Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 5/27/2003 11:07:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/27/2003 11:14:27 AM EDT by rainman]
Maybe it was some kind of devils cult. And if he did do it, where did he actually commit the dastardly deed of dismembering? This guy might be a jerk and a cheater but he may not be a murderer.
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 11:13:08 AM EDT
Ya.
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 11:16:01 AM EDT
I'd never heard that she was dismembered, but I admit to not following the story that closely.
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 11:18:18 AM EDT
Yes
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 11:25:53 AM EDT
Originally Posted By rainman: Maybe it was some kind of devils cult.
View Quote
Yeah, it was probably the same cult that killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman.
And if he did do it, where did he actually commit the dastardly deed of dismembering?
View Quote
Last I heard they had not determined whether she had been dismembered or just fell apart in the water. (sorry for being graphic)
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 11:26:23 AM EDT
I see the defense lawyer scum is doing a good job at poisoning the jury pool of public attention. Bravo council!!! Just a little recap; Scott owned a boat. Scott "went fisking" Dec 24. There was cement in the boat. Laci was missing on Dec 24. Laci was found in the Delta probably drowned by cement shoes. My verdict? [i]SHOOT HIM!!![/i] Sgtar15[white]Saving tax dollars one criminal at a time[/white]
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 11:26:43 AM EDT
His appearance change and having a lot of cash and his brother's passport makes him appear to be guilty.
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 11:31:49 AM EDT
Originally Posted By sgtar15: I see the defense lawyer scum is doing a good job at poisoning the jury pool of public attention. Bravo council!!! Just a little recap; Scott owned a boat. Scott "went fisking" Dec 24. There was cement in the boat. Laci was missing on Dec 24. Laci was found in the Delta probably drowned by cement shoes. My verdict? [i]SHOOT HIM!!![/i] Sgtar15[white]Saving tax dollars one criminal at a time[/white]
View Quote
I agree, they both should be shot. Even if this scumbag knows his client is guilty he will still try to get him off. Dispicable.
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 11:34:57 AM EDT
All of us here figured he did it from the start, and we talked about how he had "dumped the body real good".Then when the bodies surfaced it was "well that didn't work after all". Now when the bodies were found, Scott didn't go to the scene, he didn't call the Modesto coroner to find out if it was them. No, he changed his looks, withdrew $10,000, had his brothers ID and was headed for Mexico, because he knew who had been found!
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 11:44:04 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SeaDweller:
Originally Posted By sgtar15: My verdict? [i]SHOOT HIM!!![/i] Sgtar15
View Quote
I agree, they both should be shot. Even if this scumbag knows his client is guilty he will still try to get him off. Dispicable.
View Quote
Well, I meant shoot Scott Peterson, but shooting the defense lawyer is also a very good idea.[;)] Sgatr15
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 11:46:30 AM EDT
Lord Have Mercy! This guy is as guilty as sin! Jeepers but you folks have a low threshold of credulity! Now, whether or not a jury would ever convict him on the evidence that's been amassed by the DA so far, who knows? Eric The(Hang'EmHigh!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 11:46:57 AM EDT
Coincidence that he referred to his wife as "dead" to his girl friend Amber? Coincidence that he went fishing the day she went missing and that she shows up in an area nearby? Those cultists would have to be awfully lucky to get all this suspicion on a logical suspect such as Scott. The attorney down in San Diego that defended the child abductor/murderer knew his client was guilty but threw out scenarios he knew to be untrue (the guy was ready to plead and reveal the whereabouts of the body but they found it first), technically unethical but never prosecuted or punished.
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 11:48:18 AM EDT
A lot of criminal defense attorney's shoot back and follow the blood trail back to your family and slaughter them too in such a manner that the attorney won't get caught. Just something to consider.
