A reasonable debate

 
The Independent Witnesses

A reasonable Debate --The murder of Laci Peterson.

Author Comment
Barb Douglas
Unregistered User
(Date: 2003-11-14 21:11:59)
Reply
3 seperate witnesses (confirmed by police on stand) reported that 2 men were seen in the park the morning of the 24th. John and Karma Souza told detective Owen they saw a suspicious man in a puffy jacket and blue jeans who "popped out of bushes" as they jogged on a trail in East La Loma Park early that morning. The couple reported that the men were dishevelled and scared them. The other witness, a nurse who was having a smoke break, was watching the park and saw a pregnant woman walking a Golden Retriever. The two men were close by her and the dog was barking incessantly. One man told Laci to "shut the fucken dog up!" and Laci was pulling hard on Mackenzie's leash. The nurse then went inside. 2 days later she saw the flyer of missing Laci and said, "I've seen that woman in the park." Anybody, other than Nancy Grace, believe that these creeps did not kidnap Laci Peterson on Christmas Eve?




Tom Wilkinson
Unregistered User
(Date: 2003-11-14 19:34:49)
Reply
Why are independent witnesses ignored?
If Nancy Grace is right about the claim that Laci disappeared in tan pants, then how did Scott know that 3 independent people would see Laci [dressed in black and white as Scott reported] and a golden retriever in the park? Is Scott Peterson clairvoyant? Moreover, Scott Peterson was spotted at the Marina WITHOUT LACI, when Laci was spotted walking her dog, Did Scott Peterson coach Laci's dog, to return home without a leash, to fool the police?



Laura Dougherty
Unregistered User
(Date: 2003-11-14 17:04:48)
Reply
It would be easier to believe that Scott Peterson murdered Laci if she was wearing black and white, when the body was recovered. Only the killer or killers know what Laci Peterson was wearing on the day that Laci Peterson was murdered. Scott Peterson had no idea.

Get the message?

Richard Turpin
Unregistered User
( Date: 2003-11-14 13:44:34)
Reply
Nancy Grace claims that tan pants prove that Scott murdered Laci on December 23rd. How wonderful. Those of us who post on message boards laughed at all the suspicious leaks about the trucker eyewitness who allegedly proved that Laci Peterson was murdered on December 23rd. The story about the tan pants is more of the same. Nancy and Al have been Dis-Graced. Shame on them. They should have worried about what Laci was wearing when she disappeared because it was their duty to serve and protect the interests of Laci Peterson the way they were protected when Elizabeth Smart was kidnapped. To be sure, the demagoguery of Nancy claimed an innocent life in the Smart case as well, but what else can anybody expect from her?

Lynne Foster
Unregistered User
(Date: 2003-11-14 11:54:48)
Reply
When you plant suspicion, you frame a suspect. When you investigate, you discover the truth. That is the difference between Al Brocchini and David Sween.

David Sween
Unregistered User
( Date: 2003-11-14 02:47:06)
Reply
The claim that Laci's body was recovered with the very same, tan pants she wore on December 23rd, is as bizarre as the claim that Amber Frey was taping Scott Peterson's phonecalls BEFORE Laci was murdered. Clearly, when the evidence strongly suggests that the plot to murder Laci Peterson was pre-meditated to the point where the people who kidnapped her planned to get away with this horrific crime by blaming Scott Peterson, the pattern of exposing the evidence in a predictable manner that conforms to an overall strategy --to blame Scott -- is too predictable and too scripted. Evidence does not unfold in a predictable and scripted manner unless it is deliberately designed to cover up the truth. Think about it. I am not Nancy Grace. If Scott was a conniving, heartless murderer, why would he lie about what Laci was wearing when he killed her? If Scott was that stupid, he would create the need to destroy 2 seperate sets of evidence --he would have to get rid of Laci's body, and then, he would have to get rid of the black pants and the white top that Laci reportedly wore, on the day she disappeared. Why would anybody take such a ridiculous, unecessary chance? It does not make any sense. I understand the urge to call Scott Peterson stupid, but this is not stupidity. Ordinary people did not conspire to lie about what Laci wore on the day she disappeared, and having confirmed the timing of their observations, Laci's dog did not represent any pregnant lady, beyond Scott Peterson's wife. If Laci was not reportedly wearing tan pants when she surfaced, I would have been shocked, surprised and disappointed. Laci's murderers made another BIG mistake. It's not the crime -no cause of death, no motive, no time of death --it's the cover up...

Lynne Foster
Unregistered User
(Date: 2003-11-13 20:36:37)
Reply
Detective Al Brocchini testified that the police coached Peterson's mistress on how to coax Peterson into confessing he killed his pregnant wife, and "planted seeds of suspicion" among his friends in hopes they would become informants. But if you read the Boards, the common consensus is that confessions have proved to be relatively useless.

David Sween
Unregistered User
(Date: 2003-11-13 03:27:51)
Reply
I was watching Larry King Live today and Nancy Grace made a statement which was the exact opposite of message #602. Nancy Grace claimed that if Scott was not the murderer, he would have been playing golf on December 24th. What a bizarre claim. Does Nancy Grace read this message board, or was this just a bizarre coincidence? Is there anything about this case that is not bizarre?

Barb Douglas
Unregistered User
( Date: 2003-11-11 15:26:45)
Reply
I think this website proves that Scott is innocent. by desperate murderers.
Lynne Foster
Unregistered User
(Date: 2003-11-10 02:43:32)
Reply
message #602
The fact that Scott believed that it was too cold to go golfing proves that Scott Peterson did not murder Laci. If Scott had murdered Laci and wanted to establish the perfect alibi, he would have gone golfing. The suggestion that he would establish a fishing alibi using a boat that nobody had heard about is too stupid to take seriously.

Jack Stewart
Unregistered User
(Date: 2003-11-10 02:21:59)
Reply
It is amazing how stupid people are so obsessive about calling Scott a liar that they misrepresent EVERYTHING he says. For example, when Scott says that it was too cold to go golfing, MORONS claim that he is an idiotic liar, because it was colder by the sea where he was boating. Golf, because of the movements of swinging the club, etc., does not allow you to dress too warmly without affecting your game. Fishing allows you to wear as many clothes as you like, without violating the dress code on the golf course. The morons who are currently calling Scott Peterson a liar are too stupid for simple reasoning.

Lynne Foster
Unregistered User
( Date: 2003-11-09 17:03:49)
Reply
Not strange at all. The DA is desperate to prove that Laci was murdered before the 24th, and stories about the tan pants are predictable leaks. It's like the magic bullet theory, if you promote one huge lie, you can discredit the entire truth.

Gayle Lewis
Unregistered User
(Date: 2003-11-09 13:05:39)
Reply
If there's no blood on those tan pants, I'd have to agree with David Sween. At this point in time, it is safe to assume that whoever did this horrible deed, is manipulating this investigation. Like he says, why can't anybody find any "real" evidence, like Laci's head? This media circus about what Laci wore when she disappeared is nauseating. I mean, that should have been resolved a long time ago, if anybody was in fact concerned about rescuing Laci Peterson. Now that she is dead, everybody is into smelling chlorine and into discovering cement powder and pliers in Scott Peterson's boat. What's next, a strand of tan colored material? We know what Laci was wearing, it was clearly reported by multiple sources, on the day that she vanished without a trace, until the murderers were so frustrated by the failure to implicate Scott, that they did the unthinkable.

CuriousGeorge2
Unregistered User
(Date: 2003-11-09 12:45:00)
Reply
Very Strange.
Rita Cosby reports Laci found in her clothes from night before(Dec.23rd)...tan pants. Murderers do not lie in a manner that exposes their crimes. Oh yes, I forgot, Scott is supposed to be an arrogant, evil genius, and we are supposed to applaud the brilliant investigators who exposed him -Rita Cosby and Nancy Grace? Scott did not hire all the people who spotted Laci, to lie about what she was wearing on the day she was kidnapped. If Laci was in fact wearing tan pants, this is the mother of all frame-ups.

David Sween
Unregistered User
(Date: 2003-11-08 15:14:45)
Reply
Law enforcement has never demonstrated the need to investigate Scott Peterson. When LE found a loaded semi-automatic in Scott's truck, they didn't even test his hands for gun powder residue. Actually, that isn't exactly true. The Cross-Examination of Detective Brocchini is more specific:

Q. Now, and it was because of your having found the pistol that you were interested in doing the GSR test, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And GSR is gunshot residue test, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And Mr. Peterson presented his hand or hands for you to make those kind of swabs, whatever you do to do a GSR test, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And so you did that test?

