« THE WALL STREET JOURNAL - Like, Does It Matter Any More | Main | Oprah - Lousy Role Model »

April 30, 2006

Comments

Quite informal opened your weblog, but permit me to not die, since you allow me get pleasure from the share quite a few satisfied. I genuinely like your articles or blog posts, have very good style, and style. I'll carry on to concentrate in your articles or blog posts, don't forget quite a few up to date! Thank you, wish you satisfied!

I donlt attack those locked up-they are in their "rightful" place. I attack those who blindly follow and support a convicted murderer who killed his wife and unborn son. You have no facts and you have no credibility. Those in a biker bar have intelligence, even they can see through you charlie.

Another fact free comment. Why don't you try, say, going into a biker bar and insulting the customers in there? Or are you only brave enough to attack others when they are locked up in prison? I am right, you are wrong, I have the facts, you have none, and all your cyber stalking will never make you right.

I don't lose anything. I am free to do what I want anytime I choose to. DRISP is counting the seconds to his execution and so are you.(tick-tock, tick-tock) Oh that's right, you are perfectly happy with DRISP being on DEATH ROW-so much for being against the DP. Maybe, Wudge can set him out for LWOP and those really against the DP and I will be so much happier than you.

Once again your assumptions are wrong as always, over and over and over and over again.

http://another9912.googlepages.com/theassumptions

http://another9912.googlepages.com/theodds

Oops. You lose - as you always have, over and over and over again.

Neil Morrison

So, N Morrison, where is the DNA (molecules) that will free DRISP? According to you, N Morrison, there aren't any molecules (DNA). You are just gonna have to deal with it till you find some DNA (molecules).

I like this so much! It says a lot about VOS's posts: A Voice of Sanity
Banned/suspended
From the San Diego Forum

So glad to find our friend, Dave P. here. Aka - VOS.

Wherever you go..........there we are. It sure sucks to be you, now run off, like the good little loser you are. BYE-BYE!

AVOS, it is you who should stop posting - you only display to the whole world what a blatant racist you are.

This is a direct quote from you AVOS.

"Too bad they don't lynch negroes in the public square any more. I'm sure you'd enjoy that even more, watching them die in agony."
------------------------------------------
02-07-2007, 01:27 PM
A Voice of Sanity
Banned/suspended Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 43

Re: And now for the appeal process...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Too bad they don't lynch negroes in the public square any more. I'm sure you'd enjoy that even more, watching them die in agony.

http://forum.signonsandiego.com/showthread.php?s=a8a9b0d64d1c03483703d62fb40daaf2&t=58118

Another fact free posting - like every other post you have made here. It seems the concept of factual analysis escapes you, making all of your comments completely pointless and exposing the poverty of your thoughts. You should stop posting - you only display to the whole world what an utter fool you are.
The pathetic insults of your childish mind are no match for my careful analyses.

AVOS, happyhaddock, Charlie Tuna, N Morrison, croakerqueen, FredFish, Watcher 1, you still haven't dealt with your psychosis. You're so delusional. You've written so much nonsense that you don't bother to grasp the replies. You have so many nics, everyone is entitled to bestow upon you any name they want. I will bestow upon you, Crappit Heid- it is most appropriate.

Another fact free posting - like every other post you have made here. It seems the concept of factual analysis escapes you, making all of your comments completely pointless and exposing the poverty of your thoughts.

Yeah, you're right. I have no more friends. They all left me for...you...'cause I have nothing to say. Boo-hoo, sob-sob, sniff-sniff.

What's next? Ol' yo mamma jokes?

AVOS,please don't stop posting. The last of the three friends(me, myself and I)just can't get enough of your cathartic ramblings.

>AVOS, thanks for posting the link. Now more people will know that you live in "your world of absurdity." Same nic though. Did you already run out of new nics?

I accept your craven admission of complete defeat, noting your total inability to argue even one of the facts.

>>"At least I haven't repeatedly made a fool of myself."

>Nope, wrong again. Mostly you have repeatedly made a fool of yourself.

Another statement made without proof. If you have any friends at all they must all regard you as an idiot and blowhard who never has anything of interest to say. Your continual resort to insults instead of argument shows that their judgement is correct.

AVOS, thanks for posting the link. Now more people will know that you live in "your world of absurdity." Same nic though. Did you already run out of new nics?

"At least I haven't repeatedly made a fool of myself."

Nope, wrong again. Mostly you have repeatedly made a fool of yourself.