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 11:48:53 AM EDT
someone out there actually thinks that he's innocent?!?!?! oh, wait, then again OJ is still looking for the real killers..........[rolleyes]
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 11:50:42 AM EDT
Sounds like I need to sit on the jury cause I have no fracking Idea who or what you are talking about.
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 11:55:38 AM EDT
Maybe Gary Condit, the Ramseys, and OJ can all help find the real killer.
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 12:02:29 PM EDT
Maybe Gary Condit, the Ramseys and OJ can all be hired by FOX as court trial analysts. [;)]
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 12:07:59 PM EDT
Everything points to that bastard being guilty! May he rot in hell!
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 12:10:33 PM EDT
Went to school at CalPoly SLO when he was there. Wife and his ex-girfriend are really good friends. They dated for about 4 months. Yes, he was dating the ex-girlfriend when he was married to Lasie. I would say the guy is guilty as sin!!! FWIW: CalPoly has a great slaughter class in the ASCI department that many Ag majors take. Its kinda cool.
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 12:13:37 PM EDT
He is innocent.
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 12:23:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/27/2003 12:24:34 PM EDT by jfrush]
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: He is innocent.
View Quote
Well you changed my mind! how can I refute your detailed, well thought out argument.
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 12:30:21 PM EDT
He's as guilty as O.J.
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 12:35:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By jfrush:
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: He is innocent.
View Quote
Well you changed my mind! how can I refute your detailed, well thought out argument.
View Quote
I know it is abhorrent to your cause, but you NEO-CONs should try reading the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 12:38:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Strudle54: He's as guilty as O.J.
View Quote
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 12:43:13 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sgtar15: I see the defense lawyer scum is doing a good job at poisoning the jury pool of public attention. Bravo council!!! Just a little recap; Scott owned a boat. Scott "went fisking" Dec 24. There was cement in the boat. Laci was missing on Dec 24. Laci was found in the Delta probably drowned by cement shoes. My verdict? [i]SHOOT HIM!!![/i] Sgtar15[white]Saving tax dollars one criminal at a time[/white]
View Quote
Can't risk having defense counsel poinoning the jury pool. Only the prosecution is allowed to do that. I love the way people will make up their minds based on what the cops/prosecution choose to tell the press, but if when the defense puts out an alternate story he's "lawyer scum" "poisoning the jury pool." Face it, the pool was poisoned long before the defense lawyer got into the game.
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 12:45:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/27/2003 12:45:48 PM EDT by jfrush]
Originally Posted By Imbroglio:
Originally Posted By jfrush:
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: He is innocent.
View Quote
Well you changed my mind! how can I refute your detailed, well thought out argument.
View Quote
I know it is abhorrent to your cause, but you NEO-CONs should try reading the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
View Quote
Lets see the subject of this thread is [b]Scott Peterson.......Still Think He Did It?[/b]. Let me get out my copy of the constitution.... Checking... Checking... Checking... Nope sorry I can't find where it says I must think someone is innocent. Innocent until proven guilty refers to a trial. If I was on Petersons Jury I would weigh the evidence, and If the prosecuters did not prove their case I would vote not guilty.
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 1:09:49 PM EDT
Presumed innocent until proven guilty does not have anything to to with the fact that if he did it, he's guilty. My opinion doesn't carry much legal weight, so I can afford to be far less judicial in my opinions. [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 1:29:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By jfrush:
Originally Posted By rainman: Maybe it was some kind of devils cult.
View Quote
Yeah, it was probably the same cult that killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman.
View Quote
That cult probably killed JonBenet Ramsey as well. I mean, what else could it have been. I heard some talking head on the tube say that nobody has been convicted of a satanic cult killing since the witch trials in Salem. True? Personally, I find alien abduction (and dumping in bay following violent anal probing) more plausible than satanic cult. [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 2:05:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: He is innocent.
