Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Laci Peterson- Husband Still Not Ruled Out
The Modesto Bee ^ | 01-09-2003 | TY PHILLIPS

Posted on 01/09/2003 7:55:37 AM PST by landerwy

Edited on 04/13/2004 1:55:34 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Officers aboard a San Mateo County Sheriff's Department search and rescue boat check underwater.

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS A law enforcement official collects a water sample from the Berkeley Marina on Wednesday while searching for Laci Peterson.

By TY PHILLIPS BEE STAFF WRITER Searchers returned to the Berkeley Marina on Wednesday and used underwater camera equipment to hunt for clues relating to the disappearance of Laci Peterson of Modesto.


(Excerpt) Read more at modbee.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortionismean; alimony; avoidanceof; avoidingalimony; avoidingchildsupport; avoidingreallife; babyconner; bleachblondeguy; capitalpunishment; childsupport; conner; deathpenaltytime; deathrow; doublehomicide; getarope; getawaywithit; guilty; homicide; ibefishing; killerhusbands; killyerwife; laci; lacipeterson; life; peterson; sonkiller; sunin; sweetgirl; sweetwife; unborn; unbornbaby; whatasweetgirl; wifeandbaby; wifekiller
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-85 next last

1 posted on 01/09/2003 7:55:37 AM PST by landerwy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: landerwy
Why doesn't the article mention that the husband has several times refused to take a lie detector test.....
2 posted on 01/09/2003 7:58:02 AM PST by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alexandria; HoHoeHeaux; Devil_Anse; Howlin; Calcetines; Marysecretary; runningbear; ...
ping
3 posted on 01/09/2003 8:00:24 AM PST by landerwy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: landerwy
Due date February 10, 2003.

According to the linked article and others Laci was expecting the baby in a month and a half on December 24th. She was not in that critical period just two weeks prior to delivery.

4 posted on 01/09/2003 8:06:25 AM PST by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: landerwy
Why don't the authorities simply say they have no idea.......which is the truth. Until they do, what is the point in these meaningless comments. Or are they looking for a white van.
5 posted on 01/09/2003 8:06:31 AM PST by OldFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: ken5050; OldFriend
i only posted! I don't write the articles! But you both bring out good points!
7 posted on 01/09/2003 8:12:12 AM PST by landerwy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: landerwy
I wasn't criticizing you....but it's a glaring omission, IMHO....the spouse and close family are always looked at first, and closely, and in many cases where there isn't an iron-clad alibi, they are asked to take a lie-detector test.....because it can help police ELIMINATE them as suspects, and thus devote resouces to more productive areas of investigation....only guilty spouses refuse.....he did it...
8 posted on 01/09/2003 8:16:28 AM PST by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
You are soooo right!
9 posted on 01/09/2003 8:19:11 AM PST by Russ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Russ
Have you seen anything about his background.....bio....
10 posted on 01/09/2003 8:21:23 AM PST by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
So,according to the media, this guy is guilty of murder because he went fishing and nobody recalls seeing him.

I go mountain bike riding and if I see 3 people its a busy, crowded trail. (and I wouldn't be able to tell you what they look like, either.)

Would I be guilty if something happened to my girlfriend while I was out riding???
11 posted on 01/09/2003 8:24:47 AM PST by bigj00
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
only guilty spouses refuse.....he did it...

Puh-lese! I'd never take one under these circumstances either. His wife is missing, he's upset. A question such as, "Did you murder your wife?" would likely cause a polygraph test to register distress when he truthfully answered, "No."

The polygraph is notoriously unreliable as well which is why the results of these "tests" are not admissable as eveidence in court. He may indeed be guilty, but to suggest that he is guilty solely on his refusal to take a polygraph test is, imho, totally wrong.

12 posted on 01/09/2003 8:29:54 AM PST by TopDog2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
Lie detector test is a misnomer and about as reliable as tea leaves...

http://antipolygraph.org/
13 posted on 01/09/2003 8:30:27 AM PST by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
I was wondering about that. Here's something interesting that Mark Fuhrman said last night on Greta:

That the police wouldn't be searching in the marina unless the husband had either failed or refused to take a polygraph test...

14 posted on 01/09/2003 8:32:46 AM PST by texasbluebell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone
Stupid lie detector test, pseudo-science, it only reflects the prejudices of the person who asks the questions, or designs them, ...and the degree to which they can lean on a flustered innocent who is not a polished habitual liar!

x42 might well have PASSED one, about Monica or whoever!

No way would I ever agree to take one if I were someone whom LE was singling out, trying to hammer. Only if I were one of a hundred people being asked to take them as a general screen, with same questions and examiner, would I agree to this...

15 posted on 01/09/2003 8:34:52 AM PST by crystalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bigj00
I agree, bigj00. We all do things that could be suspicious. I figured if he was out the day before Christmas, perhaps nobody did see him. We seem to forget innocence until proven guilty. If he's guilty, so be it, but if he isn't, well, we should be ashamed of ourselves to point the finger and pronounce him guilty.
16 posted on 01/09/2003 8:36:06 AM PST by Marysecretary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone; TopDog2
I understand that the LD aren't always reliable, but we're NOt trying to prove guilt here, but that he's innocent...look, he's a suspect..it's a given...it's standard police policy, borne out by the statistics...so even if he's innocent, but the LD is questionable...he's no worse off thjan before.....I submit to both of you..if your spouse, or child, was missing, and you had nothing to do with it, and the cops asked you to take a LD to eliminate you.....and help them...you'd refuse?...I don't blieve you would..
17 posted on 01/09/2003 8:38:13 AM PST by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: texasbluebell
Or they have no clues at all and are simply doing the obvious to make it look like they have something.
18 posted on 01/09/2003 8:38:28 AM PST by OldFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
My husband (an avid fisherman) and I were discussing this case this morning. He's only caught a few of the high spots of the story on the evening news. The first thing he asked me was "Did he catch any fish?" His right eyebrow shot up! Could y'all tell me how long Peterson was fishing that day? Doesn't it seem odd that an experienced angler didn't catch a thing.
19 posted on 01/09/2003 8:41:05 AM PST by Quilla (God Bless America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: landerwy
Watching a local Bay Area news broadcast this morning, the story was 'why won't this guy sit down for an interview with us?'.

They apparently tried to convince him that such an interview would help him to clear himself. The response quoted was that the husband stated that it would be 'a waste of time'.

I certainly can understand a serious distrust of the media. Based on the pictures alone...a large husband with an alibi that doesn't really exonerate him 100% and attractive pregnant wife. Anything short of a convincing public weep-fest by the guy will be used against him by the media's morality show. He may be exacerbating his problems if the press turns against him, as may already be occurring with these stories this morning.

The guy should at least get a professional to help with his PR on his own terms.

20 posted on 01/09/2003 8:43:24 AM PST by Monti Cello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
Always a possibility, yes. And maybe they'll find some clues if they just keep looking, of course. But her scent seems to stop in the street outside her house. She must have gotten in a car, as they're saying. So strange.

She was taken right there before she started walking her dog. The burglars across the street were apparently cleared though. So for another criminal to just come along in the same time frame and see her seems beyond belief. Must have been someone she knew.

21 posted on 01/09/2003 8:52:28 AM PST by texasbluebell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Monti Cello
Anything short of a convincing public weep-fest by the guy will be used against him by the media's morality show.

IF he's a weepy kind of guy. I'm trying to envision my husband in these circumstances. He'd be AWFUL on TV whether he was guilty or not.

The guy should at least get a professional to help with his PR on his own terms.

The Ramseys were pilloried for getting a PR person.

