Replies

Well, I don't believe for one minute if he got that dress cleaned it was to give to the Rochas. Why would anyone believe a word from SP at this point? He lied repeatedly from the moment he told the Rocha's Laci was missing.

There has not been one documented lie come out of the Rocha family camp. Scott's very demented mother on the other hand, calls up shows and repeatedly tells false hoods. My favorite was even AFTER the Rocha's were shown the pics of Amber, Jackie Peterson told Dan Abrams SP was not having an affair and the pictures were probably just anyone taken at a party. No matter how many lies her son tells, she's willing to go along for the ride and cover for him. I heard Jackie tell Dan Abrams they were lending SP the car he was driving when arrested. Hmm.. a report came out later that SP had bought that car with cash from some guy in the auto trader mag. Lies, lies and more lies.

How's this one from Jackie; she told Greta THIS WEEK that there was NOTHING left of Laci's in that house anyway after the police went through it. I would be curious as to what personal items the Rochas retrieved. Obviously, now that Laci is gone Jackie doesn't consider any of the things Laci and Scott had together as Laci's.

Is it true that in a court of law if a person has been proven to have given untruthful testimony you can discount their entire testimony as a juror? Well, I go by that rule in the court of public opinion too. The Petersons are a big fat bunch of liars and the Rochas are not.

Well, unlike everyone else, I'm not willing to try cases in the media - I'll wait for the evidence showing Scot guilty of murder - until then, he's just an unfaithful liar, which is bad, but doesn't make him automatically guilty of murder...

That being said, The Rochas broke ito a home and removed stuff that did not belong to them. So, on one side we have liars, and on another side we have thieves... That much is fact - the rest can wait until trial...

Is it true that in a court of law if a person has been proven to have given untruthful testimony you can discount their entire testimony as a juror? Well, I go by that rule in the court of public opinion too. The Petersons are a big fat bunch of liars and the Rochas are not.

I agree with you. (I think you mean witness and not juror though).