Posted on 05/06/2005 11:10:03 AM PDT by Howlin
May 6 (ABC7) — Scott Peterson's father is breaking months of silence, lashing out at the Modesto Police Department and the media for his son's murder conviction. Local Headlines
'Finger' Lady On Her Way To San Jose Cinco de Mayo Celebration Gets Violent 72-Hour Ultimatum Issued For East Bay Hostage Scott Peterson's Father Breaks His Silence 12 Sex Predators Arrested In South Bay Castro Valley Double Shooting Suspect Wanted 2,000 S.F. Phone Customers Without Service Through Weekend 'Subway Bandit' Pleads Not Guilty In South Bay
More local news...
In a letter to the Modesto Bee, Lee Peterson says:
"My son was convicted because he had an affair. He was convicted by a jury full of hatred because of the way Scott was vilified in the media... Scott will be freed through the appellate process in time, mark my words."
Lee Peterson was responding to news reports last week that the Laci Peterson case cost taxpayers $4.1 million dollars.
Everybody else understands that. It's just people who need that to fall back on to justify their untenable position.
I'll bet that the whole family has moved to the "State of Denial."
I suspect that some people are just born without a "love" gene.
ROTFLMAF!!!! "snotty"
BBWWAANHAHAHAAA!!! Thanks, I needed that!!!
Well, I don't have a dog in that hunt. I haven't used the word "circumstantial" anywhere. :-)
OK, then please enlighten me.
Where am I "wrong?"
Snot was convicted because he was guilty. Lee and Jackie brought up the brat - they share in his guilt.
I can't help but be reminded of my seven year old, with crumbs on his shoes, chocolate on his face, who said, "How do you know mice didn't eat the cookies? Why do you think it's me?"
More like an enabling family that raised a punk that grew into a monster thinking he could do no wrong and could get away with anything he felt like. The family shares the blame here as far as I'm concerned. The father's letter is just a continuation of his screw ball view of things
maybe Paulo in France can vouch for his buddy, Scott's good character!
was that before or after she gave him the cash to run away with??
LOL
I can't make the connection about the kid with crumbs on his shoes, etc. I have not, in fact, used the word "circumstantial."
Yes, it is true that "circumstantial evidence" is still "evidence".....just not very plausible "evidence" and if I ever have to go on trial for anything I certainly hope that the jurors will be intelligent enough to be able to make the distinction between "circumstantial evidence" and "direct evidence."
You may want to ask that doctor in the Midwest whose story spawned "The Fugitive" TV series and movie, about "circumstantial evidence." :-)
What I said was that there was no "direct evidence."
Big difference..... :-)
As you are the stylecouncilor, I must ask you why you think he picked scarecrow orange for that hairdo.
As to the money, didn't she have a real weak excuse for that, too? He was buying a car for her with his brother's driver's licence in his pocket?
Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic.
I wasn't referring "directly" to you, LOL, but since you bring it up...
All evidence is circumstantial. There is always some other explanation for anything you see. Not all explanations are plausible. Eyewitness testimony is the faultiest evidence there is. Common sense has to play into these things.
In order to believe Scott Peterson is innocent, we have to believe that someone else killed her, put her where he had been on the same day she went missing, that there was a huge conspiracy, and that he was psychic, knowing a couple of weeks in advance that she would be dead. (Again, I know you didn't say he was innocent, I'm using the in general you :-))
At one point, there were over 20 coincidences that had been pointed out. This guy either has the worst luck ever, or he's Job.
I once interviewed a convicted murderer/rapist. He told me that it wasn't his fault that the other guy killed the girl when he told him to, and that the girl wouldn't have been raped if she had just let them have sex with her. That was the very first time I ever saw a sociopath. I was fascinated. It seemed he honestly believed that he hadn't done anything wrong. I knew him when we were children--his parents used to defend every horrifying thing he did went we were kids. They were infamous among the neighborhood parents for that. When I see Lee and Jackie, I remember John's parents. They lived in complete denial too.
All I am saying is that there was not enough, or actually no, direct physical evidence linking him to the crime.
Being a thinking person and had I been on the jury I would have had to vote to acquit.
I know nothing of sociopaths so that I cannot relate to your story about the sociopath you interviewed and have no idea why you would have posted that information when I was commenting on direct evidence or lack thereof.
Whether or not SP is a sociopath and whether or not his parents justified or made excuses for everything he has ever done or whether or not he and they are in complete denial is totally immaterial to me.
There simply was no direct evidence that warranted a conviction. Hard liner that I may be, that's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
Or.....
And that's all I have to say about that! :-)
And again...sigh...I was not referring to you or what you believe in my original post TO SOMEONE ELSE.
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.