People Talking About Scott Peterson Today

A conversation at Greta's blog over on Fox has continued for a couple of weeks now. I've popped in and gotten drawn into it.




Anyway, someone named PaleBlueEyes popped up in the last few days and replied to one of my comments, and several of VOS's posts, and a whole bunch of others. He/She had a lot to say. Lots of different posts, the gist all the same: Y'all are insane for thinking Scott's innocent, statistics show that husbands are usually the killers, Scott's a scumbag, killed his wife and child, Amber's life was destroyed.

I had posted that it doesn't seem right that Amber testified as a "star witness" while not revealing to the jury that she had a book deal which was likely contingent upon Peterson's conviction (no one has ever denied this contingency).

Anyway, I had posted several questions, because PaleBlueEyes insisted that he/she knew the case inside and out and followed it from the beginning and had done lots of research &cetera &cetera. So I asked---"So what do you think about the Aponte tip? What about what Harshman saw? What about the baby's development? What about that bow around his neck? (I don't think I asked that one)."


PaleBlueEyes logged on to the conversation yesterday evening and had one response:

A coarsely-worded insult toward a person I'm sure he or she doesn't know personally, followed by: This is a stupid conversation, ya'll are ridiculous, I'm out of here, see ya bye.


But wait a minute, you had so much to say just the other day. OK, bye.

Whatever.











From CNN:

"Now that we know she (Amber) has written a book about the case, we must ask: Was her decision to position herself deep in this case motivated by a burning desire to assist the police in capturing Laci Peterson's suspected killer? Or was it, much more simply, motivated by the prospect of a lucrative book deal?

"Certainly, from a defense perspective, it makes a huge difference. But the defense, ignorant of the book, was unable to argue that Frey's motivation was monetary."



From an online conversation years ago which still hangs in Cyberspace, echoes of thoughts long forgotten, most likely:

"Dissention" on Frey's agent attorney:

"I will watch her interviews but man, I cannot stand her attorney. Gloria makes my skin crawl. I could not stand how she pranced around throughout the entire trial, acting as if she was supposed to be there, and constantly pushed the fact that Amber was a "victim" down our throats. Yea, I know she sort of was but damn the girl had four dates with Scott. FOUR dates. They knew each other for like a month and now she is such a devastated victim from his lies. I know the trial and publicity was awful for her and I dont mind her writing a book, although it is tasteless...but don't try to portray Amber as this poor victim who was taken advantage of by big bad Scott. Sorry that was LACI."






"Strandinthewind":

"She hired an attorney right from day one. I knew then that she was going to try and profit in some way from this.

.....Her father kept selling stories to the National Enquirer. Whether or not she was the recipient of any of that money, I do not know but I wonder.
The tapes. Ugh.

....They are going to kill a man over those tapes. And to my ears, all I kept hearing was a guy who was trying to get the hell away from her. Any woman knows the lies a man is capable of telling. The tapes were no smoking gun for me.
Have I answered your question? :laugh:"


***

One person on the forum speaks in defense of Amber Frey, with a reply:

For example "just because they were adulterous on a pregnant woman" is a "spun" statement because this is NOT why he was convicted. He was convicted for committing a murder. Also HE was adulterous, Amber was not.

Also "for Amber it was the champagne two hours after meeting the magnetic Peterson :rolleyes: ", do you seriously judge her for this? I mean, yes its fast, but that is pretty common nowadays. Remember, she did NOT know he was married.

And "though no evidence directly links you to the crime, you are a creep, an adulterer, and you do not appear to be grieving in the media" then pull out a gun and shoot him in the head? That essentially is what happened here." No that isn't at all what happened here. He was put on trial and the timeline and his behavior lead to his conviction. He's still alive, remember? Also "social vigilanteism" is NOT what happened. He was put on trial where evidence was presented. You are correct that there was no direct evidence but there was irrefutable evidence IMO.

Incidentally I hope that he is not put to death, I don't support the death penalty at all.

I agree to disagree with you on this forever and ever (which doesn't mean that I don't expect a retort ;))


Strandinthewind's reply:

. . . and retort you shall have :laugh:

I believe he has been sentenced to death. So, the gun to the head analogy was correct except in a temporal sense, the latter being immediate and the former being prolonged :shrug:

Also and again, there was no direct evidence linking him to the crime. So, that means he was convicted on circumstantial evidence - none of which links him to the crime and the evidence the judge inexplicably excluded proves Peterson's boat could not have been used for the crime.

Part of that circumstantial evidence was his affair with Frey - thus my statement that his affair with Frey got him convicted is and was correct. I mean do you really believe that jury (at least the last one :rolleyes: ) took him having an affair while his wife was preggers and ran with it all the way to a conviction - then I suggest you do not know about juries. I do and they did.

Put it this way, if Frey had not testified, do you think on the evidence remaining there would have been a conviction?

I submit there would not have been. Again, I do not think the prosecution alleged Peterson's motivation was to kill Laci in order to wind up with Amber. If they did, the tapes prove them wrong.

So, what other possible evidence could her testimony prove - I submit it was to show Peterson had an affair while his wife was pregnant - therefore he killed her. That is a non-sequitor - it makes no sense. People have affairs all of the time without killing their pregnant wives :shrug:

But, people will never see it this way. All they can think is, well, who cares, Peterson was probably guilty anyway so screw him and the system. These people do not have the foresight to see where that kind of logic and disregard for the rules will lead.

Again, applying that logic, why bother with a trial.

.....As for the rest of the evidence, it just does not add up. Yes, he went fishing on Christmas Eve - so what - I know a bunch of people who do as well.

He was going to mexico - so what - he knew he had a police escort and therefore could hardly be running away.

Laci's hair was found on his stuff - big deal - she was his wife and had access to it.



And Mad4Stevie says, and I hear ?her?:



"It is easy for all of us to judge Amber, and her feelings and motivations regarding this case, BUT how many of us have ever dealt with someone who is a pathological liar like Scott Peterson?

"I once dated someone who lied about everything and anything and appeared to have no conscience about it. He was very charismatic and charming and had most everyone fooled. I consider myself to be a fairly intelligent, socially aware person, and I was fooled by his charisma and charm. Granted, he is not a killer (or one who has been charged with such a crime), but I can feel for what it is like to feel that kind of betrayal of trust by a person you think cares about you. It can really mess you up emotionally and spiritually. And I have my therapist to thank for straightening me out ;)

"People who lie like that are very scarey to me."



To which I say, yeah, but, the money.


Also:



"......As for the pre-therapy answer: oh my god i am responsible for this man being put to death and i am the cause of Laci's murder! ;)

"As for the post-therapy answer: i did what i could to provide information and help to the authorities so that they could find Laci and bring her home to her family. ;)."





Crappy therapists can mess you up for years....I have seen it with my own eyes, and more than once or even twice. Included are therapists who tell one what one wants to hear. They have their own issues, and become involved with their patients in dysfunctional ways; these are human relationships, and just as there are competent mechanics, and surgeons, and plumbers, and teachers, so there are also incompetent therapists and psychiatrists who do not necessarily help heal their clients. Being human, and having issues of their own, can prevent them from being a healing influcence.

Not the worst of it all is that there's a built-in motivation for the patient not to heal: it would mean no more doctor visits.

Had a friend years back who saw an analyst four times a week for eight years. She could afford it, and he took lots of money from her.

Years later, she said going to that analyst for so long actually delayed her healing. He kept going back over and over and over the same childhood stuff, making her re-live it, rather than moving forward. When she finally got away from him her life actually started to improve. I haven't seen my friend in a while, but I watched her bloom after she left him---I remember it vividly.

It happens. There are also wonderful healers out there who can and will change your life for the better.

Just had to respond, because the implication in the post is that the proper analysis of Frey (a woman the poster likely does not know personally, nor do I) is to give her the benefit of the doubt.
I just can't get there. She's had plenty of time by now to read the other side of the story. Maybe she's got people all around her who say blah blah, he did it, blah blah, those people are nuts, yata yata yata, no other points of view presented, who knows. I don't know. I just know the info's out there, it shows he likely didn't do it, and she's OK with killing a person she once knew and refuses to examine or respond to the evidence....
Sorry just can't;

Yuck;



**********************


But on the whole....it was a long time ago...who cares? Why does it matter?

I mean, who really wants these people in one's head at all?


It matters because they are planning to put a living Californian man to death over it, while withholding exonerating evidence--and they withheld information on a profit motive.

It doesn't get worse than that-----death for profit.
I mean, if anyone can think of something more disgusting, please feel free.