>>"Go ahead, make my day."
>AVOS, who are you now? Dirty Harry. What a buffoon you are. Do you not know the irony in that Inspector Harry Callahan worked for the San Fransico Police LE taking on the "dirtiest" cases and resolving them even if it involves the violation of criminals' rights.
Who is the buffoon here? Do you not know that Callahan was a fictional character? Perhaps that is your problem - you can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality. Who do you think you are in your fantasy world?
>BTW-before I can show you your errors of your calculations, you're gonna have to show me your work-theorems and reports. All you have to do is show "us" the links, the information from where you are getting these "odds."
No, I don't have to do that at all. I have posted all of the calculations - it is up to you to disprove them.
>This is your deal. You own it. You are the one who makes the premise, "One in 1.00E+132 = Chance that Scott would, could and did kill Laci. Go ahead, show me (us) how you derive at your conclusion.
I did. http://forum.signonsandiego.com/showthread.php?p=2439997#post2439997 is another copy of the analysis.
>>"All you have to do is to prove that it is a million to one chance that the prosecution was wrong in charging and convicting Scott."
>Now why would I do that, it is you who believes the prosecution was wrong.
Because it is you who believes in Peterson's guilt despite the utter lack of evidence of it.
>>"That'll teach me"
>Are you willing to learn? Time and time again you have asked questions and people, like KGVET, were more than helpful and yet your ignored their explainations.
I ask basic, fundamental questions and no one even tries to answer them, thus proving that there is no evidence.
>I know you are trying so hard to be sarcastic, but only showing to be the village idiot.
OK, you are the village idiot. What's your point?
The problem I and others have with your assertions is that you make them up.
>>"Grass on leash, grass in 'purse', on black pants, on towels -- Coincidence? This was the only real 'clue'"
>This was the only real 'clue' to what?
This was actual evidence unlike Frey's sad collection of illegally taped calls which proved nothing.
>That SP did not kill Laci and Conner? How do you figure?
No evidence of guilt. A mountain of evidence of innocence. One chance in one trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion that he was involved. That is more than enough for honest jurors to acquit him. Too bad he got 12 Redwood city turnips instead.
>Is this the same 'purse' that all of the so called witnesses that descibed Laci as 'carrying around this tote bag' while holding on to Mackenzie? The black pants- are they the ones that she changed out of after she forgot to take the leash off of Mackenzie?
Who says she forgot?
>The towels-where are they?
The police seized all of the evidence.
>Do you know the color, brand and size of these towels?
Who cares? Irrelevant matters won't help you here.
>More importantly, why didn't MG bring this out in his defense?
Ask him.
>Let's see if you are up to answering these questions, but, you've got to ask yourself a question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?
Luckier than you. At least I haven't repeatedly made a fool of myself.

"Go ahead, make my day."

AVOS, who are you now? Dirty Harry. What a buffoon you are. Do you not know the irony in that Inspector Harry Callahan worked for the San Fransico Police LE taking on the "dirtiest" cases and resolving them even if it involves the violation of criminals' rights.

BTW-before I can show you your errors of your calculations, you're gonna have to show me your work-theorems and reports. All you have to do is show "us" the links, the information from where you are getting these "odds." This is your deal. You own it. You are the one who makes the premise, "One in 1.00E+132 = Chance that Scott would, could and did kill Laci. Go ahead, show me (us) how you derive at your conclusion.

"All you have to do is to prove that it is a million to one chance that the prosecution was wrong in charging and convicting Scott."

Now why would I do that, it is you who believes the prosecution was wrong.

"That'll teach me"

Are you willing to learn? Time and time again you have asked questions and people, like KGVET, were more than helpful and yet your ignored their explainations.

I know you are trying so hard to be sarcastic, but only showing to be the village idiot.

The problem I and others have with your assertions is that you make them up.

"Grass on leash, grass in 'purse', on black pants, on towels -- Coincidence? This was the only real 'clue'"

This was the only real 'clue' to what?
That DRISP did not kill Laci and Conner? How do you figure?
Is this the same 'purse' that all of the so called witnesses that descibed Laci as 'carrying around this tote bag' while holding on to Mackenzie? The black pants- are they the ones that she changed out of after she forgot to take the leash off of Mackenzie? The towels-where are they? Do you know the color, brand and size of these towels? More importantly, why didn't MG bring this out in his defense? Let's see if you are up to answering these questions, but, you've got to ask yourself a question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?

> AVOS, your are so ignorant. You keep proving it everytime you post. Don't worry, it isn't an insult.

"your are so ignorant", "everytime" - this is literate?

Why don't you show me? Why don't you list the errors I have made in calculating the odds against Peterson's involvement and tell us all where I went wrong? All you have to do is to prove that it is a million to one chance that the prosecution was wrong in charging and convicting Scott. That'll teach me. Go ahead, make my day.

AVOS, your are so ignorant. You keep proving it everytime you post. Don't worry, it isn't an insult.

>> "That is a lie."
> Wrong!
Yes you are wrong.
>> "That is a lie."
> Wrong!
Yes you are wrong.
>> "That is a lie."
> Wrong!
Yes you are wrong.
>> "That is a lie."
> Wrong!
Yes you are wrong.
> So far you are 0 for 4.
No, I am 100 for 100. You are 0 for 100.
>No Ad hominem attacks, you are what you are-an avoider who answers a question with a question when it is not warranted. You avoid direct questions because you fear the correct and factual answer. You avoided answering my 8 questions directed to you.
You have never asked a question because first, you don't understand the concept of argument - you have the 'disease' of thinking that your statements have value because you make them. They don't. This merely puts you in the 98% of unintelligent persons, not the 2% like me who have both comprehension and intelligence.
> You prove yourself to be fearful time and time again. Why? What are you afraid of? I know that you'll avoid these simple questions too, proving me right again.
Oh, you silly woman. I am afraid of nothing.
>This is a perfect example of "circular argument."- “(Or)would someone who had the chance to get away with murder drive 90 miles to do so?”
That is not circular causation, a term you cannot comprehend. It is argument from fact.
>> "The entire prosecution 'case' was based solely on assumptions without proof."
> What you really saying is the prosecution proved by circumstantial evidence to be correct beyond a reasonable doubt.
Rubbish. I said what I meant - the prosecution was unable to prove any part of its ludicrous hypothesis. They relied on the stupidity of the jury - stupidity which has been amply proven by the statements made by the jurors since as well as by the verdict itself - and on hatred which was incorrectly allowed in by their tame judge.
>"All of the odds are based on perfectly reasonable estimates..." each of which can be validated."
So now your "carefully considered evaluations" are "perfectly reasonable estimates" which only means that you are unsure and uncertain about your own assumptions.
You truly are dim. You have not the slightest grasp of statistics - which are used every day in, for example, DNA testimony. The testimony is always, "There is one chance in 10 billion that someone else has the same DNA profile" and never, "No one else has the same profile". You hear without understanding, you write without thought.
>> "...each of which can be validated."
> What you really meant to say was "verified."
Rubbish. I said what I meant. I know what I say - you know nothing about anything. Statistics are not verified, they are validated.
> Once again you prove yourself to be wrong.
As always I am correct in everything.
>> "Oh please! All of your statements are based solely on hatred of Scott Peterson without any evidence."
>Wrong! I don't hate DRISP. I do hate what he did to Laci and Conner. In fact, I'd preferred that the jury would've sentenced him to LWOP, sparing everyone the drama put up by The Ps, CCADP and PWC.
No one can show by any evidence whatsoever that he had the slightest responsibility for anything except adultery. It is trillions of times more likely that O J Simpson abducted Laci - and that is a statement of fact on is not hyperbole.
>> "You merely parrot the nonsense you have heard from fools on TV."
>Wrong! I don't parrot the nonsense from fools on TV. Here is a fool on TV that you know quite well. Dave Parkinson. How ironic that his initials are DP.
>http://ccadp.org/news2005.htm
I don't know him, have never met him, don't know who he is.
>> "You cannot offer any insight, let alone any facts."
> Wrong!
Clearly not since you have never posted any facts at all. Once again you have proved I am correct.
>This isn't about me, but about you, who can't back up your "probabilities."
And yet you don't have the courage to challenge me on even one of them - anywhere or at any time. It is you who is the coward, mewling your second hand hatred of an innocent man.
>>"Not one person on earth has ever even tried to argue one of them."
>Wrong again! You just haven't read the forums. I will wait for your published report, which will probably never happen-what are the odds?
And you have not tried to argue them either - all you do is whine pathetically about how mean I am in destroying your delusional ideas. You post no facts, you argue no conclusions. Perhaps your 'psychic' tells you what to think - it certainly isn't anyone intelligent.

