Posted on 08/19/2004 5:13:15 AM PDT by runningbear
August 19, 2004 -- REDWOOD CITY, Calif. — Laci Peterson's furious mother called her son-in-law a "f---ing liar" and begged him to tell her where he ditched the body, it was revealed yesterday — as Scott Peterson's murder trial screeched to a halt due to a mysterious "potential development Sharon Rocha became convinced of Peterson's guilt in January 2003, not long after his affair with Amber Frey became public.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
This reminds me -- OJ was never charged with perjury for lying in the civil trial.
I sure agree with the aiding and abetting part. They have done this to the nth degree.
You know what, it really bugged me that Simpson's $25,000.00 a month pension was off limits. PLUS the creep sold a bunch of stuff before the decision. A lot of these civil judgements are just paper trophies!!
Yikes, I gotta go cook something for these two men!!! LOL At least the grandkids went home yesterday. Boy can two boys ever wear you out!! LOL I love them beyond measure however.
That was a good article. She has a real sense of humor! Love her phrasing puns !!
Interesting theory! The rumors of meth connections persist. I haven't gotten into that yet, but I'm often wrong about stuff like that!
Was that a recent Drudge article? I'd like to read it!
I think it was 2 or 3 days ago but I went a while ago and it was gone.....maybe its in the archives if you can retrieve them.
Okay, I agree with you that it is possible Scott wanted to--or did--get someone to off Laci for him.
But Searching, there WAS a trace of Laci in the boat! Those 2 hairs in the pliers.
Yes, I know the defense is trying to get everyone to think those were just hairs of hers that got on Scott's clothes in the house, and later fell off him and into the pliers.
And I know they've propagated the idea that the pliers had been in disuse b/c they were RUSTY.
BUT, I KNOW from being around the seashore and any humid oceanside climate, that things like that will literally get rust on them within HOURS! I am not exaggerating, I've seen this. That's why I don't believe that stuff about the pliers not having been used recently.
Now, about the hairs: they are 2 distinct hairs, we know that from the testimony of the "hair guy", Oswald. These hairs were not shed naturally. One had been smashed, causing the hair to break, and the other one had been "sheared" with what seemed like a crude instrument--IOW, NOT with a scissors. Now, to me, here's a crucial thing: one of those hairs had a small, cut blade of grass adhering to it. The Peterson lawn had been cut by Scott only about 2 days b/f Christmas Eve Day. I find it a little too much of a coincidence that 1)The lawn is mowed, leaving tiny bits of grass everywhere, and 2)Laci's hair is found, with a tiny bit of cut grass sticking to it.
To me, that tiny cut bit of grass dates that hair's appearance to around the day of the disappearance. I mean, if those hairs of Laci's had been months old, why would one of them have a tiny piece of cut grass sticking to it? She only loses hairs on days when Scott cuts the lawn?
Regarding traces of Laci connected to the boat, there's something else, too. During the prelim, they also addressed the dog evidence. We found out that one of the dogs which was "scenting" Laci was VERY interested in the boat. He kept sniffing at the side of it! But his interest didn't quite come up to the level of a "hit", where the dog gives a special signal (such as sitting, or going into a pointer position.) But the dog was clearly noticing something having to do with Laci's scent--and that something was connected with the side of the boat.
Yes, it seems to me that the more they smear Amber, the more they smear their client. While the defense attorneys are trying to make Amber look like a total sleaze, still, ringing in the jury's ears are the words, "You're just so special, you're so amazing, you're a good person..." spoken by SCOTT PETERSON.
For God's sake, those jackasses are trying to pretend that a prosecutor can't get a conviction without a confession!! That is EMPHATICALLY not true!!! Often if there's an admissible confession, it results in a plea; many or most cases that go to trial are those in which the defendant has admitted NOTHING!
While preparing the body at his shop or elsewhere with anchors and chicken wire and then a quick drop off the bridge in the middle of the night could be an explanation. Two other things, the gal picked up with their checks and Snott's statement "I didnt do it but I know who did" will work with this theory..
Ha ha! FIVE, count 'em, FIVE trips--and those are just the ones the police caught on to!!! Kind of hard to explain five trips: five trips on which he told no one he was going, did no actual searching, didn't ask the police how it was coming along, and just stared stupidly at the Bay.
His staring at the Bay from a distance reminds me of a character in an Alfred Hitchcock movie. Oh, and you know what? Scott's starting to remind me of Norman Bates... such a NICE young man! So clean-cut! So polite! Which brings us to his mother...
Nice try, Scott..... NOT!
HE WAS TRYING TO BRIBE HER!!!
Actually, I don't think it would've been hard to find a pic of Scott plastered, since he seems to have had a habit of guzzling!
Now, I admit, the Santa hat, that would've been a bit of a challenge--if he hadn't been so obviously plastered at that party.
Thanks, I'll try to look.
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.