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.
Thanks, CA4Now. The review IS interesting. I concur with the author. Nurture is the primary influence in how we turn out as adults. With the exception of those born with a mental disorder but I don't think Peterson is mentally ill. His detachment from the everything, especially the bodies were discovered, was horrible. He was so detached from it, it was frightening and really gave credence as to whether he could be responsible for their deaths. His demeanor along with the rest of the circumstantial evidence was the nail in the coffin. I'm still not convinced that Peterson's parents knew about this but they were protecting him, like most parents. I know his half-sister suspected him but not sure about his parents.
Contrary to what others say about the police zeroing in on him from the beginning. That is NOT true. Anyone and everyone that knew Laci was a person of interest, not a suspect. I remember that very well. It wasn't until Amber Frey came forward that things changed. He went from being just a POI to a real suspect in this.
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.
If the police thought she disappeared around the house, and Scott became a suspect (because of his lies and affairs if for no other reason) then it would be important to prove that he was not at the house. If he set the dog loose with his leash on, it was to make the police think that's where she disappeared from. Then it would be important for him to establish that he was not near that area when Laci went missing.
A murderer would probably not feel like they're taking much risk at all by placing themselves at the actual disposal site. Whomever weighted Laci and threw her into the bay had no reason to think that she would ever be seen again. They certainly never expected her to wash to shore.
Not necessarily true. He could easily let the dog out on leash before leaving for the warehouse and most likely prosecutions theory. There is evidence he were on his computer. Even though they lived in close proximity to the his warehouse, I have serious doubts he made another trip back, letting the dog out. Theres nothing to establish, he were convicted.
Not necessarily true. He could easily let the dog out on leash before leaving for the warehouse and most likely prosecutions theory. There is evidence he were on his computer. Even though they lived in close proximity to the his warehouse, I have serious doubts he made another trip back, letting the dog out. Theres nothing to establish, he were convicted.
Scott's story was that Laci was going to walk the dog at the nearby park. The dog was found on the street in front of the house, the yard gate was open, and Laci was missing. Everyone was supposed to believe that something bad happened to Laci at the park - accident, or abduction. The park was thoroughly searched after her step-father reported her missing. That's exactly what Scott wanted people to do.
The prosecution's theory was that Scott left the dog near a dumpster when he disposed of evidence in that dumpster ... located somewhere between home and the warehouse. He then went to the warehouse, put Laci in his brand new boat with his brand new homemade concrete anchors, and headed for the Bay.
Scott was either golfing or fishing in the Bay while Laci was, according to Scott, walking the dog at the park. Her body, and that of their unborn son, washed up on the shore of the Bay at the very location where Scott was fishing. Scott tried to anticipate what would happen after he murdered his family. That is why he staged the scene where he put the leash on the dog and transported the dog some distance from home, why he accessed (probably through "history") a website about sunflower umbrella stands, and why he made phone calls on his return trip from the Bay to discuss couple plans with family friends. He wanted people to believe that she was alive after he left the house in the morning. Still, he forgot to open the living room curtains in the morning - something that neighbours reported Laci did each and every morning.
Scott's story was that Laci was going to walk the dog at the nearby park. The dog was found on the street in front of the house, the yard gate was open, and Laci was missing. Everyone was supposed to believe that something bad happened to Laci at the park - accident, or abduction. The park was thoroughly searched after her step-father reported her missing. That's exactly what Scott wanted people to do.
The prosecution's theory was that Scott left the dog near a dumpster when he disposed of evidence in that dumpster ... located somewhere between home and the warehouse. He then went to the warehouse, put Laci in his brand new boat with his brand new homemade concrete anchors, and headed for the Bay.
Scott was either golfing or fishing in the Bay while Laci was, according to Scott, walking the dog at the park. Her body, and that of their unborn son, washed up on the shore of the Bay at the very location where Scott was fishing. Scott tried to anticipate what would happen after he murdered his family. That is why he staged the scene where he put the leash on the dog and transported the dog some distance from home, why he accessed (probably through "history") a website about sunflower umbrella stands, and why he made phone calls on his return trip from the Bay to discuss couple plans with family friends. He wanted people to believe that she was alive after he left the house in the morning. Still, he forgot to open the living room curtains in the morning - something that neighbours reported Laci did each and every morning.
I get all that, but thanks for reiterating.
So, going back home, letting out the dog, and possibility of being seen by neighbors, would not be advantageous to Peterson's case. We're discussing someone believed to be sociopathic; you don't think he or his attorney thought it all through?
So, going back home, letting out the dog, and possibility of being seen by neighbors, would not be advantageous to Peterson's case. We're discussing someone believed to be sociopathic; you don't think he or his attorney thought it all through?
I don't think Scott went home after picking up his boat simply to stage the dog on a leash. That would have created too many witnesses to his actual plan. He left the dog some distance from home on his way to pick up the boat. The dog fortunately made his way home - where he was found on the street by a neighbour.
So, going back home, letting out the dog, and possibility of being seen by neighbors, would not be advantageous to Peterson's case. We're discussing someone believed to be sociopathic; you don't think he or his attorney thought it all through?
He didn't go back home. He either let the dog out the back gate before he left the house that morning, or he took it with him and let it out somewhere close to home.
He didn't go back home. He either let the dog out the back gate before he left the house that morning, or he took it with him and let it out somewhere close to home.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LillyLillyLilly
If the police thought she disappeared around the house, and Scott became a suspect (because of his lies and affairs if for no other reason) then it would be important to prove that he was not at the house. If he set the dog loose with his leash on, it was to make the police think that's where she disappeared from. Then it would be important for him to establish that he was not near that area when Laci went missing.
Yes..We already know he weren't at the house. Why is it important to prove, how does it change Peterson's case?
Yes..We already know he weren't at the house. Why is it important to prove, how does it change Peterson's case?
By taking the dog away from the home, and releasing the dog some distance away, Scott was staging that Laci was alive on Dec 24. The dog had to re-appear at some time after he left the house (and it did) to give the illusion that Laci took the dog for a walk on a leash. If the dog was on the street at the same time that Scott left, there would be no reason to believe Scott's lie that Laci walked the dog after he left because everyone would know that he pulled out of the driveway at the same time that the dog was wandering the street. No one would have looked in the park for Laci if it was known that the dog was abandoned on the street in front of their house when Scott was still at home.
Contrary to what others say about the police zeroing in on him from the beginning. That is NOT true. Anyone and everyone that knew Laci was a person of interest, not a suspect. I remember that very well. It wasn't until Amber Frey came forward that things changed. He went from being just a POI to a real suspect in this.
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.
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.
The review IS interesting. I concur with the author. Nurture is the primary influence in how we turn out as adults. With the exception of those born with a mental disorder but I don't think Peterson is mentally ill. His detachment from the everything, especially the bodies were discovered, was horrible. He was so detached from it, it was frightening and really gave credence as to whether he could be responsible for their deaths. His demeanor along with the rest of the circumstantial evidence was the nail in the coffin. I'm still not convinced that Peterson's parents knew about this but they were protecting him, like most parents. I know his half-sister suspected him but not sure about his parents. 