"That is a lie."
Wrong!
"That is a lie."
Wrong!
"That is a lie."
Wrong!
"That is a lie."
Wrong!

So far you are 0 for 4.

No Ad hominem attacks, you are what you are-an avoider who answers a question with a question when it is not warranted. You avoid direct questions because you fear the correct and factual answer. You avoided answering my 8 questions directed to you. You prove yourself to be fearful time and time again. Why? What are you afraid of? I know that you'll avoid these simple questions too, proving me right again.

This is a perfect example of "circular argument."- “(Or)would someone who had the chance to get away with murder drive 90 miles to do so?”

"The entire prosecution 'case' was based solely on assumptions without proof."

What you really saying is the prosecution proved by circumstantial evidence to be correct beyond a reasonable doubt.

"All of the odds are based on perfectly reasonable estimates..." each of which can be validated."

So now your "carefully considered evaluations" are "perfectly reasonable estimates" which only means that you are unsure and uncertain about your own assumptions.

"...each of which can be validated."

What you really meant to say was "verified."
Once again you prove yourself to be wrong.

"Oh please! All of your statements are based solely on hatred of Scott Peterson without any evidence."

Wrong! I don't hate DRISP. I do hate what he did to Laci and Conner. In fact, I'd prefered that the jury would've sentenced him to LWOP, sparing everyone the drama put up by The Ps, CCADP and PWC.

"You merely parrot the nonsense you have heard from fools on TV."

Wrong! I don't parrot the nonsense from fools on TV. Here is a fool on TV that you know quite well. Dave Parkinson. How ironic that his initials are DP.

http://ccadp.org/news2005.htm

"You cannot offer any insight, let alone any facts."

Wrong!
This isn't about me, but about you, who can't back up your "probabilities."

"Not one person on earth has ever even tried to argue one of them."

Wrong again! You just haven't read the forums. I will wait for your published report, which will probably never happen-what are the odds?

"AVOS, you don't offer argument after argument".
That is a lie.
"You don't, won't, or can't comprehend any of what is written, even what you write".
That is a lie.
"You lack knowledge because you only have beliefs, but have no truths".
That is a lie.
"You choose to avoid answering any questions directed at you".
That is a lie. Ad hominem attacks are not questions.
'Your 5 "W" questions have been asked and answered.'
That is a lie. No one has ever even tried to do that -- except by circular argument which is the argument of the fool.
"That you choose not to accept the answers is on you"
That is ludicrous. Why should I accept insults as answers?
'Your "odds" list is not based on facts, but on assumptions'.
The entire prosecution 'case' was based solely on assumptions without proof. As I have shown, their own assumptions can be used to hang them.
All of the odds are based on perfectly reasonable estimates each of which can be validated. Not one person on earth has ever even tried to argue one of them - which is an admission of defeat.
"You also lack determination and you are too emotional. You want proof?"
Oh please! All of your statements are based solely on hatred of Scott Peterson without any evidence. And that is unemotional? You merely parrot the nonsense you have heard from fools on TV. You cannot offer any insight, let alone any facts.

Facts are facts and they overwhelm fools -- as you have shown by example.

AVOS, you don't offer argument after argument. You don't, won't, or can't comprehend any of what is written, even what you write. You lack knowledge because you only have beliefs, but have no truths. You choose to avoid answering any questions directed at you. Your 5 "W" questions have been asked and answered. That you choose not to accept the answers is on you. Your "odds" list is not based on facts, but on assumptions. You also lack determination and you are too emotional. You want proof?

"AVOS, you are not a careful considerate evaluator. You are a wishful thinker. You want proof? Just read all of your posts on all the forums and blogs that you have registered onto."
--------------------------------------------
Really? Yet all you offer are ad hominem attacks. No facts, no logic, no thought. You cannot offer even one iota of proof of guilt - and neither can anyone else on earth. I've offered argument after argument, all based on fact, and all you and those like you do is run away screaming because your world is upset. That's the problem with facts - they lead to reality.

And FredFish.

AVOS, you are not a careful considerate evaluator. You are a wishful thinker. You want proof? Just read all of your posts on all the forums and blogs that you have registered onto.

Oh, the IRONY of it all!

And yet you cannot overcome even one of the points I have made. Your failed attempts have only shown that you are unable to create any sort of logical argument to shore up the pathological hatred you feel for Peterson. The best you can do is offer a mish mash of rambling and incoherent bits and pieces, pasted together like the clothes of a demented street person. You lose.