View Quote
Damn, I agree with Imbroglio! [stick] I just haven't seen enough to prove to me that he did it. And I am usually deadon on these type of cases. (no pun intendted) ED
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 2:46:35 PM EDT
Selling the wife's car to buy a new one for yourself. Putting the house up for sell. Sounds like he was pretty confident that someone wasn't coming back. Don't look good for him and the Alien Abduction/Anal Probe-gone-awry-disaster makes as much sense as anything else that has been said by the Defense Lawyers. But he is innocent till proven guilty by law so let's hope that the Jury Pool is not composed of a bunch of half-wits (It's Kalifornia after all).
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 2:54:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Imbroglio:
Originally Posted By jfrush:
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: He is innocent.
View Quote
Well you changed my mind! how can I refute your detailed, well thought out argument.
View Quote
I know it is abhorrent to your cause, but you NEO-CONs should try reading the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
View Quote
What cause would that be, Idiotbroglio? The Constitution does not say a damn thing regarding whether we choose to think he is guilty or not. Ah, yes, NEO-CONS, as opposed to the Libertarian Party who: 1. Wants NO military 2. Wants NO licensing of anyone, including doctors. 3. Says that we deserved September 11, 2001 4. Wants complete isolationism. While I have libertarian ideals, I see the Libertarian party as nothing but far left anarchists.
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 5:15:29 PM EDT
Presumed Innocent until proven guilty. None of you know the facts, therefor you are not equipped to have an accurate educated opinion or judge him. Time will tell!
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 5:29:08 PM EDT
I dunn't see nuthin here about opinions needing to be accurate or informed Lucy. Peterson did a hell of a good job of poisoning the jury pool before anybody else got involved. Our Buddy Lockyer shouldha kept his yap shut though.
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 5:45:46 PM EDT
Evidence to be presented at trial: One pair size 14 Bruno Magli shoes. One pair slightly used leather gloves. A boarding pass stub for Chicago. Oh, that was another "innocent" person.....LOL!
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 6:03:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By rainman: Maybe Gary Condit, the Ramseys and OJ can all be hired by FOX as court trial analysts. [;)]
View Quote
He's way ahead of you brother! OJ has already reportedly contacted many news stations asking for a job as the correspondent and commentator for this little circus.
Link Posted: 5/28/2003 3:30:44 PM EDT
I say "If the boat don't fit you must acquit." [:D] Execute the defense attorney? I sure hope you are never charged with a crime you didn't commit and need a defense attorney to save your ass.
Link Posted: 5/28/2003 10:50:25 PM EDT
Who fookin cares?
Link Posted: 5/28/2003 11:20:19 PM EDT
Were they rich? I find it interesting that hundreds of people get murdered in this country by various means and they go unnoticed unless they possess some sort of superwealth or are politically connected or something along those lines. If someone murdered me under mysterious circumstances, it wouldn't get much national coverage. Just because I am not rich or connected. And I think OJ is guilty and the Ramsey parents are connected with their daughter's murder, IMHO.
Link Posted: 5/28/2003 11:46:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LARRYG: Ah, yes, NEO-CONS, as opposed to the Libertarian Party who: 1. Wants NO military 2. Wants NO licensing of anyone, including doctors. 3. Says that we deserved September 11, 2001 4. Wants complete isolationism. While I have libertarian ideals, I see the Libertarian party as nothing but far left anarchists.
View Quote
With all due respect, WTF are you smoking? I joined the Constitution Party because I didn't care for "some" of the Libertarian Party platform. But, what you wrote above is ludicrous! I never heard of what you wrote. So, as to not hijack this thread, please IM me your sources or start another thread. I would be interested in knowing where you got your information. And to be on topic, yes, I think he did it. But, he deserves a fair trial.
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 3:04:51 AM EDT
Originally Posted By rkbar15: I say "If the boat don't fit you must acquit." [:D] Execute the defense attorney? I sure hope you are never charged with a crime you didn't commit and need a defense attorney to save your ass.
View Quote
My complaint was that [red][b]IF[/b][/red] the scumbag defense attorney knew he was guilty he would still try to get his sorry ass off, CLEAN. WTF you call that?
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 4:56:47 AM EDT
Peterson isn't guilty? [shock] Holy Crap what alternative universe did you just come from? Just on what we know now this ass hole is so guilty even a Kalifornistan jury will probably convict him. Gee...let me guess...you still think OJ didn't do it either? [whacko] [whacko] [whacko] [whacko]
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 2:08:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LWilde: Peterson isn't guilty? [shock] Holy Crap what alternative universe did you just come from? Just on what we know now this ass hole is so guilty even a Kalifornistan jury will probably convict him. Gee...let me guess...you still think OJ didn't do it either? [whacko] [whacko] [whacko] [whacko]
View Quote
Hey Lwilde who are you referring to?
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 3:03:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SeaDweller:
Originally Posted By rkbar15: I say "If the boat don't fit you must acquit." [:D] Execute the defense attorney? I sure hope you are never charged with a crime you didn't commit and need a defense attorney to save your ass.
View Quote
My complaint was that [red][b]IF[/b][/red] the scumbag defense attorney knew he was guilty he would still try to get his sorry ass off, CLEAN. WTF you call that?
View Quote
Defense attorneys usually don't want to know if there client is guilty or not. It's his/her job to present the best defense that they can for their client. It's up to the judge or jury to determine their guilt or innocence. Is there something wrong with that?
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 3:04:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Az_Redneck:
Originally Posted By LARRYG: Ah, yes, NEO-CONS, as opposed to the Libertarian Party who: 1. Wants NO military 2. Wants NO licensing of anyone, including doctors. 3. Says that we deserved September 11, 2001 4. Wants complete isolationism. While I have libertarian ideals, I see the Libertarian party as nothing but far left anarchists.
View Quote
With all due respect, WTF are you smoking? I joined the Constitution Party because I didn't care for "some" of the Libertarian Party platform. But, what you wrote above is ludicrous! I never heard of what you wrote. So, as to not hijack this thread, please IM me your sources or start another thread. I would be interested in knowing where you got your information. And to be on topic, yes, I think he did it. But, he deserves a fair trial.
View Quote
Go to their website.
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 9:21:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By rkbar15:
Originally Posted By SeaDweller:
Originally Posted By rkbar15: I say "If the boat don't fit you must acquit." [:D] Execute the defense attorney? I sure hope you are never charged with a crime you didn't commit and need a defense attorney to save your ass.
View Quote
My complaint was that [red][b]IF[/b][/red] the scumbag defense attorney knew he was guilty he would still try to get his sorry ass off, CLEAN. WTF you call that?
View Quote
[red] Defense attorneys usually don't want to know if there client is guilty or not.[/red] It's his/her job to present the best defense that they can for their client. It's up to the judge or jury to determine their guilt or innocence. Is there something wrong with that?
View Quote
Don't you mean, don't care? "Did you do it?" I would've thought that to be the first question.
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 10:53:30 PM EDT
Yes, he is, right now, innocent until proven guilty. And it is not proven, yet. However, he sure looks guilty as hell. Lacy was pregnant with her first child. Scott picks Christmas Eve to go fishing without her. When her body is found, it is just where he was fishing. Now, all of you married men out there answer this one: just how likely is it that your wife (who is 8 months pregnant) would let you go fishing on Christmas Eve? All of you LEOs try to answer this one: Scott goes fishing in the San Francisco Bay (more than 100 miles away) and while he is gone an UNSUB murders his wife and then disposes of her body in the same area where Scott was fishing. Just how likely is that? Scott is reported to have told his girlfriend that he didn't harm his wife, but he knew who did. Just how could he know that, and why didn't he tell the Modesto police? You are in a heap of trouble, boy. I strongly suspect that there is a lethal injection waiting in your future. Even if, right now, you are presumed innocent.
Top Top