× Debates, Issues & Talk

Scott Peterson?

More
15 years 3 months ago #62476 by PremedRN
Jade's mom--I get up about 8:30-9 for now, unless the kids will sleep later. My kids stay up late too, but not as late as me. Our habits have to change though, like this week, because come monday, 3d/wk we have to be out of the house and on our ways around 7 am.

EKM,
Yeah, I watched that one too. I was saying things out loud to the TV when at the end, Bechler's mom was passing out flyers to people for support of her son's innocence---YEAH RIGHT! And about the reward---she sounded soo full of crap--talking about the missing wife being able to swim and could be somewhere else. HELLO---we got a guy here, whose story physically cannot match up and a taped confession!!!!--DUHHHHH. I know moms want to protect their children and support them, but one can accept the horrible truth and still support their children.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 years 3 months ago #62477 by PremedRN
Oh, got a contraversial question, do you guys think scott should be being tried for double homocide (as they are because she was pregnant) or just homocide for Lacy?

Suprisingly, I think it should be just homocide. Not that I dont have compassion for that unborn child who was apparently never allowed to live outside his mother's womb---but in the United States abortions are performed all the time, they argue at what point is a fetus considered "living" and many consider them not until they have exited the mother's womb--abortions are still performed late in pregnancy. Why should all of a sudden now, they call death of a mom of an unborn fetus a double homocide. I thought according to the law's terms it is not murder even for abortion? I ask this because it sounds to me like they want to change things according to popular belief--most people agree with abortion, most people condemn even more so, a pregnant mother murdered. Doesnt seem like logical reasoning to me, it is not loss of life in one instance, but is in another.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 years 3 months ago #62478 by EKM
I hope he gets the worst that could ever happen to him. I hope he dies. I hope he dies a horrible long and unbearable death. I hope he stays in prison for awhile and becomes 15 big nasty guys little "friend." I just hope he suffers. If he suffers, then I will be satisfied. :yes:

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 years 2 months ago #62479 by rebelmunkee06
I can not believe you guys! I mean yeah, you have a right to your own opinion, but I completely disagree with you all! I think Scott Peterson is 110% NOT guilty! I have a lot of reasons for believing this and I will give you them now!

In the first place, I was reading the autopsy report (the parts that were actually released), and whoever did in fact kill Laci, they were not responsible for her being beheaded, her arms and legs missing...because they said that it was do to the ocean currents and/or sealife feeding on her! I know that is horrible, but at least the killer is not even more disgusting than "normal".

Then, I read this article:

Conner saves dad

Scott Peterson is innocent



It looks like the people who are responsible for murdering Laci Peterson protected Conner because they wanted to use him as the emotional bait they required to lynch Scott Peterson. If Scott Peterson had murdered Laci on the 23rd or 24th of December and dumped their bodies in the sea, the evidence would tell a different story.
The fictitious version is very transparent. A cement bag was found next to Conner, who was found 15 ft above the shoreline. Mark Fuhrman has all the fickle cues he requires to mimick the fictitious, 'Murder in Greenwhich' [click here], but what is stopping him? Why doesn't he write 'Murder in Modesto'?

Unlike Elizabeth Smart, Laci's kidnappers did not allow Laci to escape and that dictated the ultimate outcome. Laci delivered a full term baby in captivity and then, the desperate murderers dumped her baby, to implicate Scott, because the police did not have enough evidence to arrest him.

If Scott had murdered Laci before he was under police surveillance, forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden said that he would expect that Conner would be MORE decomposed than Laci due to the fact that he was "all food" whereas Laci had clothes and hair as a "barrier" for sealife to feed on.

Even ordinary people "GET IT" --you do not have to be a pathologist or a forensic expert to appreciate the simple fact that Scott Peterson is being framed. Condsider this layman point of view:

I have been giving a lot of thought to this lately. And I have a quite a few questions. . . mainly this: baby Connor's body was found virtually intact, outside of Laci's body and with a noose around his neck. This to me would imply that he was born prior to Laci's death. Leaks of the autopsy report have indicated that Laci's cevis was intact so he could have been delivered via c-section, although it's hard to guess at that without being able to see the autopsy report. My point is this: you would be able to determine at least Connor's time of death by his bones, specifically his femur. Was he killed right around 36 weeks? Or was it closer to full term? It just seems kind of odd to me that these bodies show up floating in the bay near where Scott has proved he was, months later. Why would he say that's where he was if there is a possibity of the bodies being recovered there? It seems more like he is being set up. It's too coincidental. And if Connor and Laci weren't killed as soon as they were kidnapped but a few weeks later, then that would clear Scott since the police were watching him and there is no way he would have been able to dump the body later on. Also it sounds like Laci and Connor's bodies were not that decomposed due to being water, not like they would be if they had been in the bay for four months. That area had been searched, it seems like those bodies would have turned up much earlier unless they had been dumped there later on. Things just aren't adding up. Now, do I like or support Scott Peterson? NO, I think he is the scum of the earth, but a murderer? I think not.