A. I did.

Q. And so you collected some kind of swabs?

A. Yes.

Q. And what did you do with those after that?

A. I booked them into evidence.

Q. Was anything ever done with them?

A. No.

Q. So they were never tested?

A. Not to my knowledge, unless they're done and I didn't know about it.

This is very strange testimony. A cynic would have to say the tests were done, they were negative, and so they 'lost' them. Somebody who is more analytical would say that if Scott had shot Laci, the police would have called it a 'hard kill'. A realist would have to conclude that the tests were done, they were negative, and the police turned their attention to 'soft kill' speculation. It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that Scott Peterson murdered his wife, given the fact that Detective Brocchini was not even concerned enough to prove or to disprove the claim that Scott Peterson shot Laci. Detective Brocchini is either incompetent, corrupt or he does not care to investigate the murder of Laci Peterson.

Hannah Harper
Unregistered User
(Date: 2003-11-08 14:30:58)
Reply
Slow down there sister, you're giving us whores a bad name. We have hearts too, ya know, or didn't you think we were smart enough to surf. If my john had lost his wife, I would stand by his side until we found out what happened to his poor little woman. If we were all into this blackmail crap, we would be out of business. I am an uncertified, proud member of the oldest profession, Amber Frey IS NOT a whore. Blackmailer, okay, but puhleeze DO NOT call Amber Frey a whore. I do not tape my men, I just fuck them.

Gayle Lewis
Unregistered User
( Date: 2003-11-08 13:56:39)
Reply
The police are destroying their credibility when they use Amber Frey. Amber had another relationship with another married man, the wife was pregnant and she taped his phone calls....as she did with Scott on her own. We are talking about a whore who blackmails men for a living and that is the only thing that all the "incriminating" photos where she shoves her ugly face in Scott's direction, prove. If you look at poor Scott in some of these photos, he is doing his "gentleman's" best to pull away from this aggressive whore. If we would like to start hanging men who sleep with whores, we need to change the law first.

Lynne Foster
Unregistered User
(Date: 2003-11-08 05:32:09)
Reply
I love the claim that Scott bought his boat the very same day he told Amber he was a widower. What a fascinating game of connect the dolts.




Paul McMurray
Unregistered User
( Date: 2003-11-08 05:16:33)
Reply
Good point Chris, it takes a whole degree of arrogance, to lie with a straight face --does this guy think that he has in fact fooled anybody? On the witness stand, Brocchini admitted neglecting to list, in his report, a pair of yellow-handled pliers among items in Peterson's boat. David Sween has not neglected anything in his report. Do you know where the story about the pliers came from? Find out here.

Chris Fielding
Unregistered User
(Date: 2003-11-08 03:53:04)
Reply
Modesto detective Allen Brocchini, who launched the Christmas Eve investigation into Laci Peterson's disappearance, said Scott Peterson bought the boat Dec. 9 -- the same day Fresno massage therapist Amber Frey later told the officer that she confronted Peterson about being married. Is this a joke? During her heralded news conference, Amber Frey said that she had no idea that Scott Peterson was married. Is Allen Brocchini trying to prove that he is an idiot?

Roger Blake
Unregistered User
(Date: 2003-11-07 16:49:52)
Reply
Brocholi should try to be more creative, to sound credible. Amber knew that Scott was married and she knew that his wife was missing. If the claim that Scott told her that he was a widower is not on tape, why is Brocholi even bothering...? People tend to believe One Big Lie, all these little creative improvisations amount to little chuckles. Who is telling Amber Frey what to say?

More about Amber.

Jersey Girl
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 11:41:06 am)
Reply
Re: I know you love Nancy Grace
I can't stand Nancy Grace and don't try and shift the blame for what YOU said!

Thomas Huegenore
Unregistered User
(Date: 2003-11-07 14:21:31)
Reply
I find it very difficult to believe that Scott Peterson is a smooth-talking horndog who told all his women he was a widower, just to get them to bed. I mean, if that were true, if Detective Allen Brocchini knew this "bombshell" as early as December 30th as he claims, then why doesn't he prove it through wiretapped evidence? "He said he lost his wife, this would be the first holiday he was without his wife,"' Frey told Brocchini. Why is Brocchini relying on this level of hearsay? I think this testimony is one big joke.

Jack Lane
Unregistered User
(Date: 2003-11-04 02:09:54)
Reply
Lynne, you're a hoot. Ted Rowlands now claims that the duct tape that Scott used to post 'find Laci' posters was wrapped around Laci's body. I guess they have already found an alternative way to blame Scott, since Amber is such a proven liar.

Lynne Foster
Unregistered User
( Date: 2003-11-04 01:42:09)
Reply
Justice is very bizarre lately. On the day that Jeffrey Toobin claims that Amber Frey is not going to testify, Linda Tripp is awarded $600,000 because of the ridiculous claim that her privacy rights were violated. Sounds like Republican hush money. Jeffrey Toobin suggests that Amber Frey is not going to testify because she can't survive cross examination. No kidding? Amber Frey is a certified liar and the prosecution knows it. Amber claims that Scott had said that he was a widower but she never asked him how his former wife died --not even for the benefit of the police, who were telling her what to ask Scott. Is this a joke? No wonder the prosecutor does not dare to introduce Amber's surveillance tapes into evidence -the tapes prove that Amber's effort to create the impression that Scott is a murderer, are absoloutely fabricated. It is only a matter of time before Amber Frey receives her $600,000 payment to keep her mouth shut. Gloria Allred has certainly muzzled Amber, but who is paying for the high, prohibitive cost of keeping everybody quiet --the National Enquirer is simply too resourceful, to call this massive muzzle campaign anything less than a multi-million dollar operation. Laci Peterson deserved better.

Jack Lane
Unregistered User
(Date: 2003-11-03 04:15:32)
Reply
Oh Lynne, your critics are absolutely right, you have to be an absolute nutjob, to think that Scott murdered Laci. The truth is so simle and so eloquant. When Detective Evers first saw Scott, he was in the park with Sharon Rocha, looking for Laci. He was frantic and upset. One has to be very strange to ignore Laci sightings, when the husband of a kidnapped woman is frantically upset over his wife's disappearance. The police executed search warrants on Scott and Laci's home back in December and they didn't arrest him until April. The guy's either a mastermind, or he's not the guy who did it, and none of Scott's critics have called him a mastermind. The evidence has absolutely cleared Scott, and all the friends of the National Enquirer are still trying to give creedence to the tabloid trash that is supposed to convince everybody that Scott Peterson is a murderer. The tunnel-vision that does not hamper the wisdom of intelligent people like Detective Evers is well understood, and Peterson will clearly survive this "impeachment" unless he dies in prison, and then, reasonable people will target and destroy the ruthless, barbaric regime that imprisoned him.

Lynne Foster
Unregistered User
(Date: 2003-11-03 03:34:54)
Reply
Is the truth about Laci censored?
I have never felt more popular. I tried to post a messge to ABC 7 News message boards, and the response was: "A permanent block has been placed on this account." It looks like the National Enquirer is mainstream news now. LOL Well, thanks for blocking me, my pro bono service has been involuntarily suspended. It looks like Sharon Higgins worked overtime, is she Gloria Allred's law clerk?

Sharon Higgins
Unregistered User
(Date: 2003-11-01 07:31:12)
Reply
I find it quite humorous that you all seem to know every piece of evidence that has turned up in this case. Not only do you have knowledge of it, but you also seem to know that it was either forged, planted or faked. Give it a rest and let the real law, not the "lone gunmen" solve the case. Why do you even care if this man you knew nothing about before any of this happened, gets the chair? Get a life and go to law school if you want to be in on the action so bad.

Sharon Higgins
Unregistered User
(Date: 2003-11-01 07:25:47)
Reply
Oh my god..you truly are pathetic..talk about censoring the internet..you won't even post messages until you approve them??!? Lynn Foster, you truly are pathetic. I suppose that you are best buds with Scott Peterson? How the hell would you know if he had a motive for killing Laci? You people are so gullible, I truly pity you.

Sharon Higgins
Unregistered User
(Date: 2003-11-01 07:21:45)
Reply
What kind of wacko are you??? This site is absolutely ludicrous! Your theories are total nutjob stabs in the dark that have NO factual basis and in fact don't even sound that intelligent. I have a problem with several of the things that you have written, but the main thing is NO ONE has said anything about finding the infant with a noose around his neck. As for being found so close to his mother, he probably wasn't even born when she was murdered. The fact that only her torso was found then, is a good indication that the baby didn't emerge from her body until after she died. What about the fact that Scott Peterson was found fleeing with $10,000 and newly dyed blonde hair? That isn't an indication of guilt? Or I suppose that the police made that up (Nazis that they are) and you know the "truth". As for Lynn Fosters comment, you could write for the National Enquirer. Violent kidnappers? Come on! There's a conspiracy behind every crime right? Get a life and stay out of other peoples. Reading your comments on here, I guess you have the whole thing solved. So turn in the real killers already, sounds like you have it locked up. Comparing the legal and justified prosecution of Scott Peterson to Sadam Hussein's murderous regime is absolutely ridiculous. Quit using your lame theories defend a gutless baby killer. You're worse than he is.

curiousGeorge2
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 12:11:47 pm)
Reply
Duh
The claim that Ricci was not charged with kidnapping is a Sleaze Bar claim.

Ricci was not charged because the police are too stupid to prove anything. All they can do is harrass innocent people.

lorilee228
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 12:13:34 pm)
Reply
ricci was crucified
ricci was crucified on this message forum and on court tv and on the news and by all the media for the kidnapping which he did not commit.



curiousGeorge2
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 12:22:10 pm)
Reply
Right
And Scott is in custody because the police are too stupid to figure out who murdered his wife.

lorilee228
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 12:25:05 pm)
Reply
ricci was crucified in the media
ricci was crucified in the media, he and his family suffered tremendously for a crime he DID NOT COMMIT.

curiousGeorge2
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 12:28:52 pm)
Reply
not according to all the Sleaze Bars
According to the Sleaze Bars, Ricci got what he deserved.

Ricci was essentially tortured to death for cooperating with the police.

He told them what he had done because he cared about Elizabeth Smart and he wanted to assist the police in their investigation, and the police used his cooperation to create the false impression that he had murdered Elizabeth Smart.

The Sleaze Bars are trying to do the exact same thing with Scott Peterson.

Jersey Girl
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 12:30:36 pm)
Reply
He was in violation of his parole.
Should they have just forgotten about that? He was a career criminal and a drain on society his entire adult life. You don't have to be Perry mason to figure that out.

curiousGeorge2
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 12:33:00 pm)
Reply
The sleazebars are just confused
Ricci was in bed with his wife when Elizabeth Smart was kidnapped, you don't have to be Perry Mason to figure out the difference between sex and murder -DUH !

sounds like Jersey Girl and the Modesto Police Department have the same brain

Jersey Girl
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 12:34:29 pm)
Reply
Re: The sleazebars are just confused
Was he in bed with his wife when he committed all of those other crimes he was in jail for? Where was he when he violated his parole?

curiousGeorge2
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 12:39:03 pm)
Reply
Wow, a real sophisticated, Sleaze Bar !
Hey, you're smart enough to know that Scott Peterson was on his way to the marina, where witnesses spotted him in his boat, without Laci, when his poor, helpless wife was kidnapped while walking the very same dog that Mrs. Mitchell spotted, on Christmas eve.

It was the ONLY dog that returned home, without its pregnant master.

curiousGeorge2
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 12:43:34 pm)
Reply
OH GOOD, A GROUP CONSENSUS ! ! !
Modesto and Berkeley police went to a marina on San Francisco Bay to investigate Peterson's claim that he was fishing at the time his wife disappeared. No details were available about what detectives might have found out.

"At this point, he is not a suspect," Detective Doug Ridenour said. Police said they had no evidence of foul play in the disappearance.

Despite the fact that the police verified Scott Peterson's honesty because he was spotted at the Marina, they did not disclose the obvious and instead, they provided the opportunity for the media to demonoize Scott Peterson by repeatedly claiming that Scott Peterson was lying when he said that he went fishing.

This bias is too extreme and too hostile to justify, and the hypocricy it has uncovered has absolutely destroyed police credibility. The current suggestion that Scott Peterson is guilty of murdering his wife because he is telling the truth about what he did no December 24 is too bizarre to take seriously. Scott Peterson was spotted on his boat, struggling to familiarize himself with the gadgets of his new toy. He was not hauling his dead wife's body over his shoulder, and try as they may, to discredit Ms. Mitchell, who spotted Laci walking her dog a full 45 minutes after Scott left to go fishing, the fact that the police did not even bother to contact Ms. Mitchell speaks volumes about the validity of the police campaign to demonize Scott Peterson.

To be fair, if the police wish to use Scott Peterson's alibi against him, they should have accepted it in the first place. Police Hypocricy reflects Police State Tactics and they will NEVER prevail.

Free27
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 12:57:32 pm)
Reply
Re: OH GOOD, A GROUP CONSENSUS ! ! !
There are also rumors SP paid the Mitchells and I would not put it past him.....

justicewell
Unregistered User
(8/13/03 7:53 pm)
Reply
Re: OH GOOD, A GROUP CONSENSUS ! ! !
Are politics impeding the opportunity to solve murder? Is the slaughter of Martha Moxley a recently solved murder? I think not. Every competent investigator who is not a politically motivated hack clearly understands the simple fact that Ken Littletom murdered Martha, and if he was never convicted, it is merely a simple matter of the fact that hindesight is 20/20.

