Sharon Rocha awarded life ins. money

[aingael]

It's about time this was settled.





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

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


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

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

Rocha is the executor of her daughter's estate.

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

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

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


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

[TopGunner]

Originally Posted by aingael

It's about time this was settled.





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

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


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

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

Rocha is the executor of her daughter's estate.

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

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

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


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

Aingael, you ROCK!!!



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

[Heyes]

Originally Posted by TopGunner

Aingael, you ROCK!!!



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

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

imo

[One2Snoop]

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

[Miss Bootsie]

Thanks for the update Aingael.

Congratulations to Sharon.
She more than deserves this.

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

[Lavindar]

Originally Posted by aingael

It's about time this was settled.






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

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


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

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

Rocha is the executor of her daughter's estate.

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

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

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


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

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

[Mysteri]

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

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

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../BA49T47VV.DTL

[WaitN4Ever]

This is OUTRAGOUS!!

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

[PsychNurse;~)]

Originally Posted by WaitN4Ever

This is OUTRAGOUS!!

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

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

[PsychNurse;~)]

Originally Posted by WaitN4Ever

This is OUTRAGOUS!!

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

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

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



~~cyn~~

[Invrdv8]

Originally Posted by Mysteri

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

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

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../BA49T47VV.DTL

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

[Lavindar]

Originally Posted by Invrdv8

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

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

[Heyes]

Originally Posted by Lavindar

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

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

[TopGunner]

Originally Posted by Lavindar

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

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

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

[TopGunner]

Originally Posted by Heyes

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

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

[PsychNurse;~)]

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

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

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

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

~~cyn~~

[Otter]

Originally Posted by WaitN4Ever

This is OUTRAGOUS!!

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

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

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

[hankfromthebank]

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

[Otter]

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

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

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

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

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peters...rance_ctv.html

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

IMO.

[I'mSun]

Originally Posted by Invrdv8

I'll bet Jackie is having the fit of all fits!!!!

I sure hope so! Just the first of many appeals they will not win.

[I'mSun]

Originally Posted by Otter

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

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

[Otter]

Originally Posted by I'mSun

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

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

MG and his little pieces of paper. When will he learn that doesn't work?

[Heyes]

Originally Posted by WaitN4Ever

This is OUTRAGOUS!!

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

Now I am reallllllly appreciating the judges decision!

[Heyes]

Originally Posted by TopGunner

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

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

[TopGunner]

Originally Posted by Heyes

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

I thought Marlene was the paypal queen?

[Heyes]

Originally Posted by TopGunner

I thought Marlene was the paypal queen?

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

[Invrdv8]

Originally Posted by TopGunner

I thought Marlene was the paypal queen?

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

[One2Snoop]

Originally Posted by WaitN4Ever

This is OUTRAGOUS!!

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

You know this has been bugging me since I read it earlier today and my first thought was, you got to be kidding? and my second thought on this was, I don't think you understand at all, Scott will never be free.
JMO

[JustMyOpinion]

Originally Posted by WaitN4Ever

This is OUTRAGOUS!!

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

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

[Invrdv8]

Originally Posted by Invrdv8

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

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

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

[I'mSun]

Originally Posted by Invrdv8

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

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

Consider the lack of response a good thing!

[adnoid]

Originally Posted by Invrdv8

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

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

[Lavindar]

Originally Posted by TopGunner

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

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

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

[Lavindar]

Originally Posted by JustMyOpinion

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

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

[Amy]

Originally Posted by WaitN4Ever

This is OUTRAGOUS!!

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

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

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

[Amy]

Originally Posted by PsychNurse;~)

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

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

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

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

~~cyn~~

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

[enlightenme]

Originally Posted by Amy

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

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

[Otter]

Originally Posted by enlightenme

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

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

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

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

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

[adnoid]

Originally Posted by Lavindar

I believe they can also touch him...

Eeew. That's gross.

[I'mSun]

Originally Posted by Amy

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

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