Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have been under the impression that Scott was a severely emotionally neglected child from birth. I skimmed the article, as I had read it before, so I don't know if the information about Scott's early childcare is mentioned, but I read somewhere - don't remember where - that his mother had a shop when he was very young. She simply brought him to work, placed him in a playpen, and carried on with her day. I think he was supposed to be some sort of show piece rather than a child that was nurtured and cherished.
That's interesting. I didn't know any of that. I really didn't want to know much about his parents. I didn't want to know much about him, either. It was just an ugly case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Mysterious Benefactor
I'm going to assume that you meant Scott rather than Laci. Either way, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, the lead detective is on record disagreeing with you. Scott was a suspect immediately, and after a few days, exclusively.
No. My wording was a bit fuzzy. It should have read ... Anyone who had any relationship or was involved in any way in her life became a person of interest. Also, one more time so you aren't confused, the police viewed Scott as a person of interest. Person of interest. Get it? It wasn't like they were ignoring him. The spouse is always first on the list when looking at a crime. The police didn't actively pursue him as a suspect until Amber came forth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by virgode
Whether your beliefs Peterson guilty or innocent, these are circular discussions. Once you hit a wall, it time to move on.
You are absolutely right! Before I give up the ghost on this thread altogether, I wanted to tell you what I read in a forum some time ago. There were actually people who thought Scott made two trips to the marina that night. One in the middle of the morning, like around 2 or 3 a.m. to dump the body and then again in the late morning to check on things, making sure nothing floated to the top. Oy!
Seriously, there are some pretty wild stories out there. But kind of fun to read all the nonsense.
I trust you will support my proposed Constitutional Amendment that would require all potential jurors to first pass an applied logic test (pre voir dire) before they could be seated in the jury pool.
But you've fallen into the same trap that I mentioned earlier: confirmation bias. You're only adding up the bits and pieces that support what you believe, and you're ignoring all of the rest. The idea that he was bored with his life and didn't want to be with Laci is not supported by any facts. Again, all of the testimony from those who actually knew them indicates he was happy with Laci. Sorry, but your face-reading doesn't count for much. Amber was obviously a short-term fling and, in all frankness, hardly represented an exciting alternative.
Scott stood to benefit financially from Laci's inheritance. He had a greater motive to keep her alive and healthy. With her dead, he would receive nothing. He was gainfully employed, not in debt. No financial motive.
In the absence of any motive, you are creating one out of thin air.
Laci's Grandmother had recently died. Her Grandfather was very ill and was in an assisted living Facility; he died in 2003.
Prior to the Grandfather's death, the estate's value was around 2.4 million dollars. That would be split between Laci, her sister, Amy and her brother, Dennis.
So, it would be fair to think that somewhere in the neighborhood of $800,000 would have flowed to Laci. If she died, the estate would have gone to Amy and Dennis. Nothing would have gone to Scott.
According to Catherine Crier's book and the lame documentary based upon it, the police zeroed in on Scott in the very beginning. When a married woman goes missing, the husband is the first person of interest that needs to be eliminated.
Yes, and that's why I said he was a person of interest. They were also investigating other leads, after talking to people in the neighborhood. Remember the report of the tan van? They investigated that too. I'm not sure how much clearer I can say it. Scott didn't become the primary suspect until Amber Frey came forth. That's when the police stopped looking at other leads and focused solely on him.
That's interesting. I didn't know any of that. I really didn't want to know much about his parents. I didn't want to know much about him, either. It was just an ugly case.
No. My wording was a bit fuzzy. It should have read ... Anyone who had any relationship or was involved in any way in her life became a person of interest. Also, one more time so you aren't confused, the police viewed Scott as a person of interest. Person of interest. Get it? It wasn't like they were ignoring him. The spouse is always first on the list when looking at a crime. The police didn't actively pursue him as a suspect until Amber came forth.
You are absolutely right! Before I give up the ghost on this thread altogether, I wanted to tell you what I read in a forum some time ago. There were actually people who thought Scott made two trips to the marina that night. One in the middle of the morning, like around 2 or 3 a.m. to dump the body and then again in the late morning to check on things, making sure nothing floated to the top. Oy!
Seriously, there are some pretty wild stories out there. But kind of fun to read all the nonsense.
You are 100% correct. Only when the prosecutor, Distaso, gave his opening statement, did anyone know that the prosecution would claim that Scott only made one trip to the bay. When he did that Distaso stunned all of those who had claimed that Scott had carefully planned and deliberated Laci's murder.
Shortly before the trial started, Nancy Grace (that pillar of fairness and objectivity) went on Larry King's show and answered a question from a caller as follows:
CALLER: Hi, Larry. My question is for Nancy. First, Nancy, let me quickly say that Court TV message boards love you. Nancy, do you think the prosecution will present a one-trip or a two-trips-to-the- bay theory by Scott Peterson?
GRACE: I think, given what we know right now, they'll have to present a two-trip-to-the-bay because, when he went to go fishing in the afternoon, believe you me, if he is, in fact, guilty, he did not dispose of Laci's body at that time in plain view in the middle of the day. Now, another thing we were talking about earlier about what's the strongest evidence -- I say it's the timeline. We have Scott Peterson, based on triangulation of cell phone records and cell phone towers, in his own neighborhood at 10:08. At 10:18, the neighbor finds the dog running free with a muddy leash. He's narrowed it down to 10 minutes for an unknown assailant to grab his wife. And he happens to be in the neighborhood at the same time. I think they've got to go with a two-trip-to-the-bay.
You are absolutely right! Before I give up the ghost on this thread altogether, I wanted to tell you what I read in a forum some time ago. There were actually people who thought Scott made two trips to the marina that night. One in the middle of the morning, like around 2 or 3 a.m. to dump the body and then again in the late morning to check on things, making sure nothing floated to the top. Oy!
Seriously, there are some pretty wild stories out there. But kind of fun to read all the nonsense.
Surprising prosecution didn't jump on that theory. Although private, why he'd even take chances earlier in the morning questionable, and reasons keeping me on the fence.
If he's innocent, I hope appeals go through, but I don't see it forthcoming, not for years.
Never watched Nancy Grace or Larry King so I wouldn't know. I only know what I knew from the inside.
Nancy's point was simple, only a blazing moron would plan and deliberate a murder whereby after they buy a very small fishing boat (14 foot), they drive 90 miles in broad daylight to a marina, launch the boat and then motor out right passed oodles of much larger boats and yachts so the people on-board can look right down into his little 14 foot boat and see the dead body (or the big wrapped bundle) along with five concrete anchors. And after that they can watch as he motors out on the bay in full view of the tens of thousand of apartment residents and homeowners that live along the hillsides, thousands of whom avidly watch the activity on the bay with telescopes or binoculars.
Wow, what a super clever premeditated plan. Yet that's what jurors necessarily had to believe. And if that alleged plan was not stupid enough, they have to also believe that by Scott pointing LE right to where he had been that day, that they would never think of looking for Laci's body there. No one with half an IQ cycle left in their brain would believe that.
(The final twelve jurors had not a single braincell working, not one.)
No. My wording was a bit fuzzy. It should have read ... Anyone who had any relationship or was involved in any way in her life became a person of interest. Also, one more time so you aren't confused, the police viewed Scott as a person of interest. Person of interest. Get it? It wasn't like they were ignoring him. The spouse is always first on the list when looking at a crime. The police didn't actively pursue him as a suspect until Amber came forth.
Oh OK, so person of interest = "Anyone who had any relationship or was involved in any way in her life". So Ron Grantski was being viewed the same and given a comparable amount of scrutiny as Scott? Because he too claimed that, on a whim, he had gone fishing that day, and lacked any alibi witnesses...Was he being called a 'person of interest'? Was his fishing hole searched before Amber appeared? Was he interrogated before Amber appeared?
C'mon Mars, if you worked in the criminal courts as you claim and have spent any time around law enforcement, you know exactly what POI means; let's not play games. Again, the lead detective has acknowledged that they focused on Scott almost immediately.
(The final twelve jurors had not a single braincell working, not one.)
(Court TV) -- After seven days of tumultuous deliberations that saw the removal of two jurors and a mutiny against the foreman, a jury convicted Scott Peterson Friday of first-degree murder in the slaying of his pregnant wife.
Wudge,
what were the story behind the two jurors and foreperson, do you recall?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