I do not offer assumptions, I leave that to the uneducated. I offer carefully considered evaluations which lead over and over to the conclusion the Scott Peterson had nothing whatsoever to do with the abduction of his wife nor to the cruelty which led to the death of her child and of herself.

DRISP=Poster Boy

Happyhaddock is at it again with his "what are the odds?" What are the odds that happyhaddock, avos, charlie tuna, n morrison, croakerqueen, and watcher 1 are the same person? HaHa, even DRISP can figure it out. Happyhaddock is already wrong with his assumptions.

Watcher 1. That is all I need to say.

It seems even more credible that AVOS, Charlie Tuna, N Morrison, happyhaddock, croakerqueen is Dave Parkinson.

I wouldn't be surprised if Kathrynne Belmont is the pseudonym for Marlene Newell.

It seems very credible that AVOS, Charlie Tuna, NMorisson, happyhaddock is Dave Parkinson.

Ah! Charlie Tuna/HappyHaddock and AVOS is back from MIA-Man In Avoidance. Where is your info coming from for the grass in the tote bag, on her pants and towels. ISP conveniently left that out of his interviews with anyone willing to hear him. So be assertive and show the links.

And yet to this day not one person on earth can point to even one molecule of evidence that points to guilt and is incapable of innocent explanation. Even the prosecutor tacitly admitted this when he lied to the jury repeatedly, both in his opening and his closing. The odds against the prosecution's fantastic theory have been computed as one chance in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
a number which exceeds the number of particles in trillions of universes. The dog evidence is conclusive proof of Scott's innocence - the grass clippings on his leash, in Laci's tote, on the black pants and the towels in the house are more than sufficient to prove that Laci walked the dog to the park and returned home before her abduction. Scott is thus totally innocent of his wife's abduction and death. That the police failed to investigate all suspects and thus lost the opportunity to rescue her is a stain on their character that they will never shake.

There was absolutely no evidence that Conner and Laci were planted in order to frame Scott. There were no foot/shoe prints, tire tracks of any kind, wadded chewed gum, cig. butts, pieces of clothing, leading to any person(s) that would just be carrying a dead masceated baby body and neither a dead headless, handless, feetless, partial legless and armless torso and smelly corpse that has been in salt water for 4 months. Also someone wanting to plant bodies to frame Scott would not seperate the two entities. After all, the sole purpose to frame Scott would be to keep the bodies together with all extremities and appendages in order for easy identification from anyone associated with the investigation and easily say, 'yes, this is Laci' and not have to do DNA testing for the sole purpose of id-ing the body, thus implicating Scott with a frame up by planting the corpses. Again there was no planting of Laci and Conner and no frame up of Scott. NONE-I cannot make it anymore clearly to get it into every ng's head to fully understand that Laci was killed by the hands of Scott. There is no evidence that the burglars, cults, Amber, Ron, Kim, or anyone else took her. Just as well, there is no evidence that anyone bumped into her or crossed paths as she would be walking Mackenzie. There is no one who said, "good morning Laci, Merry Christmas," "same to you, Merry Christmas, how are you?" "I'm doing fine, just getting some early morning walking with Mackenzie here." There is no one who actually knew her personally who just passed her on their own walk, bike ride, jog or drive. People have said that they saw someone who resembled Laci, but none actually knew her personally and only knew of her after the fact of her disappearance. In fact, Mackenzie is the key to this mean, monsterous, mindless murder most foul.

The found bodies of Laci and Connor on the shores don't count as physical evidence against Scott. And that Scott went fishing at the same bay doesn't count as circumstantial evidence either. Let's be fair here.

The basic fact is, Scott Peterson was convicted on the FACT that he was a cad, cheating on his very pregnant wife, and second, that he showed little concern for her missing (at least in the view of public). There was absolutely NO speakable, provable, handlable evidence that linked him to her murder.

Yes, she was found where he was fishing, but if anyone knows anything about the search using cadaver dogs, they never picked up her scent at the Bay. Cadaver dogs are trained to pick this up, even submerged into water, for a long time. I know, I train them.


I fail to see any reason for name calling and taking personal pot shots at one another. Rather, it's important, I feel, that for intelligent and adult debate to take place, we must keep an open mind and respect one anothers views.

Resorting to name calling or personal pot shots, does not support indivdual conclusions as to the guilt or innocence of Mr. Peterson.

I, for one, do believe that Mr. Peterson is factually innocent. However, the bigger issue for me, is that, even if Mr. Peterson was guilty, as guilty, can be. HE STILL DID NOT RECEIVE A FAIR TRIAL. PERIOD.

Repeatedly I have witnessed those that believe he is guilty resort to pointing out that he is a "CONVICTED KILLER", as if to say that is all the proof that is needed and as if to say that ends the debate.
I merely ask those that believe he is guilty to take into consideration that Dr. Sam Sheppard was also a "convicted killer". And let's not forget about Kevin Green,also a "CONVITED KILLER", who was convicted of raping and attacking his pregnant wife and killing their unborn child. After, 16 years in prison, post conviction DNA exonerated Mr. Green in 1996.
As of May 5, 2006, the innocence project has brought about the exoneration of 175 people who were "convicted" and found guilty of crimes to which they were factually innocent. The 175, is just a drop in the bucket of those who are facutally innocent and are sitting in jail due to a guilty conviction.

SANQUENTINVISITOR:
"WHY DIDN’T THE PEOPLE WHO SAW LACI WALKING TESTIFY?
Eyewitness testimony subject to recall almost two years later is questionable at best. They may know what they saw, and may believe what they saw, but on cross examination faulty memories are usually suggested and witnesses will be subject to being discredited. By bringing in their testimony through police reports recorded right after the sightings were reported and as testified to by actual Law Enforcement this evidence became unimpeachable."

I note that the MPD destroyed the credibility of at least one witness by 'accidentally' hypnotizing her incorrectly. So much for an honest 'investigation'. Anything that led away from guilt was ruthlessly attacked to make it 'go away'. Anything that remotely supported guilt was inflated beyond the bounds of all reason.

The defence destroyed the non-case that the prosecution put on. Only by removing each juror who was prepared to vote not guilty was it possible to convict Peterson, and then only by agreement by the 4th jury that they would exclude all defence evidence and include all matters excluded by the court that went to guilt (the jury's own words). I note again that the prosecution could not provide a single piece of direct or circumstantial evidence that went to guilt and was incapable of innocent explanation.

You might wish to discuss your irrational hatred with your son. He may be able to help you to see the reality of this case.

It's obvious that you're delusional, I never admitted you were right, as a matter of fact "voice of insanity" I vehemently deny any of your delusional rantings. I'm not arguing with you anymore, it's ridiculous to argue with someone who can't see the truth for what it is. However, my son is a psychologist and I'd be happy to refer you to him. You're living out of reality, in another world. The real world convicted Scott Peterson of murdering his unborn child and his pregnant wife. And they convicted him with evidence of his crime. Unlike the defense which provided a smoke and mirrors defense that never really quite materialized did it? It didn't materialize, because basically the overwhelming evidence by the prosecution could not be overcome by the defense.

Voice of *ahem* Sanity-

You asked: However, if the purse was insignificant, why test the contents, contents which included a jacket, a novel and the grass clippings from the leash? Contents which were exactly what you would expect after Laci's trip to the park, a trip which was confirmed by witnesses and where she was seen in the black and white outfit which she changed out of before checking out the Medina robbery across the street.

Simple, genius: They needed to exclude all possibilty of any chance that anything else was wrong in that picture. It's called an "investigation". All they had to go on in the beginning was the lying cheating husband who was leading them in a direction other than where he dumped her body- But good police work helped to eliminate his story and build their case against him. And what a case they built!!!

If they didn't test, you naysayers would have accused them of ignoring the basic procedures of an INVESTIGATION.....
But of course you did that anyway-

Message to Sanity- They never called one single witness who claimed to have seen her walking the dog for a reason- those people were mistaken and SP's own attorney never called them to the stand because he knew their stories were false. That proved out by the mere fact that Laci could not have been in the locations that they claimed to have seen her and yet be in the house with her killer husband at the same time.
Truth was that she was already at the bottom of the bay when these people claimed to have seen someone who looked like Laci.

Case closed.

'helen',

I accept your admission that I am correct and that you are wrong. Your 'mangling' of my username is more than enough to convince anyone of this, since when you have to attack the messenger because you cannot attack the message you have surely admitted defeat. Such a cheap shot demeans you and not me.

However, if the purse was insignificant, why test the contents, contents which included a jacket, a novel and the grass clippings from the leash? Contents which were exactly what you would expect after Laci's trip to the park, a trip which was confirmed by witnesses and where she was seen in the black and white outfit which she changed out of before checking out the Medina robbery across the street.

It is so funny to me that people still have some doubts about his guilt! The creap killed Laci and her baby, because they were getting to be more than he could handle, that's it! That animal belongs.... in a cage!! My only regret with this case is that while on death row, he is not with other inmates that could make him feel real fear, just like Laci must have felt...

Insanity,

I don't want to get into an argument with you about a CONVICTED KILLER. Someone that was convicted by a jury of killing his unborn child and pregnant wife. But the so called grass evidence you state is ludicrous. Grass on the MacKenzie's leash indicates one thing -- Scotty boy took the dog and let it go in the park, to find it's way back home. Of course the dog would have grass on it's leash. No woman, would carry a purse while walking the dog in the park. So the supposed grass evidence in the purse is unrelated to the crime, doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Explain to me how the witnesses saw Laci walking the dog in black pants and a cream top, when Laci was found in khaki maternity pants. Apparently the satanic cult had access to maternity pants and had Laci change to the khaki ones in order to frame Scott. No, the most obvious reason is because the "witnesses" either saw someone else or were mistaken on their dates. Laci Peterson did not walk the dog that morning, she couldn't have, she was at the bottom of the bay where Scott Peterson dumped her body.

Helen,
I venture to suggest that if I asked you to show me, step by step, how the actual evidence leads inexorably to a conclusion of guilty you could not do so. So far I have not found one person on the planet who can. Statements like "Scott is a cold blooded heartless murderer" merely indicate an opinion, not illuminated by facts, an opinion formed instead by a foolsih media. Can you explain the grass clipping evidence offered by Karen Servas and Pin Kyo? It leads inevitably to the conclusion that Laci did walk the dog after Scott left, a conclusion supported by other witnesses. If so, Scott is innocent - even the prosecution admitted that which is why they were so desperate to disprove that observation and so reckless in their efforts to destroy all evidence of it.

Voice of Insanity,

You must be talking about a totally different Scott Peterson. Scott Peterson, the murdering seller of fertilizer was justly convicted by an overwhelming amount of evidence. CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence is still evidence. As for this circumstantial evidence being easily explained away, I just don't see it. Sure I'd wager you'd be able to find some nut cases that need everything spelled out in black and white, bloody gloves, bloody weapon, blood trail to the body being dumped, in order to find guilt. The majority of people don't need it spelled out specifically. Admittedly if it was just one little bit of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution would have had a much more difficult time persuading a jury of Scott Peterson's guilt. However, it was a LOT of circumstantial evidence, enough to prove to the jury and most of the public, beyond a shadow of a doubt that Scott Peterson murdered Laci and Conner. How you could possibly think that finding the bodies where Scott fished goes to his innocence and not his guilt is beyond belief. I don't get the lack of logic there. Not sequestering the jury was a mistake, I feel. However, if the jury had been sequestered, they'd have still come up with GUILTY -- because Scott Peterson is guilty of the double murder of his unborn son and pregnant wife. Scott is a "cold blooded" heartless murderer.

Why, I wonder, was the prosecution unable to come up with the slightest trace of evidence of Peterson's guilt? Nothing that could not be explained by perfectly reasonable arguments? How is it that all of the evidence pointed to innocence? Even the much quoted "Finding the bodies where he fished" doesn't stand up to analysis -- at best it is neutral and an honest debater would be forced to admit that this goes to his innocence and not his guilt. Add to that the grass clipping evidence and despite the clear hostility of the police, prosecution and the media which was transmitted to the (not sequestered) jury and you have a clear case for not guilty by reason of actual innocence.

I do not think he is a murderer. Seems to me that maybe he was doing something else in the bay, like the same thing he was doing in San Diego by the bay. That was baleing wire that was found and a fertilizer company, what a cover!

Could Scott Peterson be a CAD, and not a MURDERER? Sure. But he's not. He is indeed a CAD and a MURDERER. I lost my dog Lucy once. Ran around barefoot in the snow for hours, lost my voice screaming for her. Found her but had wrecked myself so badly I had a headache for days, couldn't eat, couldn't even talk about it. Scott cooks Christmas dinner, even invites a non-family member to join them and chows away while his WIFE and his BABY have been missing for 24 hours. A whole entire day and night. That set the tone, the "trip" to Paris on News Years Eve, laughing while watching the magnificent fireworks turned the volume up. Dummy Scott. He planned to murder Laci beginning Dec. 9th when he told his lover he lost his wife and it would be his first holiday along...double dummy Scott. You get my drift. He's a murderer. A really dumb one.

Could Scott Peterson Be Just A Cad, Not A Murderer? No, he is both. He planned the murder of his pregnant wife and his unborn son, disposed of her body in the San Francisco Bay, and was convicted by a jury of first degree murder. The jury found him guilty because of the evidence and also due to Scott's actions. As for the $250,000 reward posted by Scott's family for information leading to the "real killer," he is on Death Row at San Quentin and his name is Scott Peterson.

Scott is both a "Cad" and a "Murderer." Scott is on death row for the murdering part. Noboy ends up on death row for adultery and it's time to put that fairytale to bed. Even you Lee.

I "cad" means murdering husband with no conscience and no heart then I would say, yes he is a "cad".

Could he be just a cad?

Cad = a person without gentlemanly instincts.

Or is he a murderer?

Murderer = one who commits the crime of unlawfully killing another person especially with malice aforethought.

I say both. It is very ungentlemanly to even think about murdering your spouse. But he purchased a boat without anyone's knowledge which proves malice aforethought and even told people that he was a widower prior to her death.

I'd say he's also very STUPID.

Stupid = given to unintelligent acts or decisions.

You are absolutely right, Helen. There is not a single solitary person on the planet that wanted to see this suburban expecting housewife, dead, nor was Scott Peterson a person so important that others wanted to frame him for a crime he says he didn't commit.
It comes back to the fact that if anyone was out to get Peterson, they would have staged a crimescene in the very place that would, without a doubt, point the finger at the husband-that being his own front living room/house, not bury the body 90 miles away (under water) in HOPES that someday they would find her. Didn't happen that way and no jury will ever believe it did. Best this guy could hope for is that his cocky attorney violated his rights by suggesting things that clearly were not remotely feasible to the normal thinking person.

Was Peterson a weird duck? Yes- Was his behavior that of a normal concerned husband? Not even close by any means....but is that what convicted him? Hardly.

Continuing to float ridiculous theories in hopes of casting doubt on this particular killer is a pointless task. There are a handful of killers here in CA that we could actually build a case of innocence on if we needed to, SP's case is not one of them. In fact, the evidence in his case was so strong, even the most PR driven, savvy attornies available just couldn't overcome it all.......they resorted to floating theories like satanic cults and homeless people on stolen bikes transporting a rotting corpse nearly 90 miles (most of which was freeway) to frame this poor schmuck who was merely cheating on his very pregnant wife- but never had a thing to do with his wife's death that he predicted was dead the year before. Those same people never bothered to demand money or testify to ensure conviction-

So what would be their payoff? Where is the 'reasoning' behind any of these theories being tossed out there? There is none but I'm sure of one thing, Peterson is getting a huge kick reading about all of them. I'm sure he's saying "Ohhhhh, that sounds good, yeah, lets go with homeless people". ;)

I must say, seeing Peterson in a room full of men just like him on a weekly basis, and knowing how 'average' this guy really is, makes it weird to read about him being this magical figure that the naysayers wonder about. He is so average, that I now have to really look closely to know it's him and not some other killer sitting there. He is a figment of his supporters imagination.
I find it hard to comprehend that anyone with only a few braincells can't see the 'the cut and dryness' of this case. No mystery here, other than what might be in the minds of those who can't accept that there are men who are unhappy with their lives so they kill their spouse- happens more often than we'd all like to think.

Peterson is where he belongs and I will be seeing him eat his vending machine food and wearing his blues for many years to come- and it will be MANY YEARS.....:)

It wasn't only his smarmy smirk that got Scott Peterson convicted, it was evidence. Yes some was circumstantial, but how in the world can any defense team get over the fact that Laci Peterson and her unborn child washed up where Scott Peterson went fishing the day she disappeared? Are we to believe that aliens, a satanic cult, homeless people, or a random murderer took Laci from Modesto all the way to the bay and disposed of her body in hopes of framing Scott, should her body ever be recovered? I'm not buying that, nor would any sane jury. Scott Peterson was a murderer and stands justly convicted of his crimes. No doubt in my mind or the jury's minds at all.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Contact Info

RSS Feeds




  • Subscribe to my feed

    Subscribe in NewsGator Online

    Subscribe to my feed

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter