Class, please help explain the concept “Given A, then B does not mean that Given B, then A.”
Steady, Dr, we know that he’s innocent until proven guilty, and I for one am not trying to convict him outside of a trial. This is just hypothesizing. The only thing in your post I’d disagree with is this:
I’d have to say that unless Laci rowed herself into the middle of the lake with a boat no one’s bothered to report missing, decapitated herself, and then jumped into the bay, suicide is more or less out of the question.
I know that the body didn’t have a head on it, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that there was an intentional decapitation.
:: pure speculation ahead::
a rope tied around the neck with a weight, various, um biological things going on in the water, etc. body floating up high enough to um, get caught in boat propeller…
I agree suicide isn’t a likely scenario, but unless further details have been released re: condition of the body, I don’t think you can be certain that decapitation was an intentional act.
At least once I saw a reort about a person who tied piano wire areound his neck, then jumped off a bridge into a bay. That woudl account for both. Now- I would say that suicide is doubtful- and I agree Scott is the most likely suspect- but they still have no evidence.
Of course, they have convicted men for killing their wives with less.
But to say blithely “The fact that he killed her itself is proof…” is such bullshit. Fact? Not even close, yet.
I also have to chime in on the whole “the woman must’ve known something wasn’t right” debate.
It’s very, very possible to be unaware of any personal strife your partner happens to be going through. I was cheated on before, and ironically, it was at the time I was happiest and most secure in my relationship. In retrospect, perhaps I was so happy because he was treating me so well on acount of his overwhelming feelings of guilt. But you don’t think of things like that at the time.
In fact, that was the worst part of the whole experience, the sheer shock of it. It felt as if it had come out of nowhere. I just didn’t understand and felt so increadibly stupid for not having known something was going on.
And like xcheopis said, no one has claimed that Scott Peterson was physically abusive towards his wife. The only thing confirmed is that he had an affair, so your argument about her “getting out of a dangerous situation” isn’t even valid, Tars.
I agree with you 100%
Agggghhhh!!! Let’s clean that post up!!
From what I’ve read, the police seem to have more than a little evidence but as far as this goes:
quote:
Originally posted by DrDeth
. . . to say blithely “The fact that he killed her itself is proof…” is such bullshit. Fact? Not even close, yet.
I agree with you 100%
DrDeth, I’m sorry to have placed my quote under your byline. I honestly didn’t mean to do that!! :smack:
No, that’s all right, I saw what had happened quickly enough. Honest mistake.
Agreed.
First, you might want to learn to USE THE FUCKING SHIFT KEY. Second, I’m happy for you that you can compare the murder of a woman and her nearly to term child to a fucking shitty B-class movie. You have some seriously fucked up priorities and a tenuous, at best, grip on reality. Third, even an abused woman who goes back to her husband a thousand times, she doesn’t deserve to be killed, or bears more than a scintilla of blame if he does kill her. Fourth, that isn’t the case of Laci Peterson. Fifth, you make an incredible leap that since she may have been murdered, somehow there must have been warning signs. Finally, even if there were warning signs, that doesn’t mean she deserves blame for being murdered.
You know, on the SDMB you occasionally run into people and make a little mental note about them. Prior to this, you were, in my mind, an occasionally pithy, mildly entertaining poster. I’m pretty sure you may not care, but my opinion of you has been shot to shit. Take it for what it’s worth.
I know the thread’s gone off course, but…
Yeah, but the reason it didn’t work for Chandra and Laci is because they were (apparently) already dead by the time their stories broke. No, I’m not claiming that publicity is ineffective, in and of itself, just that you can’t claim that it “didn’t work” when it was physically impossible for the subject to be found alive.
Rilch: you have to hope for the best, right? Even if it’s a thin hope. In fact, in all three cases, I myself assumed the victim was probably dead and the publicity was pointless. So glad to be wrong in Elizabeth Smart’s case. Far from being pointless, it was the publicity that brought her back – constant press coverage enabled her and her captors to be recognized on the street.
FTR: I also deplore the fact that it tends to be rich white pretty victims who get all the coverage. There are at least two dynamics going on: that one, and the efforts and dedication of the families. But certainly, tireless dedication will get you further if the press thinks the story will sell. (And yes, the Chandra story was a unique case, with its political angle.)
DrDeth,
The police had ruled it a homicide in March, and in papers they filed with the court they said that Laci’s death occured at her Modesto home on Dec. 23 or 24, so wouldn’t that mean that they have some kind of proof? There is so much speculation an innuendo that I think we will have to wait to see the actual proof that was gathered. The marina receipt (proves he was there on Dec. 24) and I believe coincidence can happen, but I am having trouble with the fact that her body was discovered 80 miles from her home, but only 3 miles from where Scott was on Dec. 24.
I think the interest is/was because she was pregnant when she went missing. Margo
Margo: That coincidence might turn out to be too neat for the prosecution. I’ve already heard speculation in the darker corners of the 'net that the defense may claim that the publicity surrounding Scott Peterson’s “fishing trip” on December 24 would have allowed an intelligent serial killer to set up a fall guy. Where better to dump the bodies than the place where the person who “everybody knows did it” was known to be on the day of the murder?
I haven’t had time to read all the posts here, so forgive me if what I’m about to say has already been said.
Every day in this country and the rest of the world, people disappear, are murdered, tortured, have terrible things happen to them. The Peterson case gets the coverage.
Why? Because we are dealing with a young, beautiful, WHITE woman from a RICH family who CARES ENOUGH ABOUT HER to make use of the media. If this had been some poor minority girl from the projects, it wouldn’t even have made the news. And, if this had been me, my mother would have said, “what is the point in blabbing our business in public and get people talking about us. That is not going to bring her back to life. And why should we spend money on her if she’s dead anyway.” But then, that’s just how my family would react.
I’m sick of the media. Something unbelievably dirty has recently happened to some not-so-rich black friends of mine and it didn’t even make a ripple. People suck.
I think it might happen on the local level. The problem is jumping from there to the national level, and I really haven’t a clue how that happens. A couple years ago, two young black sisters disappeared - the elder one had left a note at their house, saying they were going to a nearby store. They haven’t been seen since. The mother did get publicity, it was all over the Chicago news and the police went so far as to arrange a massive search of every known abandoned building in much of the city, if I recall correctly. It never - that I saw - jumped to the national news level, though.
It happens because the families of certain people go to any length to get the attention on behalf of their loved one.
They make it their full-time job. They stop caring about anything else. They become obsessed.
They are also usually educated enough to know how to get the attention of the national media. Usually, you just have to get your foot in the door with one national outlet. The media types can smell it when a story has Human Interest potential, and it snowballs from there.
The reason it stays in the media as opposed to a one or two-time mention is that the bereaved families know how to keep the fires burning; start foundations and all kinds of bullshit in the names of their dead or missing loved ones; even get laws passed in their name.
Pity all those people who disappeared and didn’t have media savy families. :rolleyes:
Duke,
I didn’t even think of that! Shows what a devious mind I have, eh? I just heard on MSNBC that the trial could be put off for as long as two years…so I guess both sides will have plenty of time to get their stories right? Margo
It takes more than just being media-savvy.
You also have to be willing to put your personal business out there for the whole world to put their own interpretation on. You have to be willing to live in a glass bowl and give up all your privacy. You have to care enough about your loved one to not just throw up your hands and say, well, there’s nothing poor powerless us can do. You have to love your child (or whoever) enough to actually do all these things.
I know media-connected white middle-class people who wouldn’t be willing to do any of these things although they have the resources at their fingertips. Such is life.