I just dropped in to say hello to Mrs. Peterson.
Lemme guess… Puerto Rican, right?
Hey, who among us doesn’t sometimes suddenly dye our hair and beard blonde when our pregnant wife is missing and drive around with our passport, $15K in cash, four cell phones, credit cards belonging to family members, our brother’s driver’s license, camping equipment, a shovel and rope, and 24 blister packs of sleeping pills? Since when is that suspicious?
I don’t see the connection
Britney Spears shaved her hair off - all of it - and showed everyone she had as well. And she WANTED to be in the public eye. Scott Peterson did not.
What’s your point? You seem to be all over the place and you are making no sense at all. Can you not make a logical argument?
Thank you for your concern. I assure you that I am in one place.
Annie-Xmas asked you why he had all that stuff. Your response was to dodge the question, which suggests that you don’t have a glib answer for it as you did for the other questions.
Your Britney-Chewbacca defense notwithstanding: there’s nothing necessarily incriminating about changing one’s hair color, or carrying cash, etc., but taken in aggregate, it sure looks like the behavior (and set of tools) of someone preparing to flee, or at least preparing for the possibility. I think many would agree. The jury apparently did.
I find the results of this poll chilling.
If you believe in choice, then at least accept that Laci’s choice
was to accept Connor as a human being. To deny Connor as a human being for the purpose of sustaining a pro choice argument (which isn’t neccessary at all IMHO) is scary enough to wonder how society will even value wanted unborn children.
I’ve learned over the years it’s an utter waste of time to spend even a moment on such “questions”. They aren’t real questions, they’re desperate attempts to stop the wolves from catching up with the sled by tossing your children out one after another. Those who post such nonsense are incapable of following a logical argument. They just want someone to hate and that person is Scott Peterson.
Exactly how does it “looks like the behavior of someone preparing to flee”? To me it looks like someone who is moving from place to place as the lazy, ignorant and criminal media idiots harass him day in and day out and who winds up with a lot of random junk in his car. Many women have way more junk in theirs; not so much a car as a handbag on wheels.
As for the “jury”, someone once described them as the 12 dumbest hillbillies Redwood City had to offer. I can’t see any argument to counter that opinion.
I chose option 3, her body her choice, her choice was baby
(I’m pretty new here, how does one deal with trolling by someone who just shows up for one thread)
Random. Right. Well, best of luck with all that.
$15,000 in cash in his vehicle is random junk?
I never want to carry more than $100 in cash but many do. There are people carrying their life savings around with them in cash - go figure.
The problem for you is that this is not evidence. It fails the tri-test.
[ol]
[li]Is it possible for a man to carry $15,000 in cash and not murder his wife?[/li][li]Is it possible for a man to not carry $15,000 in cash and murder his wife?[/li][li]What about this makes Scott Peterson different from every man who has ever lived?[/li][/ol]
It’s hard to see the lady with the pretty parasol with your nose pressed against the canvas, studying individual dots.
Point?
Ask yourself these questions:
Where exactly was Laci killed? What is the proof?
When exactly was Laci killed? What is the proof?
Why exactly was Laci killed? What is the proof?
What exactly was the way that Laci was killed? What is the proof?
Now ask yourself how you can be certain of guilt when you don’t know where, when, how or why Laci was killed and where the prosecution could not find any evidence of guilt.
Even the prosecutors and police knew he was innocent. That is why they avoided any tests that might have proved Scott was innocent, preferring instead speculation without any evidence to back it up. Look at what they did:
First they tried desperately to prove Scott wasn’t at the bay. They failed.
Then they tried to find traces of homicide in the house. They failed.
Then they tried to find traces of homicide in the truck. They failed.
Then they tried to find traces of homicide in the boat. They failed.
Then they tried to find traces of homicide in the warehouse. They failed.
Then they tried to find evidence at the bay. They failed.
By then they were so desperate that they listened in to his phone calls to his
attorneys. They learned nothing.
Finally they made sure all of his attorney visits were held in the ‘line up’ room where they had a one way mirror and microphones. Others have reported that this was done by the MPD so they could (and did) listen in to private client attorney conversations. Once again they learned nothing.
Finally, when the bodies were found months later dumped on the shore, they picked them up without sending a forensic tech or a forensic entomologist to check the dump sites out. They used the little they had and spread a one week trial out over 5 months to try to make it appear as if they had evidence. They had none. To this day there is none. So much for ‘proof’.
The prosecution couldn’t find even one molecule of evidence - one item that went to guilt and was incapable of innocent explanation.
What sort of case is based on evidence that doesn’t exist?
I Keep Six Honest…
I keep six honest serving-men
(They taught me all I knew);
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who.
– Rudyard Kipling
If those people carrying their life savings around with them are doing so with their appearance altered, days after the remains of their murdered wife and child washed ashore, while also in possession of their passport and while an felony arrest warrant is active for them, those people are fleeing prosecution.
Yes it is. The most one can argue is that it’s not sufficient evidence of guilt standing alone, but it’s hardly standing alone. Bricks make walls.
Rubbish. There was no warrant out. If there had been the police would have arrested Scott on one of his many visits to them to find out if there was news of his wife and child.
Rubbish. Read the California standard instructions to the jury.
[ul]
[li]Evidence consists of testimony of witnesses, writings, material objects, or anything presented to the senses and offered to prove the existence or nonexistence of a fact.[/li][li]Evidence is either direct evidence or circumstantial evidence.[/li][li]Direct evidence is evidence that directly proves a fact. It is evidence which, by itself if found to be true, establishes that fact.[/li][li]Circumstantial evidence is evidence that, if found to be true, proves a fact from which an inference of the existence of another fact may be drawn.[/li][li]An inference is a deduction of fact that may logically and reasonably be drawn from another fact or group of facts established by the evidence.[/li][li]It is not necessary that facts be proved by direct evidence.[/li][li]They also may be proved by circumstantial evidence, or by a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence. Both direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptable as a means of proof and neither is entitled to any greater weight than the other.[/li][li]However, a finding of guilt as to any crime may not be based on circumstantial evidence unless the proved circumstances are not only, one, consistent with the theory that the defendant is guilty of the crime, but, two, cannot be reconciled with any other rational conclusion.[/li][li]Further, each fact which is essential to complete a set of circumstances necessary to establish the defendant’s guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, before an inference essential to establish guilt may be found to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, each fact or circumstance on which the inference necessarily rests must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.[/li][li]Also, if the circumstantial evidence as to any particular count permits two reasonable interpretations, one of which points to the defendant’s guilt and the other to his innocence, you must adopt that interpretation that points to the defendant’s innocence and reject that interpretation that points to his guilt.[/li][li]If, on the other hand, one interpretation of this evidence appears to you to be reasonable and the other interpretation to be unreasonable, you must accept the reasonable interpretation and reject the unreasonable.[/li][/ul]
had he been able to take the child from the mother prior to killing her, the chances are very good that the child would have lived. as the mother of two children both of whom were born at eight months gestation and without medical issues, my viewpoint is that this seems to be a likely scenario. instead, he decided to wait until almost the last minute to kill his wife (and incidentally, his unborn child), so unless he’s a complete idiot he knew exactly what he was doing. that is to say, he took two lives.
whether the child had a name or not is irrelevant. he knew what he was doing.
Yes, he was arrested on a warrant that issued the day before.
Los Angeles Times, April 19, 2003:
“Four months after his pregnant wife disappeared from their Modesto home and days after her skeletal remains washed ashore in San Francisco Bay, federal and local authorities Friday arrested husband Scott Peterson near a La Jolla golf course. Peterson, 30, has yet to be formally charged with the deaths of his 27-year-old wife, Laci, and their unborn son, Conner, whose remains also turned up beside the bay this week…Authorities issued an arrest warrant for Peterson late Thursday, a day before investigators had positively identified the badly decomposed remains. Modesto police, the California Highway Patrol and federal agents had been watching the husband for months, using wiretaps, vehicle tracking devices and direct surveillance. They said Friday that they feared Peterson might flee, perhaps to Mexico.”
Scott Peterson Arrested in Wife’s Slaying
You can even see the arrest warrant for yourself - scroll to the last document on this link and you’ll see an arrest warrant signed April 17, 2003, the day before his arrest.
[quote=A Voice of Sanity]
Rubbish. Read the California standard instructions to the jury.
[ul]
[li]Evidence consists of testimony of witnesses, writings, material objects, or anything presented to the senses and offered to prove the existence or nonexistence of a fact.[/ul][/li][/quote]
This is as far as one needs to go. Carrying large amounts of cash while under police surveillance for murder is evidence of flight. You might argue that it’s weak evidence, but not that it’s not evidence at all.
In her book “Witness for the Prosecution,” Amber Frye says Scott told her he was a widower, and never mentioned having a pregnant wife. I guess Voice of Sanity thinks she is lying.
In her book “Blood Brother” Scott’s half-sister Anne Bird (Scott’s mother gave her up for adoption, and she reconnected with the family 2 years before Laci’s murder) gives 52 reasons why she believes Scott is guilty. Here is an excerpt of Oprah’s interview with her.
I hate how Scott’s family is trying to portray Laci’s family and Amber Frye as “evil.” OJ uses the same tactic agasinst the Browns. If you can’t deny the message, shoot the messager.
It’s called denial. And, as with the Simpson murders, we reasonable people consider the source, roll our eyes, and dismiss them.
It was one of her other bed partners who told her that. His wife is fine. As for lying, she was collecting child support from one man for another man’s illegitimate child. That pretty much covers that.
It’s Frey and it’s mostly the Rocha clan who hate Frey for “her” book. And don’t forget it was the Rocha gang who smashed in Scott’s front door and looted his property with three trucks. It was Grantski who told the police to suspect Scott for doing what he, Grantski, was doing that day.
Here ‘reasons’ make me think she was insane or drunk when she conjured up this nonsense. They are all seriously demented ideas.
Up against that rubbish I’ll put the state’s own testimony at trial:
Dr. Brian Peterson, state pathologist, witness for the prosecution.
David Harris, lawyer, prosecuting Scott Peterson.
Brian Peterson: There was a portion of khaki colored trousers in place. And inside the waistband of those there was a brand name of Motherhood. On the laundry label there was a size S. I took to mean small. There were panties beneath the trousers. The brand on those was Jockey, and the size was 7. The buttock portion of the panties was missing. Part of the elastic band around each leg was still in place. With respect to further examination of the trousers, there was a button closure in the front that was still fastened. There was a zipper that was still in place. And in the waistband of the trousers there were draw cords. And those were still in place too.
David Harris: Again, let me go to each, you are talking about these items were in place. Were they in the usual place of wearing?
Brian Peterson: They were.
David Harris: That would include the underwear as well?
Brian Peterson: That’s correct.
David Harris: You can continue.
Brian Peterson: The crotch portion of the trousers was shredded, and had been basically reduced to a number of tangled fibers. To my eye, within these fibers, were a number of round to oval stony deposits, mineral deposits. These were materials that I also saw on the x-rays. So that was actually within the fibers remaining of the pants. The front of the panties was also intact. As I said, the rear portion was missing. The front was still intact, along with the bands around the legs. And that was basically it in terms of clothing.
This sort of wear is only caused by time. So we are either to believe that Laci Peterson, a woman known for trying for perfection, put on a completely worn out pair of underwear that evening to go out, or, that someone undressed her, changed her underwear for a worn out pair and then redressed her. It is much easier to conclude the obvious, that Laci Peterson wore these out herself over a period of weeks. Since the outer pants showed no such wear this could not have happened in the sea by ‘rubbing against rocks’ or similar. Clearly this one piece of evidence alone eliminates her husband.
Further, the fact that the seat was completely gone while the front was intact shows that extended wear took place over a long period. That can only suggest that Laci had no other underwear to use. This is conclusive proof that Laci survived long enough for Conner to grow in size and, as he was a full term baby, proof that eliminates her husband.
Conner died between the 7th and the 28th of Feb. Laci died between the 14th of March and the 7th of April. Scott Peterson cannot be connected to either death. He is innocent.