Skip to comments.
Remains to be released to family; dogs, hypnosis may be part of hearing
The Modesto Bee ^
| August 19, 2003
| John Cote'
Posted on 08/20/2003 5:23:46 AM PDT by runningbear
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-105 next last
To: Devil_Anse
You may be right and probably are, Anse. It's just that a lot of people (myself included), would wonder how a fair, impartial, objective judge, who is working under a presumption of innocence for the defendant, would let a tape made by the prosecution's witness (BEFORE she began working with LE), be played. Such a tape IMO would come under the heading of a personal agenda.
To: Devil_Anse
Duh, thanks, Anse.
To: Sandylapper
You know what? I (search) never was any good at doing those "explain such-and-such in 25 words or less" things.
To: Sandylapper
Personal agenda? Her personal agenda was that she was romantically interested in Scott! So what?! (At least, she was interested in him before she began to suspect that he'd killed his wife and baby and thrown them in the bay... sigh... it's always something, just when a person thinks she's found Mr. Right... )
To: Scenic Sounds
Good point. If they haven't got much to show, I guess the best defense strategy is for everyone to sit back and keep their big fat flapping lips shut! (Picture Geragos doing THAT... nahhhhh... )
To: Scenic Sounds
Good point. If they haven't got much to show, I guess the best defense strategy is for everyone to sit back and keep their big fat flapping lips shut! (Picture Geragos doing THAT... nahhhhh... )
To: Devil_Anse
Fantastic!
I love your version... but "what if" he simply had a pinched nerve and was trying to make an appointment with his masseuse? (grin)
67
posted on
08/25/2003 8:57:31 PM PDT
by
Velveeta
To: Devil_Anse
Personal agenda? Her personal agenda was that she was romantically interested in Scott!Well, I know, but she could have been wanting to give a baby shower and knew she couldn't do it while Laci was missing. /saracasm off
68
posted on
08/25/2003 9:02:40 PM PDT
by
Sandylapper
(GM's? I had two. Nancy and Letitia)
To: Velveeta
Pinched nerve... hmmmmm! No, wait, I know! He had undiagnosed Spastic Speech Syndrome! This odd syndrome makes a person blurt out inappropriate words in the middle of a normal conversation.
"Amber, you are the light REDRUM! of my life. I can't live DIE! without you, sweetie. I didn't YES! do anything..."
To: runningbear
been kind of busy with a crazy summer Boy, I can certainly relate to that :):)
To: Devil_Anse
He had undiagnosed Spastic Speech Syndrome! This odd syndrome makes a person blurt out inappropriate words in the middle of a normal conversation.The proper DSM-IV term for that would be: Amberette Syndrome
Recent studies report a close link between Amberette Syndrome and Killthebrunette Syndrome. Initial (unconfirmed) reports suggest that peddling manure and the unresloved conflict of yearning for a Corvette and a Bimbette, contribute to the disastrous consequences.
The good news is that a combination of three drugs (sodium pentothal, an anesthetic which puts the afflicted to sleep; Pancuronium, which paralyzes the muscles and stops breathing; and potassium chloride, which stops the heart)permanently cures this syndrome.
71
posted on
08/25/2003 9:47:31 PM PDT
by
Velveeta
To: Velveeta
Velveeta, that post was a masterpiece!
And I'm sending in your two new syndromes to Syndrome-lover's Monthly!
"Yes...uh...uh...but no..." Guess he was feeling Amberbivalent that day.
To: Sandylapper
LOL! That Amber! Always giving baby showers!
To: Devil_Anse
In a Fox News exclusive, sources close to the case said that during a taped phone call between Peterson and Frey, Frey asked her former lover whether he'd had anything to do with his wife Laci Peterson (search)'s disappearance. Responded Peterson, according to the sources: "Yes
uh
uh
but no. But I know who did and I'll tell you later when I see you."
I'm going to make this a hypothethical that the Sandlapper and I were having this same conversation about a person/family member, (not me, of course), and tell you how I would interpret it. I would think Sandlapper was telling me that yes, he knew something about it, maybe paid somebody to do it, but he didn't do it himself. It does not speak to murder--it speaks to kidnapping.
To: Sandylapper
I don't know; I prefer to look at it as being more hopeful (that he will pay for what he apparently did).
The article said she asked him whether he had anything to do with Laci's disappearance. I envision her question as being just that: "Scott, did you have anything to do with her disappearing?" His initial answer: "yes".
I interpret that as "yes, I had something to do with her disappearing."
And we all know that Laci didn't just wander off, or go home to mother. She was TAKEN away.
To: Sandylapper
this isn't new "news"....I read about what he said to AMber some time ago...including the part about how he knew who did "it"....
I go to a lot of forums, but I really believe that I read it here on FR....
76
posted on
08/25/2003 11:07:21 PM PDT
by
cherry
To: Devil_Anse
The article said she asked him whether he had anything to do with Laci's disappearance. I envision her question as being just that: "Scott, did you have anything to do with her disappearing?" His initial answer: "yes".Well, we can hope that was her exact question, but we weren't given direct quotes on her question. The question could just as well have been, "Scott, do you know anything about your wife's disappearance"?
The conversation that will be equally interesting will be the one where he admits that he HAS a wife. Remember, Amber supposedly learned that he HAD a wife from a taped conversation between Scott and her.
To: cherry
So, Rita is just trying to stir the pot with old news? I thought I recalled seeing this astounding news some time back. Small wonder no one but Fox was saying much about it.
To: Sandylapper
Sure, but the article portrays it as her asking him if he had anything to do with his wife's disappearance. If it's wrong about that, it could be wrong about his "yes". But Fox supposedly is at least reputable, and at least presumably checks out stories b/f publishing them.
Suppose she HAD just asked him "do you know anything about your wife's disappearance?" Well... and he answers YES??!
Even with Vel's earlier scenario--in which Scott claims he killed Laci b/c the satanists made him do it--even with that, Scott would still be a principal. So what if someone "made" him do it? He's not off the hook for murder in that event. And if he merely "knew something" about her disappearance, well, that sounds like he's liable as an accomplice, at least.
I mean, criminal law doesn't vary TOO much from state to state. And I know that in this state, if you take part, you can be held liable as a PRINCIPAL--even if others were doing more of the crime than you were. That is, for example, if you are the getaway driver for the bank robbers, and you never even go into the bank, you can still be convicted of bank robbery, right along with the guys who actually went inside.
And I know you know that, for example, if a man hires someone to kill his wife in some American city, and then hops a plane to Paris, and the hired killer kills her, the guy who hopped the plane to Paris is still legally guilty of murder.
To: Sandylapper; cherry
I remember hearing that Amber had asked him if he had anything to do with it. I remember that the answer he made was supposedly: "no, but I know who did..."
Never have I heard that he initially said the word "yes" in response to her question!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-105 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson