From 'Why did he?' to 'Did he?' in 28 days

[aimefisher]

A few days after he took Scott Peterson's case, defense lawyer Mark Geragos stood on the steps of the Stanislaus County courthouse surrounded by his new client's family and predicted public opinion of the murder suspect was about to change.

"I think it's only a matter of time before we're able to turn America's head around," Geragos told scores of reporters eager to gobble up any speck of information about Peterson and the killing of his pregnant wife, Laci, and unborn son.

At the time, Geragos' forecast seemed about as likely as June snow in Modesto. In the hot, dry California city and across the nation, Peterson was Public Enemy #1. When he was arrested, a throng of angry citizens greeted his arrival at the county jail with bloodthirsty chants and signs reading MURDERER. The front page of the New York Post showed Peterson in shackles beneath the headline "MONSTER IN CHAINS." And the California attorney general pronounced the case against Peterson "a slam dunk."

But in the 28 days since Geragos became Peterson's attorney, an improbable, but unmistakable shift in the public discussion of the crime has occurred. The question is no longer "How could he do it?" but "Did he do it?"

The change seems clearly the result of a series of press leaks — some directly credited to the defense side and others to unspecified sources — including speculation that Laci Peterson died at the hands of a Satanic cult and Thursday's revelation by MSNBC that the coroner found a plastic tape "noose" around the neck of the Petersons' unborn son, Conner, when his body was found on the eastern shore of the San Francisco Bay.

Geragos denied being the source of that leak and even volunteered to swear to it on the witness stand, but steamed prosecutors made clear they thought the defense was to blame. In court papers filed just hours after the report, prosecutors said the new information "skewed" toward Peterson's legal team and asked a judge to release the entire coroner's report publicly so "the media will see what the actual facts are."

Whoever the source, the report concerning the condition of baby Conner's body fit nicely with the Satanic cult theory of the murders advanced first through defense leaks and then openly by Geragos. About two weeks after the lawyer took over Peterson's case, NBC reported that the defense had information about cults operating in the Modesto area and speculated that Conner Peterson was cut from his mother's body during a Satanic ritual. Other reports citing defense sources indicated that when Peterson's body was recovered on the bay shoreline, it was mutilated in a manner consistent with ritual sacrifice, and still other outlets reported that the defense was chasing its own prime suspects, some apparently connected with a strange brown van and a suspicious man with 666 tattooed on his arm.

Although no one knows when Peterson's trial will begin, nor where it will be held — the defense is expected to ask for a change of venue — the leaks are likely the first effort to influence the panelists who will some day, in some courthouse, sit in judgment of Scott Peterson.

"There's been a concerted effort to try to change the hearts and minds of potential jurors," said Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levenson. "The strategy is to create questions now and hope that it will translate into reasonable doubt later."

Not all legal experts agree on its wisdom, however. Miami jury consultant Sandy Marks, who worked for the defense in the trials of Timothy McVeigh and William Kennedy Smith, said that, while putting the defense story out in the public arena can be useful, timing the release of information is important.

"Jurors — and people in general — have a short memory. This will only be good for the next week or two. If he's got substantial stuff, why leak it now? Let's save it for right before trial," Marks said.

Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer Harland Braun, who initially represented Robert Blake, disagreed.

"If you've got anything, get it out there or you are going to lose the jury," said Braun, no stranger to defending clients by going on the offense. Long before Blake was arrested, Braun released documents and audiotapes portraying Blake's murdered wife as a conniving grifter. In defense polling done after he made the information public, 80 percent of those surveyed believed Blake guilty, but 90 percent had a negative opinion about his alleged victim, Braun said.

Putting the information out is essential, Braun said, because jurors consider public opinion along with the law and evidence as they deliberate, and few panelists want to buck conventional wisdom with their verdicts.

"They are going to worry about what their neighbors think. Nobody wants to be regarded as a buffoon," said Braun.

Chicago-based jury consultant Paul Lisnek said the long window before the trial could actually help the defense to make the Satanic cult theory — which he described as "pretty far out there" — sound "more palatable."

"The more people hear something, the more reasonable it sounds. If you put this cult theory out now, by the time the trial happens, it will have become part of their reality and jurors will say, 'Oh yeah, the Satanic theory, I've heard about this," said Lisnek.

The volume of leaking may come to an end soon, however. Superior Court Judge Al Girolami, who is overseeing the case, has voiced concern about the massive media coverage and said he is leaning toward imposing a gag order, perhaps as early as next Friday.



www.courttv.com
http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/053003_ctv.html

[seawinds]

He is as GUILTY as OJ

[Tasha405]

Originally posted by seawinds
He is as GUILTY as OJ Oh, I agree!!

[Maeryn]

I haven't changed my original opinion. The satanic cult theory is totally bogus. The people originally targeted in the investigation of those allegations (as a result of oh-so-convenient anonymous tips) were Pagan/Wiccan. They don't even acknowledge the existence of Satan, and sacrificing animals or humans goes against the core of their belief system. I think Scooter's attorneys are just trying to blow smoke.

[schsa]

If there was any strong evidence that this was the work of some cult, then they would never have arrested Scott Peterson. He is so guilty that he should be ashamed to let his lawyer tell these tall tales.

[rain_cries]

If it was me and I didn't do it, I would be pitching a hissy fit - especially if there was fantastic proof that I didn't do it....

They really should do some research, though, if they are going to blame a Satanic cult... They blamed people who don't even acknowledge Satan. Now, if they presented their evidence about the other pregnant woman who was missing and found dead (and there is a thread about yet another missing pregnant woman - but I don't remember where she is from since my brain is on overload) and brought in the theory of a satanic cult without laying blame to a particular group or the possibility that there is a serial killer - and that there is also a woman who can beyond a doubt clear Mr. Peterson - he might have done a little bit better.

IMO - people are jumping on the he's a killer bandwagon because he cheated on his pregnant wife. Yes, that does make him scum - but he should be judged based on evidence, not emotions. Right now, the evideince points to him - plain and simple - and tossing out rumor and speculation isn't really helping his case any at all.

[suziebee20]

Originally posted by seawinds
He is as GUILTY as OJ

Was OJ guilty?

Anyway, I think it's most probible he is guilty.

[FireFox1973]

__________________________________
Originally posted by seawinds
He is as GUILTY as OJ
__________________________________

Ain't THAT the truth!!!

[justme23]

Originally posted by schsa
If there was any strong evidence that this was the work of some cult, then they would never have arrested Scott Peterson. He is so guilty that he should be ashamed to let his lawyer tell these tall tales.

I never understand why ppl say this... INNOCENT ppl are arrested ALL the time! Suspects are suspects, innocent or guilty, they are still arrested and getting arrested doesn't make ANYONE guilty... not specifically about this case, but it does include this one.

[HumNbirdMO]

The thing that bothers me the most is his complete lack of emotions...from the very beginning when she was just missing. I mean, one would think the man would at least look visably upset that his very pregnant wife had gone missing. Maybe I missed seeing it, but I never remember seeing him looking the least bit concerned about their disappearance. And when Laci and Connor were found, I never saw any emotion from him, nothing...no grief, anger, rage nothing. I mean, I know that the cameras were in his face constantly, but you would think that such a devasting event would break even the most emotionally strong person. Maybe he is an emotionless person, but I would think that such a despicable thing happening to 2 people you are supposed to care about would bring out some sort of an emotional response in a person, even if he didn't care for her, since he was cheating, that was his child she was carrying. The whole thing makes me sick, and if he did do it, I hope that he is fried for it.

[mesue]

Originally posted by HumNbirdMO
The thing that bothers me the most is his complete lack of emotions...from the very beginning when she was just missing. I mean, one would think the man would at least look visably upset that his very pregnant wife had gone missing. Maybe I missed seeing it, but I never remember seeing him looking the least bit concerned about their disappearance. And when Laci and Connor were found, I never saw any emotion from him, nothing...no grief, anger, rage nothing. I mean, I know that the cameras were in his face constantly, but you would think that such a devasting event would break even the most emotionally strong person. Maybe he is an emotionless person, but I would think that such a despicable thing happening to 2 people you are supposed to care about would bring out some sort of an emotional response in a person, even if he didn't care for her, since he was cheating, that was his child she was carrying. The whole thing makes me sick, and if he did do it, I hope that he is fried for it.

Everyone is different in their expressions of grief, especially when its in front of a camera that your not used to. I never cried at my Father's funeral, its not my way I bit my lip and refused to cry. From what I've seen from all the cases that have been in the media everything the suspect does is looked at suspiciously; if he had cried there would be just as many people shouting he was putting on an act for the camera.

[Danny]

But all he needs is enough reasonable doubt in one juror's mind and he will walk on the charges. And the judge will charge the jury accordingly with instructions to find him "not guilty" if there is any doubt at all.
That's why these attorney's make the big bucks - they odn't need to prove their client innocent - they only need to introduce a little confusion in the minds of the jury.

[Jolie Rouge]

pounce !

[Widgetsx3]

I am sticking with innocent until PROVEN guilty. I know people who were arrested for something they did not do. I was arrested for something my ex jerk did. While I DO conceed that things do not look good for him....I still think you can't believe all that you read in the paper (NY Times anyone) see online (goes without saying) and said by both the defense and prosecution. So I am holding judgement. JMHO

[justme23]

Originally posted by Widgetsx3
I am sticking with innocent until PROVEN guilty. I know people who were arrested for something they did not do. I was arrested for something my ex jerk did. While I DO conceed that things do not look good for him....I still think you can't believe all that you read in the paper (NY Times anyone) see online (goes without saying) and said by both the defense and prosecution. So I am holding judgement. JMHO


Thank you, I have been saying this all along but ppl (and I don't mean bbs, I mean the entire country) are so eager to believe what the media says and to judge that I don't even bother getting into the debate over it anymore.

[mom4angels]

Scott Peterson is guilty. I agree HumNbirdMO he has never showed one ounce of emotions towards his wife and unborn child. All of the garbage that is being leaked to the press is the defense trying to make the scum look innocent. I feel that just by watching his actions since Laci's went missing that he is quilty. When I watched his interview on TV it reminded me of when Susan Smith was telling her lies. I knew that girl was lying and so was Scott lying. He told Amber that he was a Widower and his wife died a year ago. Why would he say that , it is like he knew she was going to die? He also was suppose to be looking for his missing wife, but was really playing golf on several occassion. That is a person who wasn't very concerned that his pregnant wife was missing. He is a sick person that has no shame or remorse for what he has done. What is so sad is that his defense will more than likely get him off these charges and he will live his life, while poor Laci's and Conner can't.

[justme23]

Originally posted by mom4angels
Scott Peterson is guilty. I agree HumNbirdMO he has never showed one ounce of emotions towards his wife and unborn child. All of the garbage that is being leaked to the press is the defense trying to make the scum look innocent. I feel that just by watching his actions since Laci's went missing that he is quilty. When I watched his interview on TV it reminded me of when Susan Smith was telling her lies. I knew that girl was lying and so was Scott lying. He told Amber that he was a Widower and his wife died a year ago. Why would he say that , it is like he knew she was going to die? He also was suppose to be looking for his missing wife, but was really playing golf on several occassion. That is a person who wasn't very concerned that his pregnant wife was missing. He is a sick person that has no shame or remorse for what he has done. What is so sad is that his defense will more than likely get him off these charges and he will live his life, while poor Laci's and Conner can't.