If Laci was dead and the baby was born via coffin birth vaginally, I don't think he would have come out with her cervix being intact because she could not have thinned and dilated for the baby to come out without any damage being done to the cervix.
Here is another fascinating message, which explains reports that Conner was a full term baby when he was found and further confirms the claim that Conner was delivered in captivity:
Coffin Birth is a bizarre and extremely unlikely theory compared to the story of the clerk in Longview Washington, who said that Laci Peterson was trying to control the extreme anger of her captor with the sweet-talking claim "my husband always kidnaps me when he takes me out to dinner." It has been a quarter century since the term ‘coffin birth’ or ‘sarg geburt’ appeared in the medical literature. This old phrase was used to describe an unusual grim parody of one of life’s greatest moments. It happens when a pregnant woman spontaneously delivers her child after her own death. The gas that builds up in her decomposing body can build up enough pressure to propel the baby through the birth canal. This odd occurrence has taken place throughout history, albeit RARELY. Scientists have even found paleopathologic evidence of a case of coffin birth in Europe of the dim past, before recorded history. Today, modern embalming customs have made coffin birth so rare as to longer be described in typical medical textbooks. You can believe in "coffin birth". I believe honest, independent witnesses, despite the fact that the police routinely claim that it was another, pregnant woman.
It takes a huge leap of faith to suggest that Scott Peterson murdered Laci, and all reasonable people reject the claim. The following message illustrates the concern.

A body that would have washed ashore immediately would have yielded excellent DNA. If someone did take Laci, THEIR DNA would have been all over her, as well as cause of death. The sea was the perfect asthetic cleanser to wash away incriminating evidence over time, plus the killer would have the added benefit of taking the focus off of them and shifting it to Scott. Scott's alibi was out in the media on day ONE when he first reported her missing, so it was well-known by the public.
I have a huge problem with the logistics concerning those bodies washing up. For one thing, consider the vast amount of space in that ocean. It's HUGE, with under currents and forever changing tides. Is it absolutely not a coincidence that those bodies washed up within ONE DAY of one another. Neither body floated at an extremely different pace, nor did one body become lodged on anything underwater to restrict its movement. The chances of that are beyond comprehension - and that includes any 'spiritual' theory. The second thing is the location of both bodies in relation to one another. Again, beyond logistics that they would wash up within such a close proximity to one another. The ocean is HUGE, as of course, are the shorelines. Not to mention the black tarp that conveniently washed up, the next day...

In retrospect, the plot to frame Scott Peterson is too transparent to doubt. Remember when Ted Rowlands kept insisting that Scott Peterson was going to be arrested, months before the bodies conveniently washed up? Can you imagine the pressure Laci's kidnappers were under, to produce the evidence they required, to blame somebody else?

Unfortunately for the people who murdered Laci, Scott Peterson cannot credibly be blamed.

Take the Reeds, for example, who said that say they're not sure what to think of Scott Peterson's arrest. Greg Reed said he last spoke to Scott on Christmas Eve, hours before Laci was reported missing. Reed said Scott called him from his cell phone to firm up New Year's Eve plans they had. "On the afternoon he called from his mobile phone to mine, and we had spoke probably once or twice a week, so it wasn't a phone call that I would see as unordinary. He sounded chipper and looking forward to getting together," Reed said.

Reed said Scott never mentioned that he had been fishing that day, but he said he didn't find it unusual since it was a short conversation. Later that day, the Reeds heard from Scott again, but his demeanor had changed. "It went from a wonderful celebration of Christmas to a frantic voice mail message from Scott that evening looking for Laci, wondering if I had talked to her that morning," Kristen said.

Perhaps the best evidence which absolutely proves that Scott Peterson had absolutely nothing to do with Laci's disappearance is the spin that the prosecution routinely delivers, to create the false impression that Scott murdered Laci. For example, when Amber asked Scott if he had murdered his wife, Scott said no, but he knew who did it. The prosecution likes to suggest that Scott essentially confessed but that interpretation is an absolutely grotesque fraud because it is obscene to suggest that Scott Peterson murdered Laci, simply because he cared enough to seek out his wife's kidnappers. Like Mark Geragos, who followed the false lead that a satanic cult was involved, Scott is absolutely clueless, and he has consistently proved it, throughout.

Does the prosecutor understand the significance of the fact that Scott Peterson has absolutely no idea what happened to his wife Laci? Instead, the prosecutor said that he had not collected all the evidence required to support the theory that Laci Peterson died in her own home. Tell us something we do not know. We clearly understand the fact that if it was legitimately plausible to justify Scott Peterson's arrest, it would have occurred months ago. So the ONLY gameplan of the prosecution is to hound Scott Peterson until he drops dead, just like Richard Ricci did. Good luck.

*Just thought I would post the facts! Oh, and of course, the prosecution has absolutely no hard facts!~*Jessica*~

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 years 2 months ago #62480 by kthoms0319
is it possible to be 110% not guilty?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 years 2 months ago #62481 by EKM

Then, I read this article:

Conner saves dad

Scott Peterson is innocent

Wow...you must be right! Was that in the National Enquirer, or the Star? hmmmm. :scratchchin: Wake up honey, this guy is guilty as sin. :rolleyes: Erin

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: TexasRoseMTaylorefex101
Time to create page: 0.200 seconds
Find us on Facebook!
Find us on Twitter!
Find us on Pinterest!