It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Garagos seeks donations to find "Real Killers" of Laci

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Garagos seeks donations to find "Real Killers" of Laci


Hey, it worked for OJ, why not this time? Oj is still looking for the killer, isnt he?




posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Yes, and you can be sure that the real killers are not safe on any golf course in America.



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Don't be so quick to judge, we all like to see the bad guy get what they deserve, makes us feel better about ourselves.
But sometimes we are too quick to find the bogey man.
I'm not saying he's innocent but I don't think the evidence is concrete enough. This case needs to stay open IMHO.

www.geocities.com...

www.geocities.com...



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 01:55 AM
link   
I believe Peterson didn't kill Lacy because of her being decapitated. I am more inclined to believe he was set up. Obiviously some one really hated him, or her. Did the investigators look beyond the immediate family? An ex boyfriend,...lover



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 01:07 PM
link   
The more I hear about this case the more I feel he is not guilty. They found her limbless torso. Ok. Where is the DNA evidence? To hack someone up like that leaves a mess. Also the more I hear info about this the more I feel that Amber was behind this in some way. She falls in love with him fast and is recording their phone conversations almost right from the beginning. She's even sleeping with him while his wife is missing. I see a very troubled person here that would have a motive to have Laci killed because she stands in the way of what she wants. She has the motive and the psychological makeup of a person that would do something like that. I would have focused most of my investigation at her and not Scott.

Think it this way...

Scott kills Laci. He disposes of all evidence. No murder weapon. No blood or tissue. Nothing. He even got so cleaned up that the blood was not visible under special lighting. He gets her out without a trace. He finds time to do all this. Wrap her up. Make concrete anchors. Take her out in broad daylight without being seen. Take her to a lake where he is seen by others. Take her out in a choppy like and toss her overboard (in broad daylight... visible to others) without tipping the boat. And after doing all this without being caught he goes and tells police where he was at so they could find the body? I don't think so.

But I bet you Amber knew he was there. With as involved as those two were you don't think he told her that he'd be up fishing at the lake for the day? Yeah Scott is a jerk. But I wouldn't trust Amber any farther than I could throw her. Scott is a jerk. But jerk does not equal killer. And there was no physical evidence to link him to the murder. The evidence was barely circumstantial.



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 04:41 PM
link   
It's worth repeating.
Indy,
No one ever claimed he dismembered the body. The fact is the head and limbs were lost due to the time spent in the water and scavengers tearing at the body. This is also why the baby's body was in much better shape. It was protected by Laci's womb until even that was torn apart.

The theory is she was strangled or suffocated - therefore no blood, no clean up.
The anchors were made days in advance.
As for broad daylight. A 14 foot fishing boat is nothing in SF bay. From the shore it wouldn't even have been seen.

This guy planned it well - not well enough - but still well. My question for you is, just because someone plans it well, leaving only a circumstantial case, should they be allowed to walk free?



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 07:11 PM
link   
I don't think that someone should be sentenced to death based on circumstantial evidence - very convincing theory but without concrete evidence there is no proof. No proof = reasonable doubt IMO.

They never did find the concrete did they??



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join