22 posted on 01/09/2003 8:55:51 AM PST by mombonn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: texasbluebell
I am coming to that conclusion too. She had lived in Modesto all her life, it was Christmas Eve Day, a time for lowered suspicions and guard.

Somebody she knew, maybe once had a relationship with, maybe not so AWFULLY long ago...showed up, and on the spur of the moment, Laci jumped in the car --as did her dog.

The dog of course, would have been later released where it might have had to cross water or mudflat, creek or canal or river, to get home...

Is there the slightest CHANCE that this someone might have called her up and actually ARRANGED this, to see her while her husband was away?

23 posted on 01/09/2003 9:00:49 AM PST by crystalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
Another interesting thing that keeps nagging me.

Laci's brother was interviewed the other night on Greta and was asked about how the house looked, because he was there I think Christmas Eve or the next day after she was reported missing. The brother said that even though Laci was going to have people over for a brunch on Christmas morning, that there had been no preparations in the house, it looked like.

Now he didn't think that was unusual, but to me, if I were having people over the very next day, my house would already have had some signs of work for a party.

And her sister said that Laci and the husband came to the sister's place of work on Monday evening, and everything seemed fine. So she was seen Monday evening, and I guess she must have planned on using the whole day Tuesday to work on her party. It's just that it doesn't seem like enough time to put a party together.

Maybe that's just me though.

24 posted on 01/09/2003 9:00:50 AM PST by texasbluebell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: crystalk
Or maybe the dog didn't jump in the car. He was just found on the street, wasn't he, by a neighbor? He may never have made it into the car.

And Laci and her husband had lived in San Luis Obispo where they met at school, I believe, and then they had started a restaurant somewhere around there, which they had for 2 years, then she wanted to move back to Modesto to be near her family. They had been back in Modesto for 3 years according to a family friend of the husband last night on Greta.

So maybe there was someone in her past, from school or restaurant days, who just decided to look her up.

25 posted on 01/09/2003 9:06:23 AM PST by texasbluebell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: texasbluebell
If we know anything at all, we know that Laci had a big day planned, planned to cook and shop, planned to get ready to go to her parents' for [early] dinner that evening...and spend the whole evening there...

and then she was going to have the whole family in on Christmas Day, at her house, from some 10 AM on...

I too was thinking, wouldn't she need help, a sister or good girl friend, etc in to help her with all that, and that is why she would have wanted the husband out from under foot?

And then Scott said, when he came in there was nothing, NADA! No cooking, no shopping, no decorating, not one thing altered from when he left at 9:30. That alone [for my critics] would be pretty strong evidence of foul play.

[barring desperate medical emergency, which Scott and Laci's stepfather ruled out before calling police...]

Don't hold me to this, but didn't Scott also say that her keys were in her purse, as if she had not used them that day at all, and the house doors were closed but not locked at all, which was NOT her habit at ALL!

26 posted on 01/09/2003 9:10:38 AM PST by crystalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: texasbluebell
I believe you are assuming a certain level of clean up/decorating would be done. Not everyone is bothered by a mess or no decorations. I stress out to the max and my husband only concern is the menu. Maybe they were going to buy all the food and just enjoy each others company.
27 posted on 01/09/2003 9:10:39 AM PST by still lurking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mombonn
The Ramseys were pilloried for getting a PR person.

That occurred to me too after I posted. I really feel bad for this guy, assuming he's innocent. This is almost like a 'Fugitive' scenario.

28 posted on 01/09/2003 9:10:53 AM PST by Monti Cello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
Why doesn't the article mention that the husband has several times refused to take a lie detector test.....

Generally like detector tests are unreliable if the subject has any knowledge of the case. The results are not admissible in court either, and cannot be used to prove guilt or innocence.

It is hardly an admission of guilt that the husband has not submitted to a lie detector test. I understand he has hired a lawyer. Any prudent lawyer would have advised him not to take the test either way.

29 posted on 01/09/2003 9:18:47 AM PST by PistolPaknMama (kaboom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: still lurking
I believe you are assuming a certain level of clean up/decorating would be done. Not everyone is bothered by a mess or no decorations.

Yes, you're right. She was most likely the sort of person who could pull a party together in one day, from what her brother was saying. She was very organized, her house was always perfect, nothing ever out of place, he said. So it was probably nothing to her to get this done in one day.

30 posted on 01/09/2003 9:20:14 AM PST by texasbluebell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: texasbluebell
She was very organized, her house was always perfect, nothing ever out of place, he said. So it was probably nothing to her to get this done in one day.

We can rule one thing out - she obviously didn't freep several hours per day. :)

31 posted on 01/09/2003 9:25:47 AM PST by Quilla (God Bless America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: crystalk
And then Scott said, when he came in there was nothing, NADA! No cooking, no shopping, no decorating, not one thing altered from when he left at 9:30. That alone [for my critics] would be pretty strong evidence of foul play.

Yes, you're right. It sounds more like foul play. Though I know the percentages are with a husband being involved in something like this.

And if the keys were still in her purse, she may have answered the door at just a critical moment, when she had the dog already on the leash, ready to walk out the door, but someone rang the bell, she answered, was taken, dog ran out, for some reason the creep closed the door or it slammed, she was put in vehicle.

But it just seems to defy the laws of probability that there was a break-in across the street in the same time frame, and then something happens to her just around that time, and those burglars were cleared in her disappearance apparently.

32 posted on 01/09/2003 9:30:30 AM PST by texasbluebell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Quilla
We can rule one thing out - she obviously didn't freep several hours per day. :)

You nailed it for me, I'm afraid!

33 posted on 01/09/2003 9:31:25 AM PST by texasbluebell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Quilla
We can rule one thing out - she obviously didn't freep several hours per day.

Speaking of which, I really need to cut back. I have a to-do list a mile long. It used to be, I would just spend alot of time here when there was a crisis.

34 posted on 01/09/2003 9:35:28 AM PST by riri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: riri
I am wondering if they are checking into the past of the husbands, ie. girlfriends and such. Someone out for revenge perhaps?
35 posted on 01/09/2003 9:49:04 AM PST by BonneBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Monti Cello
professional help with PR...

he may already have that help and if he knows he's not the perp, he'll have a higher dollar in mind for interviews, book deal etc. fertilizer salesman salary can't be all that great. giving his side now won't be near as lucrative.

36 posted on 01/09/2003 10:00:38 AM PST by janee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: texasbluebell
I could be wrong but didn't one of the earliest articles say the side gate was open to the yard?

Wouldn't it be easy to open a side gate, put a leash on the dog, put the dog out back and then leave through the front door? The dog would eventually wander out and be found by a neighbor.

I'm not saying it happened this way, only speculating.
37 posted on 01/09/2003 10:13:33 AM PST by landerwy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: landerwy
So many questions, not enough answers...
38 posted on 01/09/2003 10:21:44 AM PST by texasbluebell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: texasbluebell
Friend (F) says that former highschool boyfriend now living away from Modesto, could have been back in town for Christmas to visit his own family, and thought he would go and look up old Laci, perhaps not knowing she was pregnant or other circumstances.

Women in late pregnancy sometimes get turned off of their husbands, suddenly boyish First Love shows up, she melts, away they go.

By the time reality begins to dawn, the police have been notified, a search is on...he knows he is in trouble, knows she will call home if he turns his back, may feel he has no choice but to kill her.

Another idea is this, HER relatives are so effusive, go way beyond the c o d to praise Scott to the heavens, how great he is, while his own parents and SIX siblings...are more ordinary and restrained...

Can it be that Laci's family and siblings know something WE don't? That perhaps she was a bit of a problem, a little bit wild, had gone into what her family didn't approve of, and this Scott brought her back to earth, saved her from a life of drugs or promiscuity or whatever...they may have been very grateful to him, felt their own sister had feet of clay, tended to think when this happened, oh, no, there SHE goes again, ...and not even THINK of blaming Scott...

39 posted on 01/09/2003 12:02:17 PM PST by crystalk (Missing person stories, I am HOOKED on them, what a time waster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: TopDog2
Puh-lese! I'd never take one under these circumstances either

Marc Klass took one. So did John Walsh. Both of them have said that if you are NOT guilty, it's the first thing you should do to HELP THE POLICE.

40 posted on 01/09/2003 12:06:31 PM PST by Howlin (Stolen from another Freeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: texasbluebell
I heard that.
41 posted on 01/09/2003 12:06:54 PM PST by Howlin (Stolen from another Freeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: crystalk
Women in late pregnancy sometimes get turned off of their husbands, suddenly boyish First Love shows up, she melts, away they go.

I see you're willing to smear HER to defend HIM. All with wild, ridiculous speculation.

42 posted on 01/09/2003 12:14:52 PM PST by Howlin (Stolen from another Freeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
Why doesn't the article mention that the husband has several times refused to take a lie detector test.....

That does it, he's guilty. Of something....

43 posted on 01/09/2003 12:19:11 PM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mombonn
The Ramseys were pilloried for getting a PR person.

And all over this forum for any number of reasons. But most people who have followed the case lately are now aware that they had nothing to do with her murder. I have yet to see any retractions, and I'm not holding my breath either.

44 posted on 01/09/2003 12:23:55 PM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
And I'm sure a lawyer would tell you not to take one. Here's a likely question from a "lie" detector test:

Q: Did you have an argument with your wife in the last 24 hours?

He could have had a simple disagreement with her over which TV show to watch, but if he answers "yes", he has a "motive" and is a suspect. If he answers "no", he is lying and is a suspect.

I once had to take one of these "tests" after the fast food joint I worked at in high school had a theft. I had the flu the day I was scheduled to take it, but they told me I'd be fired if I didn't go anyway. I went and the results came back "inconclusive" and even though I was/am honest to a fault and had never stolen anything, I was still fired over this "test" result.

If I were in this situation, I would cooperate fully with the police, but I would not take one of those "tests".

45 posted on 01/09/2003 12:38:52 PM PST by TopDog2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: TopDog2
I understand exactly what you're saying. But he hasn't done either.
46 posted on 01/09/2003 12:40:07 PM PST by Howlin (Stolen from another Freeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
lie detector tests are inadmissable in california courts anyway
47 posted on 01/09/2003 12:45:25 PM PST by KneelBeforeZod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

everyone keeps forgetting he had 12 hours to do whatever he wanted before his fishing trip

I was on a jury where we convicted a man of killing his wife. He passed a lie detector test.
48 posted on 01/09/2003 12:51:48 PM PST by KneelBeforeZod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: bigj00; All
"Would I be guilty if something happened to my girlfriend while I was out riding???"

You bring out good points BUT

you'd only be guilty if you did something to cause harm etc
...you'd "look" guilty if you were the last person to see her, she's vanished, there are NO CLUES, foul play is suspected and you really can't prove too much about where you were (witnesses etc)....

But you say you go biking (I'm assuming often ), I don't believe this guy went fishing all the time (normal routine)....

and it was CHRISTMAS EVE - some think that normal I think it's a bit odd ---did he have gifts all bought and wrapped?

(and I do believe he left pretty late for a 'fisherman'...dont' the fish 'bite' earlier than 9:30 am???)

49 posted on 01/09/2003 12:53:52 PM PST by SunnyUsa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
"I see you're willing to smear HER to defend HIM. All with wild, ridiculous speculation."

amazing isn't it?

This is theory out of the "nuts n sluts" handbook - CHAPTER "What to do when those WOMEN cause trouble, go public, end up dead etc, etc....

50 posted on 01/09/2003 12:58:47 PM PST by SunnyUsa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-85 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson