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.

 

the perfect murder???

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 02:46 AM
link   


This dude is guiltier than OJ and is going to be convicted in about 10 minutes...


I wouldnt be so sure about that. There is allot of talk about jourer #5, he seems to be a very thick headed person and dont believe that Scott killed Laci. Maybe thick headed isnt the correct word, maybe he is just the opposite, open minded.
The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Scott peterson killed his wife and unborn baby. These phone call are incriminating but its not solid evidence. Dont forget that out of some 200+ calls he never cofessed to anything, even with the poliece coaching Amber in the coversations. The prosecution is lacking somthing that you need to put anyone behind bars, Proof.




posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 03:58 AM
link   
I hate to say it but I knew a married guy who had a woman on the side and he would also tell her that his wife was dead just so he could get some action. This guys wife wasn't dead and he was basically leading two lives - one with each woman. I told him if his wife did happen to come up missing or something awful happens to her that was not his fault then he was still screwed.





[edit on 24-8-2004 by zerotime]



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 12:33 PM
link   


I wouldnt be so sure about that. There is allot of talk about jourer #5, he seems to be a very thick headed person and dont believe that Scott killed Laci. Maybe thick headed isnt the correct word, maybe he is just the opposite, open minded.


That BS. Thats the kind of speculation that people hate. How does anyone know what is in the jurors mind? You cant. They havent started deliberations yet. Im telling you, listen to him on the tapes. Especially after Amber finds out that Scotts wife is missing and she starts to call him out on his BS. Trust me, this guy is a classic sociopath. My brother is one, and this guy has the exact same traits as him.




TextThe prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Scott peterson killed his wife and unborn baby. These phone call are incriminating but its not solid evidence. Dont forget that out of some 200+ calls he never cofessed to anything, even with the poliece coaching Amber in the coversations. The prosecution is lacking somthing that you need to put anyone behind bars, Proof.


BS-- this whole casse is based on circumstantial evidence. Lets take the phone calls out for a second. Lets look at the fishing theory. Hmmm interesting that she washed up less than a mile from where he was "fishing" also, hes on tape telling her he was golfing that day. This guy has lied from the begining. and hes guilty. Ill wager any amount anyone would like on that. no matter how big a douche he is, people say "that doesnt make him a murderer" true. what did him in for me, was the calls to amber on the day of lacis vigil. not only her, but his UNBORN SON !!! someone whos life was on the line as well as their wife and baby DOES NOT CALL HIS GIRLFRIEND WHILE HIS WIFE IS MISSING !!!! GET IT???
IT DOESNT HAPPEN. There is not a least bit of concern in his voice, because he knows the answer to everyones questions. He tries to sound so sincere to amber with all his bull#, untill Amber starts to grill him. then all his Bs'n stops, and he gets quiet, answers with one word answers. its sooo typical.

if you think otherwise, you havent listened to the tapes then, so dont talk to me plz. without hearing those, i wasnt convinced either. listen to them and you will hear a murderer.



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bzap



This trial has been so hyped up. First OJ, then this guy, then Kobe & Martha. I am getting pretty sick of media frenzy trials these days.


I couldn't agree more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Yes, I know the use of more than one explanation is improper) I don't follow such dribble, but when I get bored, I do open them up here and read....
silly of me I know....I don't do the silly reality shows either...aaaaaaaaaaaaaaanyway.....the media is a sick bunch of aren't they!?


p1

posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 12:47 PM
link   
got a link to the phone convo's?



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 12:50 PM
link   
watch court tv or maybe on their site. i just watch it at night. probably on their site though. maybe. www.courttv.com



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by sublime4372

That BS. Thats the kind of speculation that people hate. How does anyone know what is in the jurors mind? You cant.


People know what juror #5 thinks because since he was dismissed from the jury, he has been on television telling everyone what he thinks.



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 02:03 PM
link   
OH ya, I remember him now. He was on that jury for about 5 minutes. He wasn't there for any of these phone conversations. Personally, I think he was just trying to grab his 15 minutes. Even that dunderhead would be convinced if he heard the tapes.



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by sublime4372
Even that dunderhead would be convinced if he heard the tapes.


The former juror's position is that they can smear Peterson's character till the cows come home, but what is needed to convict Peterson is some proof that he did it. The juror, Falconer, is unconvinced that Peterson could have disposed of the body in the manner posited by the prosecution. It is impossible to predict how a jury will rule, but I am of the mind that he is not the only member of the jury who holds this view.

