed to be done is the defense using their investigators to explore them. It was never done, that leads me and others I am sure, to believe that there was nothing to it.

One of the things that I have always found interesting is the theories that have been thrown out there have never been investigated. If I were Scott's family I would be pretty PO'd at the attorney and detectives I paid a mighty high monetary price for did nothing, no investigating, nothing but throw out grandiose statements that have no basis in fact nor try to prove any of it.

[Invrdv8]

Originally Posted by attorneywan2be

We shall see..tonight Greta will discuss the appeals and she will have some guests..in the last 2 days her show basically covered the fires in CA..

Wasn't Greta off somewhere with Laura Bush all last week? Maybe they just threw the Scott Peterson blurb on just to keep the ratings up while she was gone. Greta did the commentating but it wasn't anything we've never heard before. They always tintilate viewers with "You don't want to miss it" but then they leave you wishing you had!!!