Ok, I agree that Susan Smith was guilty, but she eventually admitted it and so therefore we knew... but did you know this stuff about Darlie Routiere (or however you spell her name), which is a good example of now the media works against us in alot of cases.


Have you ever watched the show American Justice when they focus on Darlies trial? Most of the country thought she was guilty cause all they saw of her was a little bit of a very long tape where she sprayed a little silly string on her childs grave. 'Oh, that is not what grief looks like, she's absolutely guilty!'. I just don't get that attitude, especially since they've shown that tape almost in it's entirety on tv now and they spend 45 minutes having a 'normal' memorial service, everybody crying, holding hands, hugging and remembering the boys. But all the media wanted to show you was the birthday party which was Darlies SISTERS idea! And before anyone can say she was 'acting' for a camera, she was under surveilance and was NOT aware she was being videotaped. Also, all the media told us on the news were that she had 'surface knife wounds' and the world believed they were self inflicted cause that little bit of information is all they (the media) thought you needed to know. Not true, there are pictures of Darlie later that night after being arrested that show that woman with BLACK ARMS AND CHEST! She OBVIOUSLY struggled w/ someone, even the best faker couldn't bruise themself to the extent this woman was bruised to. As well as the fact that they found her childs blood and one of her socks all the way at the end of their street... a street that would take a normal person 10 minutes to get to the end to running at full speed and she apparently did it TWICE in 6? Ran there AND BACK in SIX minutes just to plant evidence? Just because the media says something, even if true, does NOT mean it's the WHOLE truth and even if Darlie is guilty, there's alot of stuff the public doesn't know cause they apparently prefer to be in the dark where it's ok to judge w/out all the evidence. Now we have this wonderful thing called court tv, and when Scotts trial finally does happen (and I think it's wrong to think him even more guilty cause his defense team leaked some information to plant some doubt in the jury pools mind... he may have objected and they did it anyway... we DON'T know!) we will ALL know the evidence at the same time the jury does... there will be no guessing anymore and I bet before it's over that more than one of you who thinks he should fry will change your mind!

[mesue]

Originally posted by justme23
Ok, I agree that Susan Smith was guilty, but she eventually admitted it and so therefore we knew... but did you know this stuff about Darlie Routiere (or however you spell her name), which is a good example of now the media works against us in alot of cases.


Have you ever watched the show American Justice when they focus on Darlies trial? Most of the country thought she was guilty cause all they saw of her was a little bit of a very long tape where she sprayed a little silly string on her childs grave. 'Oh, that is not what grief looks like, she's absolutely guilty!'. I just don't get that attitude, especially since they've shown that tape almost in it's entirety on tv now and they spend 45 minutes having a 'normal' memorial service, everybody crying, holding hands, hugging and remembering the boys. But all the media wanted to show you was the birthday party which was Darlies SISTERS idea! And before anyone can say she was 'acting' for a camera, she was under surveilance and was NOT aware she was being videotaped. Also, all the media told us on the news were that she had 'surface knife wounds' and the world believed they were self inflicted cause that little bit of information is all they (the media) thought you needed to know. Not true, there are pictures of Darlie later that night after being arrested that show that woman with BLACK ARMS AND CHEST! She OBVIOUSLY struggled w/ someone, even the best faker couldn't bruise themself to the extent this woman was bruised to. As well as the fact that they found her childs blood and one of her socks all the way at the end of their street... a street that would take a normal person 10 minutes to get to the end to running at full speed and she apparently did it TWICE in 6? Ran there AND BACK in SIX minutes just to plant evidence? Just because the media says something, even if true, does NOT mean it's the WHOLE truth and even if Darlie is guilty, there's alot of stuff the public doesn't know cause they apparently prefer to be in the dark where it's ok to judge w/out all the evidence. Now we have this wonderful thing called court tv, and when Scotts trial finally does happen (and I think it's wrong to think him even more guilty cause his defense team leaked some information to plant some doubt in the jury pools mind... he may have objected and they did it anyway... we DON'T know!) we will ALL know the evidence at the same time the jury does... there will be no guessing anymore and I bet before it's over that more than one of you who thinks he should fry will change your mind!


I agree. Is this the case(Darlies) that they made a movie about in which Farah Fawcett Majors played Darlie, the one where one of the children died and the others testified that she shot them?

[justme23]

Originally posted by mesue
I agree. Is this the case(Darlies) that they made a movie about in which Farah Fawcett Majors played Darlie, the one where one of the children died and the others testified that she shot them?

No! That woman WAS guilty! This was a woman in a burb just outside of Dallas county. She's sitting on death row for the death of her two oldest boys. She obviously was found guilty, but I am one of those ppl that believes in her innocence. Here's a link:

http://donlemaire.homestead.com/darlieroutier.html


If you have the RealOne Player, you can watch the episode of American Justice I quoted above, and there's several other tv spots they have done on her as well... from 20/20 and local news sources.

There's also a poll on there...

Should Darlie be Freed?
YES(1259) 50%
NO(938) 37%
UNSURE(320) 13%


2517 total votes since 10/28/01


Anyways, I know this post was about scott peterson and I wasn't trying to change the subject, just trying to show how the media only gives us tiny morsels of a HUGE picture... and those tiny morsels are all about ratings, which they get... but generally they are misleading at the least!

[Jolie Rouge]

[quote]A Hole In Scott Peterson's Alibi?

Where was Scott Peterson on Dec. 24, 2002 when his pregnant wife, Laci, disappeared from their Modesto, Calif., home?

He has always used the same alibi: He was fishing near Berkeley.

Now comes word from the Fox News Channel that Laci's sister, Amy, cut Scott's hair on Dec. 23 in her Modesto beauty parlor. While she snipped, he told her that he had firm golf plans for the next day--Dec. 24--including a specific tee time. Scott also volunteered to run an errand for Amy on his way home from golf.

Of course, he never did play golf or run that errand.

Soon after the decomposed remains of Laci and their son, whom they would have named Conner, washed ashore in San Francisco in April, Peterson was arrested for their murders. Now Fox is speculating this could be a hole in Peterson's alibi.


Meanwhile, an unnamed source from Peterson's defense team, which is led by attorney Mark Geragos, says not only is Peterson innocent, but also the real murderer is someone named "Donnie," who may have links with drugs. The source told Fox the defense team thinks Donnie is the mysterious man spotted in the tan van on the Peterson's street the day Laci vanished.

Fox News reports that police detectives who are working the case are just as angry about the "Donnie" theory as they are about the one involving a satanic cult. All of this has led the judge in the highly-publicized case to consider issuing a gag order. "The gag order will definitely reduce the theatrical nature of the information we are getting," Fox News legal expert Stan Goldman told the Fox Sacramento station KTXL. "We will no longer have lots of sensational comments being made in front of microphones by the attorneys or the investigators."


Click to see a map that shows where the remains of Laci and Conner were found in relation to the Peterson's Modesto home and the site where Scott says he was fishing.

www.cnn.com/interactive/maps/us/dateline.richmond.california/frameset.exclude.html

[justme23]

I guess I don't see how that puts a hole in anyones alibi, plans change all the time and ppl lie to better their cases (the defense AND the prosecutions side) all the time... so this just seems exactly as was said in the article ... sensationalism.

[Widgetsx3]

May you never be tried before a jury of your peers with preconceived judgements. Innocent until PROVEN guilty....

[justme23]

Originally posted by Widgetsx3
May you never be tried before a jury of your peers with preconceived judgements. Innocent until PROVEN guilty....

I'm sorry, who was that too? Coming in just after my last post I'm not sure if it's directed at me... and being what would appear a Peterson supporter, I'm kinda confused?

[Widgetsx3]

Nope....not you...I was in the middle of a post...and walked away to put DS in bed....submitted after you...sorry for the confusion

[mom4angels]

Originally posted by Widgetsx3
May you never be tried before a jury of your peers with preconceived judgements. Innocent until PROVEN guilty....


I assume this was meant for me or anyone that thinks Scott Peterson is guilty. I felt he was guilty after watching him(the man himself) in the press. I am not just going by just what the press is saying. He has shown a lack of emotions towards his wife and unborn child. He has lied about things on his interview with Diane Sawyers and called back to get them to change his story before it aired. He was fishing the same place that her body was taken. The worst thing that he had said was when he told Amber that he was a widow and that his wife died a year ago. That is just plain sick. I realize that this is just what the press is saying he said to her and that it is just hear say. But I think that it was her sister that told them or it was something that she told the cops. What about when he changed his hair color and had 10 thousand dollars in the car with him. I don't think that he just wanted a makeover. All of the evidence will come out in the trail. You have your opinion and I have mine. I will not be tried before a jury of any kind because I live on the right side of the law. I don't commit crimes.:eek:

[mesue]

He may be guilty but I'm not sure one way or the other, the problem with the way the media is handling this makes me think of the Jon Benet case where the media seemed to intentionally shoot scenes to make them look guilty, like the snow all over the yard scene when there were clearly plenty of places the perp could have went in without steppping in snow and leaving footprints. The police targeted them also and for years this family was treated badly when they were already suffering the loss of a child, recently the police admitted they were innocent and that there was someone elses DNA on that childs body other than family.

[schsa]

The Ramsey case was screwed up from the begining because of the the shoddy police work. It is very possible that it wasn't someone in the family but because the investigation was so poorly handled in the first 24 hours, much of what could have been used as evidence was mucked up.

As for the Peterson case, if he isn't guilty then there had better be some really good evidence besides all of this cult misinformation and now this mystery Donnie person. This is just his defense team trying to put doubt in people's minds about his guilt. It's a wonderful ploy and it may have some impact. However in the end if there isn't hard evidence pointing to either of these groups, his defense is going to fall apart very quickly.

[slkirk22]

I think he is guilty as for the Satanic Cult thing who is to say he wasn't in that cult??????????:confused:

[mesue]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by schsa
[B]The Ramsey case was screwed up from the begining because of the the shoddy police work. It is very possible that it wasn't someone in the family but because the investigation was so poorly handled in the first 24 hours, much of what could have been used as evidence was mucked up.


Your right, actually one of the investigators that was hired by the police to look into this and later fired due to his conclusion. They also tried to keep his investigation from the frand jury, he figured out what the marks on the little girls neck were (a taser, used to keep her quiet so that the perp could get her out of her room quietly), and put it all together that the parents were not responsible and then when he came to the conclusion that they were not responsible he was let go. But the media used everything to make them look guilty, they even took the fact that the child saw her pediatrician more then the average child and tried to make that look criminal.

[justme23]

Originally posted by mom4angels
I will not be tried before a jury of any kind because I live on the right side of the law. I don't commit crimes.:eek:


I find it particularly interesting in this day and age, that ppl still say this. I would say do a search on the internet of all the ppl who have been freed that were unjustly arrested, convicted, and later released due to someone finally having a conscience or some other form of evidence comes in to play, but that generally falls on deaf ears. To think that we are safe because we don't break the law is about as silly as believing whole heartedly that everyone in prison is there cause they should be and that the percentages of wrongly convicted individuals is low. It's not near as low as the law makers would have us believe, they just refuse appeal after appeal... allow unjust state sanctioned murders ... and more, all because prosecutors and police officials hate to admit making a mistake. I know it's hard to believe, it was hard for me to believe for a long time too... until I became passionate about opposing the death penalty and started doing my research... there is enough reasonable doubt and new evidence to (especially since DNA has become so easilly tested) get new trials for ALOT of ppl in jail... but the states keep refusing appeals.

[Maeryn]

Originally posted by slkirk22
I think he is guilty as for the Satanic Cult thing who is to say he wasn't in that cult??????????:confused:

Because it doesn't exist. The so-called "Well-Known Satanic Cult" that was targeted by the defense team is actually the local Pagan/Wiccan community.

[mom4angels]

Originally posted by justme23
I find it particularly interesting in this day and age, that ppl still say this. I would say do a search on the internet of all the ppl who have been freed that were unjustly arrested, convicted, and later released due to someone finally having a conscience or some other form of evidence comes in to play, but that generally falls on deaf ears. To think that we are safe because we don't break the law is about as silly as believing whole heartedly that everyone in prison is there cause they should be and that the percentages of wrongly convicted individuals is low. It's not near as low as the law makers would have us believe, they just refuse appeal after appeal... allow unjust state sanctioned murders ... and more, all because prosecutors and police officials hate to admit making a mistake. I know it's hard to believe, it was hard for me to believe for a long time too... until I became passionate about opposing the death penalty and started doing my research... there is enough reasonable doubt and new evidence to (especially since DNA has become so easilly tested) get new trials for ALOT of ppl in jail... but the states keep refusing appeals.

I never said that there wasn't innocent people that have been convicted of a crime they didn't commit. I believe the girl that has been talked about in this thread was wrongly accused of killing her children. I also know that the justice system sucks when these people try to get out of prison. But I bet there are more quilty then innocent people in the prison system. I am sorry that you feel that what I said is silly. I was just responding to someone passing judgement on what I said. I also was just voicing my opinion about Scott Peterson . I thought that you could say what you feel on here without someone always coming back with something negative, but I guess I was wrong. The whole time I have been on this board I have never put anyone views down or called what they said was silly. It is pretty bad that alot of that goes on around because there have been some nice people on here that have helped me. I appreciate that. I am just sorry that there are a few that feels that their opinions are right and everyone is wrong.

:eek: :rolleyes:

[justme23]

Originally posted by mom4angels
I never said that there wasn't innocent people that have been convicted of a crime they didn't commit. I believe the girl that has been talked about in this thread was wrongly accused of killing her children. I also know that the justice system sucks when these people try to get out of prison. But I bet there are more quilty then innocent people in the prison system. I am sorry that you feel that what I said is silly. I was just responding to someone passing judgement on what I said. I also was just voicing my opinion about Scott Peterson . I thought that you could say what you feel on here without someone always coming back with something negative, but I guess I was wrong. The whole time I have been on this board I have never put anyone views down or called what they said was silly. It is pretty bad that alot of that goes on around because there have been some nice people on here that have helped me. I appreciate that. I am just sorry that there are a few that feels that their opinions are right and everyone is wrong.

:eek: :rolleyes:


I don't believe I called you silly... I said the idea of believing no one in prison is wrongly convicted is silly... there's quite a difference in saying this and calling YOU silly. I have been known to name call, but I wouldn't do it over something like this... it wouldn't really get my point across very well doing so in such a manner... sorry you took it wrong. :)

[mom4angels]

I am sorry too if I took it wrong too. I never said that there isn't
wrongly accused people in prison. I know that there is alot of them there. Like I said that lady that is on death row was wronly accused by the press and the court system. I really feel for these people. I went back and read your reply and I got to touchy and I am sorry for that. I guess that everybody should just agree to disagree on some issues. Sorry again

[justme23]

Originally posted by mom4angels
I am sorry too if I took it wrong too. I never said that there isn't
wrongly accused people in prison. I know that there is alot of them there. Like I said that lady that is on death row was wronly accused by the press and the court system. I really feel for these people. I went back and read your reply and I got to touchy and I am sorry for that. I guess that everybody should just agree to disagree on some issues. Sorry again

Hey, I've been known to name call, as I said... and I probably would have taken it that way too after rereading it... but don't be sorry, it's no big deal. :)

[Jolie Rouge]

Van inspected in Peterson case

From David Mattingly -- CNN
Thursday, June 5, 2003 Posted: 4:12 AM EDT (0812 GMT)

www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/04/peterson.case/index.html


MODESTO, California (CNN) -- A brown van has been taken to a crime lab where it has been examined in connection with the Laci Peterson murder case.

The van first came under suspicion four days after Peterson's disappearance from her Modesto home on Christmas Eve 2002. A statement made to police describes a sexual assault and satanic ritual in the van and an advance warning of a Christmas Day murder. The owners of the van allowed it to be towed to a state crime lab on Friday, according to Stanislaus County District Attorney James Brazelton.

The defense team for Laci Peterson's husband, Scott, has advanced the theory that the people responsible for the alleged rape in the van are also responsible for her slaying.

Scott Peterson, 30, is awaiting trial on two counts of murder for the deaths of his pregnant, 27-year-old wife and their unborn son. Prosecutors have said they will seek the death penalty if he is convicted.

Police investigated the van and its owners and decided they were not involved in Laci Peterson's disappearance or death, and the district attorney continues to state the owners have been cleared of any involvement.

"Several people associated with the van were investigated, interviewed, and excluded as not having any involvement in the disappearance of Laci Peterson. None of these persons has been arrested," Brazelton said in a statement Tuesday.

A defense source said Wednesday the team is convinced of its theory because its own investigator has examined the van and found important clues, including duct tape and other tape inside the van, stains that could be blood stains, and a satanic image etched in the van's glass.

Stanislaus County authorities have not confirmed any of these findings.

The initial report was made to Modesto Police December 28. In it, a sexual assault counselor says a woman claimed to her that she was raped by two men and two women in a brown van.

As part of the rape, the woman allegedly told the counselor, a satanic ritual was conducted.

"The victim said that during the ritual, the group mentioned a Christmas Day death, and that she would read about it in the paper," the police statement reads.

The rape allegedly happened about a week and a half before Laci Peterson went missing.

Modesto Police said they checked out the report and found a brown van parked near a reservoir. Police investigated two couples associated with the van and determined they had no involvement in the Peterson case.

That finding was made in part because the woman who came forward to say she was raped appeared to have mental problems, the counselor said.

CNN spoke Wednesday to the counselor, who says that based upon what she knows about this particular investigation, the counselor is now certain that police made the right determination about the van and the two couples.

The defense has contended that police focused entirely on Scott Peterson in their investigation and were quick to dismiss what the defense believes were other credible leads.

[mesue]

So now if you have mental problems you can't be raped. This so silly why they just say they now believe she was lying instead of mental problems, who knows maybe she developed them after being raped.

[mom4angels]

Originally posted by mesue
So now if you have mental problems you can't be raped. This so silly why they just say they now believe she was lying instead of mental problems, who knows maybe she developed them after being raped.


I agree with you. I can't stand when people look at those subjects lightly. The women could have had problems afterwards , I know I would gone completely insane if I had been attacked by four people.
One person is bad enough but four people give me a break.

[Jolie Rouge]

Originally posted by mesue
So now if you have mental problems you can't be raped. This so silly why they just say they now believe she was lying instead of mental problems, who knows maybe she developed them after being raped.

No - but it may make it harder to procecute if the witness has "credablity issues". Not saying this is right - but it is the way things are because it gives the defense (or prosecution) a way to "eliminate" testimony.

And the woman may have started saying things that would not hold up in court - did she tell anyone about this before they started looking for a brown van connected with "Satanist" ? Does she have a history of "alien abductions"?

[rain_cries]

I think it would be wise to look into everything. If he did it, he needs to be brought to justice and if he didn't, then the police need to find who is killing pregnant women and their unborn children.

I would really like to know how Connor got a cord around his neck if he hadn't been born yet.