Since, as you point out, the case is circumstantial in nature, it is imporant that all of the conditions of the circumstances are plausible. The disposal of the body is crucial in the absence of proof that Peterson killed Laci. The best that the prosecution has done to prove that Peterson disposed of Laci in the bay from his boat is to have a living pregant woman contort herself into positions in the boat.

The weakness of this argument is that Laci was presumably dead and therefore anything but flexible. There is also the matter of her size and weight plus the weight of the anchors allegedly attached to the body. Many feel that an attempt to dispose of the body from the boat in question would have resulted in a capsize.

It has also been pointed out that Peterson had to get to the bay with the body of a pregnant body in his boat. Peterson even had interaction with others while he was launching his boat and no one was suspicious about his cargo.

I can't argue with your conclusions regarding this case, but I think that your reliance on the tapes is pretty flimsy. It really only proves that Peterson was a lying philanderer who dug himself a hole he is having a hard time getting out of.



[edit on 04/8/24 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by sublime4372



I wouldnt be so sure about that. There is allot of talk about jourer #5, he seems to be a very thick headed person and dont believe that Scott killed Laci. Maybe thick headed isnt the correct word, maybe he is just the opposite, open minded.


That BS. Thats the kind of speculation that people hate. How does anyone know what is in the jurors mind? You cant. They havent started deliberations yet. Im telling you, listen to him on the tapes. Especially after Amber finds out that Scotts wife is missing and she starts to call him out on his BS. Trust me, this guy is a classic sociopath. My brother is one, and this guy has the exact same traits as him.

READ HERE--> Uh.. my friend, jourer #5 was intervied by by a news reporter and basicly said that he believed that Scott was innocent, due to lack of evidence. I didn't just pull that out of my a**.
Are all sociopaths killers?



TextThe prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Scott peterson killed his wife and unborn baby. These phone call are incriminating but its not solid evidence. Dont forget that out of some 200+ calls he never cofessed to anything, even with the poliece coaching Amber in the coversations. The prosecution is lacking somthing that you need to put anyone behind bars, Proof.


BS-- this whole casse is based on circumstantial evidence. Lets take the phone calls out for a second. Lets look at the fishing theory. Hmmm interesting that she washed up less than a mile from where he was "fishing" also, hes on tape telling her he was golfing that day. This guy has lied from the begining. and hes guilty. Ill wager any amount anyone would like on that. no matter how big a douche he is, people say "that doesnt make him a murderer" true. what did him in for me, was the calls to amber on the day of lacis vigil. not only her, but his UNBORN SON !!! someone whos life was on the line as well as their wife and baby DOES NOT CALL HIS GIRLFRIEND WHILE HIS WIFE IS MISSING !!!! GET IT???
IT DOESNT HAPPEN. There is not a least bit of concern in his voice, because he knows the answer to everyones questions. He tries to sound so sincere to amber with all his bull#, untill Amber starts to grill him. then all his Bs'n stops, and he gets quiet, answers with one word answers. its sooo typical.

if you think otherwise, you havent listened to the tapes then, so dont talk to me plz. without hearing those, i wasnt convinced either. listen to them and you will hear a murderer.


I have listined to the tapes. Anyone whos folling this case has heard the tapes. Look Im not sayin he is innocent, but there is not much evidence against him, becides the tapes. The tapes do nothing but proove that he is a scum, but it does not mean he killed her.

And lets think about him going fishing in the area where Laci turned up. Now, if I was to murder my wife and dump her body into the ocean Icertanly would not go around telling everyone that I was fishing there that day. Maybe, MAY-BE, the killer saw Scott saying this on telivision and a little light bulb went off in his head. Then once the body is found Scott decides that he better stop saying he went fishing and say he went golfing instead. Im not sayin thats what happend but its a possibility, and that, my friend, is why I would not convict him, because there are just too many possibilities like that.

[edit on 24-8-2004 by Tr33stump]



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 03:18 PM
link   
None has really touched on the fact that there was an eyewitness that said she saw Laci walking her dog AFTER Scott claimg he went fishing. She was never questiond by poliece, even after contacting them to do so.

Now what do you have to say to that? Mr. sublime?



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tr33stump
None has really touched on the fact that there was an eyewitness that said she saw Laci walking her dog AFTER Scott claimg he went fishing. She was never questiond by poliece, even after contacting them to do so.