To be sure, an army of Ken Littleton apologists are protecting the person who is responsible for the murder of Martha Moxley, but their extreme tactics that are obviously politically motivated in a rather perverse way, are ultimately betrayed by the force of the nonsense they promote. For example, consider the absolute frivolity of the arguments/nonsense that Ken Littleton's apologists routinely promote. In particular, they invariably and routinely promote nonsense like:

"The Sutton Report gives clear, repeated and profoundly compelling reasons why Ken Littleton did not kill Martha Moxley and why, in my opinion, Michael Skakel did. No one has sever explained to me, with any creedence, what motive Ken Littleton had in killing a person he did't know, never met, on his first night in a strange neighborhood, and with his whole future ahead of him. I'm sorry, but "looking for a home to park his penis' doesn't cut it for me."

If Ken Lettleton did not have a legion of well funded apologists who routinely promote the same, silly barrage of nonsense, the campaign to create the false impression that a murderer like Ken Littleton is a victim, would not exist. The truth has finally caught up with Ken Littleton. In the first place, Ken Littleton is a bipolar disorder sufferer, and the fact that he was an undiagnosed, bipolar sufferer on the night that he murderer Martha Moxley does not negate the fact that crazy people like Ken Littleton do not need a motive to murder. In the second place, the Sutton Associates report clerly indicates that Ken Littleton asked Michael Skakel about Martha Moxley and the suggestion that he did not know her reflects the obsession to manufacture a much needed alibi that does not exist. In the third place, the fact that Ken Littleton spent his first night on the job in a strange neighborhood is the sort of environment that bipolar sufferers have difficulty adjusting to, and that is why it took somebody like Ken Littleton, who was unable to cope with his new surroundings, to unleash the brutal horrific, unexpected assault that lead to the murder of Martha Moxley. In the fourth place, the obsession to discredit a world renowned, competent investigator like David Sween, for stating the obvious, is too bizarre to take seriously. Ken Littleton was a young jock who expected sex from his female acquaintances, and Martha Moxley was a friendly flirt who was invariably positioned to confuse a bipolar sufferer like Ken Litleton. To be sure, when David Sween said that Ken Littleton was "looking for a home to park his penis" it was not the best choice of words, but Littleton wasted an entire life doing no more and no less. It is an act of desperation to challenge Sween's compelling assertion that Ken Littleton murdered Martha Moxley, simply because seasoned investigators like David Sween have not attended the finest schools. Indeed, David Sween has accurately portrayed Ken Littleton, a career criminal who has wasted his entire, and it is the suggestion that Ken Littleton had his whole future ahead of him which is absolutely preposterous, because Ken Littleton wasted his "entire future".

In the final analysis, investigator, David Sween has clearly proved that Ken Littleton is a murderer, by proving that all the alternative "excuses" that they use to defend Littleton are absolutely preposterous. By the way sports fans, Mark Fuhrman, the crackpot Detective who routinely perverts justice was planning to write 'Murder in Modesto'. Anybody know what's taking so long? Has David Sween thwarted the conspiracy to frame Scott Peterson?

The people who murdered Laci Peterson thought they could rely on a "victim" like Amber Frey to frame Scott Peterson. Amber Frey is not a victim. She is a pawn of the conspiracy to frame Scott, by using a rag like the National Enquirer to make the case. http://nationalenquirer.alturl.com

[ Update | Search | Topics ]
On May 13, 2003, I tried to post the following message but discovered that I had been banned and denied access to Court TV message boards. "I have a question about the psychology of murderers. I have not been able to find any evidence that Scott fits the profile of a murderer, indeed as this webpage clearly suggests, the reverse is evidently true. Is this going to be a problem for the prosecution? Can somebody give me some indication about what it is about the psychology of Scott Peterson, which suggests that he is a murderer?"
Needless to say, the posting privilleges of anybody who raises serious questions on Court TV message boards is revoked, to give the opportunity to slander Scott Peterson, unfettered access. This is not what freedom is all about.



 

MailComments - Questions? -

 
[ Shop | Travel | Leadership | Justice | Law | Tribute | Nixon | Kafka | JFK | Links ]


 
  
 
NEWSWORLD SHOWDOWN
Copyright 2007
 

 
Look who's talking

It's not CNN, it's not CNBC, it's not NBC, it's not Fox...


Message Board -Click Here !