Now what do you have to say to that? Mr. sublime?



LOL thats what. This guy has lied about everything in this case from the very begining. A jury only needs to find one guilty beyond a REASONABLE doubt, not ALL doubt.

So let's review some things here:

1: First he tells the police that he was golfing, then changes it to fishing. When asked what for, he said sturgen. When asked what kind of bait, he didnt know. So your going to drive 90 miles from home to fish for sturgen, on a little crappy boat on the ocean on XMAS EVE, while your pregnant wife is at home?..

2: You tell your mistress that you lost your wife before she ever goes missing. (also remember that he told the girl that set him and Amber up that he WASNT MARRIED, not a widower, WASNT MARRIED.)

3:He gave Amber a test question on the phone,(this is when she is taping him, and he doesnt know it) He has told her that he is in France. He doesnt know that she knows his wife is missing yet. He asks her if she heard about the bomb that went off in France. He is testing her to she if she has been watching the news and has heard about Laci.

4: All of the conversations that he has with her while he doesnt know that she does, he talks and talks. He tells her all his feelings, and is soooo smooth. Problem is once he knows that she knows, his whole attitude changes terribly. he only gives one word answers, he lies to cover up more lies.


And finally, no matter how much of a louse he is, a murderer doesn not that make. I was on his side till these tapes because of one thing that stuck out in my mind.

No matter his feelings towards his wife or unborn son, his ass is on the line here. his wife a child are missing. everyone knows that the first place they are going to is the husband. this guy, if innocent, would have been searching night and day and doing everything in his power to find her, or at the least clear himself of any involvment.

In all his conversations with amber, never does he show any concern about anything to do with her. NOT A SHRED OF CONCERN. That only means one thing. He knew what happened to her. That body washed up exactly one mile from where he told investigators he was fishing. IN THE FREAKING OCEAN.....

treestump, you need to check the facts here. it is so obvious. and i will bet you anything you want that the jury finds this dude guilty in about 5 minutes. guarantee it.

remember, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and acts like a duck.....its a duck !!!



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Okay, I like to play juror as much as anyone. I started a thread a few weeks ago, in which I speculated on the basis of observations of those involved in the case and the evidence known at the time.

While I don't claim clairvoyance, human behavior is a subject of study for me and I have noted some irregularities in demeanor before that has in fact lead to a solving of the crime by the police.

This is of course very unscientific, but it is an interesting exercise in observational skills with little at risk.

If you are interested you can go to the thread and read there what I predicted and see what others had to add.

The verdict is not in. It is possible that all the evidence has not been presented.

Do you think that it might be possible that my hunch is correct?



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tr33stump



A perfect murder means you wouldn't even be a suspect much less go on trial.


A good point.

But of course he is going to be a suspect, the husband of a murderd wife is always a prime suspect or vice versa.The reason I say its a perfect crime is they cant estabish a motive, there is no weapon, no crime scene, no witnesses. If he did infact do it, it may not be perfect but prity darn close.


A motive is not necessary for a conviction.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 04:58 AM
link   
First off, they are in week # what? 12 or 13 in an anticipated 6 month trial?

We, Joe Public, aren't privy to ALL the evidence.

I listened to some, not all, of those phone transcriipts. Personally, they were boring and filled with mush. As previously stated by Gregaros, Peterson never told this woman he loved her. It sounded like he was just trying to placate Frey so he could continue his sexual relationship with her.

Men have had mistresses for years, Scott Peterson isn't the first.

I understand Frey being upset by being duped into the relationship, but again, that doesn't scream "guilty of murder" to me.

Frey attempts to come off as a "goody two shoes". Frey had her own agenda in this realtionship as well shown by her willingly providing a house key to Peterson and allowing him to pick up her daughter from day care after only two dates.

The last relationship she had with a married man, ended when the man decided to reconcile with his wife. Frey went to the hospital and saw the baby after it was born. (WHY?)

The relationship ended with Frey calling the police because the guy hit her or slapped her. (WHY would the guy just hit /slap her if he is trying to leave and rekindle his relationship with wife and baby?) It seems as tho Frey was getting back at this guy for leaving her.

I think Frey got intouch with the police because she was pissed at Peterson and this way her way of getting back at him and taking the focus off herself. (A good defense is a good offense, right?)

I think Frey is more involved than we think.

mako








[edit on 25-8-2004 by mako0956]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join