A PORTRAIT OF THE ACCUSED
In a rare interview, the family of Scott Peterson sheds light on the life and
times of the 'perfect' son
Excerpt: It was after he met Laci that Scott Peterson learned that he had two
siblings who had been given up for adoption before he was born -- a brother,
born in 1963, and a sister, born in 1965.
Those siblings found each other first, and then had an emotional reunion with
their birth mother. Jackie Peterson then introduced them to her other children.
Unfazed, Scott Peterson quickly became close friends with his new sister, Anne
-- and Laci and Scott Peterson attended her wedding, wearing matching black and
orange outfits.
-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown
Marley Greiner
03-07-2004, 08:05 AM
Well! That explains it all. He's an adoption survivor! (using the
parlance of "abortion survivor").
Marley
"LilMtnCbn" <lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20040307092853.12186.00000977@mb-m02.aol.com... Good Grief. ACS by association. Let's see how L.Crackangelo spins this.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/03/07/MNGRT5G2BR1.DTL A PORTRAIT OF THE ACCUSED In a rare interview, the family of Scott Peterson sheds light on the life
and times of the 'perfect' son Excerpt: It was after he met Laci that Scott Peterson learned that he had
two siblings who had been given up for adoption before he was born -- a
brother, born in 1963, and a sister, born in 1965. Those siblings found each other first, and then had an emotional reunion
with their birth mother. Jackie Peterson then introduced them to her other
children. Unfazed, Scott Peterson quickly became close friends with his new sister,
Anne -- and Laci and Scott Peterson attended her wedding, wearing matching
black and orange outfits. ------------------------- A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend
will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!" -----Unknown
kj
03-07-2004, 08:21 AM
>Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.netDate: 3/7/2004 11:05 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <ELH2c.83609$aH3.2558086@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>Well! That explains it all. He's an adoption survivor! (using theparlance of "abortion survivor").Marley
You couldn't be more wrong. He obviously has ACS by Proxy.
"LilMtnCbn" <lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam> wrote in messagenews:20040307092853.12186.00000977@mb-m02.aol.com... Good Grief. ACS by association. Let's see how L.Crackangelo spins this.http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/03/07/MNGRT5G2BR1.DTL A PORTRAIT OF THE ACCUSED In a rare interview, the family of Scott Peterson sheds light on the lifeand times of the 'perfect' son Excerpt: It was after he met Laci that Scott Peterson learned that he hadtwo siblings who had been given up for adoption before he was born -- abrother, born in 1963, and a sister, born in 1965. Those siblings found each other first, and then had an emotional reunionwith their birth mother. Jackie Peterson then introduced them to her otherchildren. Unfazed, Scott Peterson quickly became close friends with his new sister,Anne -- and Laci and Scott Peterson attended her wedding, wearing matchingblack and orange outfits. ------------------------- A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friendwill be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!" -----Unknown
kj
Mike Walton
03-07-2004, 11:01 AM
719 Date: 2004-03-07 16:26:11
David Sween ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
As I have repeatedly indicated, Scott did not dump his wife in the
Bay, her body was deliberately planted, to implicate Scott Peterson.
If Scott had in fact murdered Laci and dumped her in the Bay, sonar
searches would have located the body.
Indeed, a sonar search just recovered a man from Idaho, who was just
located at the bottom of Auke Bay.
Visibility is not a factor in Sonar searches because experts measure a
reflection of sound and not light. The only reason that Laci was not
located is because she was not there, and that is probably because she
was buried in a shallow grave.
Speculation aside, sonar searches failed to recover the body, and that
is because there was no body to recover. It was obviously planted to
implicate Scott Peterson, and that is clearly what sonar searches have
proved.
718 Date: 2004-03-06 05:08:47
Bruno Jasienski ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
Do not fear your enemies. The worst they can do is kill you. Do not
fear your friends. At worst, they may betray you. Fear those who do
not care; they neither kill nor betray, but betrayal and murder exist
because of their silent consent.
717 Date: 2004-03-03 21:27:13
David Sween ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
Why does Judge Delucchi contradict himself? In his own words, "I'm
persuaded the dog tracking in and around Modesto can't be
corroborated'' said Delucchi. "You can't cross-examine the dog."
Delucchi, however, ruled that prosecutors will be able to present a
separate piece of dog-tracking evidence that places Laci Peterson's
scent at the very pier where her husband said he left for an afternoon
of fishing on the day she went missing. The
jury will hear testimony from an expert dog handler whose Labrador
retriever Trimble followed Laci Peterson's scent from the parking lot
of the Berkeley Marina to the edge of the pier.
Court precedent requires corroboration of any dog-tracking evidence,
Delucchi said, and called the marina evidence admissible because Scott
Peterson admitted going to the marina, and Laci Peterson and her fetus
washed ashore 2 1/2 miles from the marina four months later. What does
that have to do with the need to follow Laci's scent?
Where is the corroboration? Did anybody see Laci at the Marina? Is
Judge Delucci going to cross-examine the dog? This judge does not make
any sense. First and foremost, the crap that Delucci has chosen to
call evidence is straight out of the National Enquirer, and this is
the direct quote: "And Trimble, another Lab tracking dog, produced the
most compelling evidence against Scott. He showed that Scott left his
warehouse in his truck, headed for the Berkeley Marina, and the dog
picked up Laci's scent – at the marina!"
Is Judge Delucchi going to cross-examine the dog?
Moreover, Delucchi has selectively excluded dog tracking evidence
because Modesto police detective Al Brocchini called off a search even
though a bloodhound named Merlin appeared to be following Laci
Peterson's scent, and that is not justifiable.
Where is the corroboration? Who saw Laci at the marina? Eyewitnesses
corroborated the fact that Scott was at the marina, alone. This is
extremely bizarre and presumptuous corroboration -like denying Merlin
the tracking dog, the opportunity to follow Laci Peterson's scent.
Delucchi's peculiar obsession to dismiss the fact that nobody saw Laci
at the marina, not to mention the fact that she was witnessed walking
her dog on December 24th, clearly indicates that the so called,
"corroborated" dog-tracking evidence is nothing more than the bizarre
theory that the National Enquirer publicized. That is not even what
you call evidence, let alone, corroborated evidence.
716 Date: 2004-03-03 03:35:51
Mike ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
Judge rules that the "evidence" published in the National Enquirer on
January 6, is admissable ! LOL
Dogs tracked Laci's scent to a boat she had never been on. Fascinating
! Sounds like dogs don't know the difference between Scott and Laci's
property, since Scott had handled it. For those who don't know the
diff, that's called contaminated evidence --but what else do you
expect from the National Enquirer? You would think that a judge would
know better.
715 Date: 2004-03-01 21:45:35
John Ashcroft's Justice Department is involved? ( no email / no
homepage) wrote:
"They have report after report after report of investigations that
were taking place in December," Geragos said. "These items are
negative for my client. I've got pages upon pages of hair comparisons
that exclude my client at every single point."
Prosecutor David Harris said they were working with the Department of
Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigations to turn over the
reports.
"We're doing the best we can," Harris told Delucchi. "We're going up
the chain and saying you need to get this done."
714 Date: 2004-03-01 16:14:28
Joe Sneider ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
Oh Fred, you are so gentle with your leading questions, don't beat
around the bush ! These idiots are trying to suggest that Scott
Peterson made cement anchors, used them to sink Laci, and he just left
one behind so that the geniuses can trace it back to Scott. These
MORONS are so stupid, it will be a huge shock if the entire jury does
not die laughing before this is over.
713 Date: 2004-03-01 15:38:19
Fred Sanfilippo ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
The bodies of Laci Peterson and the baby were simultaneously recovered
in April along the shores of San Francisco Bay, not far from where
Scott Peterson was reported fishing on the day his wife vanished -
Christmas Eve, 2002.
Who is gullible enough to believe that Scott Peterson directed the
opportunity to frame himself?
712 Date: 2004-02-29 18:08:15
David Sween ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
The case against Scott Peterson has been aired in the National
Enquirer and it does not belong in any court room where Kangaroo
Justice does not prevail.
Mark Geragos does not need a defense to make it clear that it is not
plausible to legitimately convict a man who has been cleared by 24/7
scrutiny. The slanderous and spurious allegations which are now called
"the evidence" have been published in detail, in the National Enquirer
and if this disinformation is to be pawned off to an unsuspecting
jury, they need to be informed. And so, if the trial against Scott
Peterson is to be fair, the judge must instruct the jury accordingly;
"Members of the jury, I am supplying you with 10 issues of the
National Enquirer. The theories of nine of the issues have been
rejected by the prosecution because they made you all laugh. The
January 6, 2004 issue is indisputable because the National Enquirer
published a picture of Merlin the tracking dog, and THAT is what you
call INDISPUTABLE evidence. If, in your infinite wisdom, you determine
that the National Enquirer is a credible source, you must find guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt. If you think that the National Enquirer is
not credible, then Investigators like David Sween gets the last word."
This case is clearly over as far as the guilt or the innocence of
Scott Peterson is concerned.
The judge in the Laci Peterson murder trial was supposed to be Richard
Arnason, a retired Contra Costa County judge who was choseny by
California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George. Arnason is a
well known, criminal law expert with extensive death penalty case
experience and having served on the Superior Court of Contra Costa
County for 31 years, he would never tolerate the tactics of
prosecutors who are pretending to have a case against Scott Peterson.
Needless to say, the prosecutors had to shop around, to find a judge
who was willing to listen to a case that would have been thrown out a
long time ago, if a reasonable judge like Arnoson was not replaced.
Clearly, any Judge who determines that the National Enquirer had
showed probable cause that Scott Peterson had killed 27-year-old Laci,
who was nine months pregnant, and dumped her body in San Francisco
Bay, needs his head examined.
I know what I am talking about. In my experience, reasonable and fair
Judges are irresponsibly replaced when prosecutors understands the
weakness of their case.
Michael Cardoza, a criminal defense attorney in the San Francisco Bay
area, thought that both the prosecution and the defense would approve
of Arnason and every legal expert was shocked to hear he had been
replaced.
"He does what's right and he controls his courtroom," said Cardoza,
who tried a case before Arnason in 1998.
If the prosecution had a case, they would have accepted Arnason.
Instead, they made sure he was disqualified because they [try not to
laugh] claimed that an experienced and distinguished judge was biased
against them.
Mark Geragos is understandably frustrated and angered by the kangaroo
court that the prosecutors are seeking to construct for the sake of
lynching Scott Peterson. The prosecution selected judge is even
refusing to sequester the jury, and in this case, a jury that is not
sequestered is subject to the manipulation that the Skakel jury was
subjected to, when demagogues like Dominick Dunne dined within earshot
of the jurors that lynched Michael Skakel. Needless to say, this
prosecution is seeking an equally creative way to manipulate the
Peterson jury; is that why they opposed the request to sequester the
jury?
Judge Alfred A. Delucchi said jurors will be allowed to go home each
night with an admonishment not to discuss the case, "and we'll see
what happens." We'll see what happens, if this selected fool who is
supposed to be a judge, continues to preside over a kangaroo court.
I repeat; The case against Scott Peterson is OVER, because Scott
Peterson, the most investigated man in America, has been absolutely
cleared by 24/7 scrutiny. In the alternative, you can promote the so
called credibility of the January 6, 2004 issue of the National
Enquirer, because every other issue has prompted widespread laughter
--and now, it's just a matter of time... before the media rejects the
latest fraud.
711 Date: 2004-02-29 15:44:47
Jake Stewart ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
By Kim Curtis
ASSOCIATED PRESS
12:22 a.m. February 26, 2004
REDWOOD CITY – Laci Peterson's trail ended at the water's edge.
It began as a scent path picked up by police dogs, leading from Scott
and Laci Peterson's Modesto home down the road to nowhere.
According to testimony this week by the dogs' handlers, Laci
Peterson's scent was again picked up at a nearby warehouse that Scott
Peterson rented and on a boat he had stored inside – the same boat
prosecutors say he used to ferry his wife's body out into the San
Francisco Bay.
_______________________________
Wow, Associated Press read the January 6, 2004 issue of the National
Enquirer, and it publishes it as "the news" for February 26, 2004. LOL
710 Date: 2004-02-28 14:04:07
Mike ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
When did the National Enquirer become the medium for who goes to jail
and who does not?
Does the judge in the Scott Peterson case read the National Enquirer?
For those with a low IQ, this is not a trick question !
http://www.geocities.com/botenth/national.htm
Mike Walton
03-07-2004, 12:15 PM
so sad -the MORONS who murdered Chandra Levy and Laci Peterson have
failed to frame Scott.
719 Date: 2004-03-07 16:26:11
David Sween ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
As I have repeatedly indicated, Scott did not dump his wife in the
Bay, her body was deliberately planted, to implicate Scott Peterson.
If Scott had in fact murdered Laci and dumped her in the Bay, sonar
searches would have located the body.
Indeed, a sonar search just recovered a man from Idaho, who was just
located at the bottom of Auke Bay.
Visibility is not a factor in Sonar searches because experts measure a
reflection of sound and not light. The only reason that Laci was not
located is because she was not there, and that is probably because she
was buried in a shallow grave.
Speculation aside, sonar searches failed to recover the body, and that
is because there was no body to recover. It was obviously planted to
implicate Scott Peterson, and that is clearly what sonar searches have
proved.
718 Date: 2004-03-06 05:08:47
Bruno Jasienski ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
Do not fear your enemies. The worst they can do is kill you. Do not
fear your friends. At worst, they may betray you. Fear those who do
not care; they neither kill nor betray, but betrayal and murder exist
because of their silent consent.
717 Date: 2004-03-03 21:27:13
David Sween ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
Why does Judge Delucchi contradict himself? In his own words, "I'm
persuaded the dog tracking in and around Modesto can't be
corroborated'' said Delucchi. "You can't cross-examine the dog."
Delucchi, however, ruled that prosecutors will be able to present a
separate piece of dog-tracking evidence that places Laci Peterson's
scent at the very pier where her husband said he left for an afternoon
of fishing on the day she went missing. The
jury will hear testimony from an expert dog handler whose Labrador
retriever Trimble followed Laci Peterson's scent from the parking lot
of the Berkeley Marina to the edge of the pier.
Court precedent requires corroboration of any dog-tracking evidence,
Delucchi said, and called the marina evidence admissible because Scott
Peterson admitted going to the marina, and Laci Peterson and her fetus
washed ashore 2 1/2 miles from the marina four months later. What does
that have to do with the need to follow Laci's scent?
Where is the corroboration? Did anybody see Laci at the Marina? Is
Judge Delucci going to cross-examine the dog? This judge does not make
any sense. First and foremost, the crap that Delucci has chosen to
call evidence is straight out of the National Enquirer, and this is
the direct quote: "And Trimble, another Lab tracking dog, produced the
most compelling evidence against Scott. He showed that Scott left his
warehouse in his truck, headed for the Berkeley Marina, and the dog
picked up Laci's scent – at the marina!"
Is Judge Delucchi going to cross-examine the dog?
Moreover, Delucchi has selectively excluded dog tracking evidence
because Modesto police detective Al Brocchini called off a search even
though a bloodhound named Merlin appeared to be following Laci
Peterson's scent, and that is not justifiable.
Where is the corroboration? Who saw Laci at the marina? Eyewitnesses
corroborated the fact that Scott was at the marina, alone. This is
extremely bizarre and presumptuous corroboration -like denying Merlin
the tracking dog, the opportunity to follow Laci Peterson's scent.
Delucchi's peculiar obsession to dismiss the fact that nobody saw Laci
at the marina, not to mention the fact that she was witnessed walking
her dog on December 24th, clearly indicates that the so called,
"corroborated" dog-tracking evidence is nothing more than the bizarre
theory that the National Enquirer publicized. That is not even what
you call evidence, let alone, corroborated evidence.
716 Date: 2004-03-03 03:35:51
Mike ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
Judge rules that the "evidence" published in the National Enquirer on
January 6, is admissable ! LOL
Dogs tracked Laci's scent to a boat she had never been on. Fascinating
! Sounds like dogs don't know the difference between Scott and Laci's
property, since Scott had handled it. For those who don't know the
diff, that's called contaminated evidence --but what else do you
expect from the National Enquirer? You would think that a judge would
know better.
715 Date: 2004-03-01 21:45:35
John Ashcroft's Justice Department is involved? ( no email / no
homepage) wrote:
"They have report after report after report of investigations that
were taking place in December," Geragos said. "These items are
negative for my client. I've got pages upon pages of hair comparisons
that exclude my client at every single point."
Prosecutor David Harris said they were working with the Department of
Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigations to turn over the
reports.
"We're doing the best we can," Harris told Delucchi. "We're going up
the chain and saying you need to get this done."
714 Date: 2004-03-01 16:14:28
Joe Sneider ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
Oh Fred, you are so gentle with your leading questions, don't beat
around the bush ! These idiots are trying to suggest that Scott
Peterson made cement anchors, used them to sink Laci, and he just left
one behind so that the geniuses can trace it back to Scott. These
MORONS are so stupid, it will be a huge shock if the entire jury does
not die laughing before this is over.
713 Date: 2004-03-01 15:38:19
Fred Sanfilippo ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
The bodies of Laci Peterson and the baby were simultaneously recovered
in April along the shores of San Francisco Bay, not far from where
Scott Peterson was reported fishing on the day his wife vanished -
Christmas Eve, 2002.
Who is gullible enough to believe that Scott Peterson directed the
opportunity to frame himself?
712 Date: 2004-02-29 18:08:15
David Sween ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
The case against Scott Peterson has been aired in the National
Enquirer and it does not belong in any court room where Kangaroo
Justice does not prevail.
Mark Geragos does not need a defense to make it clear that it is not
plausible to legitimately convict a man who has been cleared by 24/7
scrutiny. The slanderous and spurious allegations which are now called
"the evidence" have been published in detail, in the National Enquirer
and if this disinformation is to be pawned off to an unsuspecting
jury, they need to be informed. And so, if the trial against Scott
Peterson is to be fair, the judge must instruct the jury accordingly;
"Members of the jury, I am supplying you with 10 issues of the
National Enquirer. The theories of nine of the issues have been
rejected by the prosecution because they made you all laugh. The
January 6, 2004 issue is indisputable because the National Enquirer
published a picture of Merlin the tracking dog, and THAT is what you
call INDISPUTABLE evidence. If, in your infinite wisdom, you determine
that the National Enquirer is a credible source, you must find guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt. If you think that the National Enquirer is
not credible, then Investigators like David Sween gets the last word."
This case is clearly over as far as the guilt or the innocence of
Scott Peterson is concerned.
The judge in the Laci Peterson murder trial was supposed to be Richard
Arnason, a retired Contra Costa County judge who was choseny by
California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George. Arnason is a
well known, criminal law expert with extensive death penalty case
experience and having served on the Superior Court of Contra Costa
County for 31 years, he would never tolerate the tactics of
prosecutors who are pretending to have a case against Scott Peterson.
Needless to say, the prosecutors had to shop around, to find a judge
who was willing to listen to a case that would have been thrown out a
long time ago, if a reasonable judge like Arnoson was not replaced.
Clearly, any Judge who determines that the National Enquirer had
showed probable cause that Scott Peterson had killed 27-year-old Laci,
who was nine months pregnant, and dumped her body in San Francisco
Bay, needs his head examined.
I know what I am talking about. In my experience, reasonable and fair
Judges are irresponsibly replaced when prosecutors understands the
weakness of their case.
Michael Cardoza, a criminal defense attorney in the San Francisco Bay
area, thought that both the prosecution and the defense would approve
of Arnason and every legal expert was shocked to hear he had been
replaced.
"He does what's right and he controls his courtroom," said Cardoza,
who tried a case before Arnason in 1998.
If the prosecution had a case, they would have accepted Arnason.
Instead, they made sure he was disqualified because they [try not to
laugh] claimed that an experienced and distinguished judge was biased
against them.
Mark Geragos is understandably frustrated and angered by the kangaroo
court that the prosecutors are seeking to construct for the sake of
lynching Scott Peterson. The prosecution selected judge is even
refusing to sequester the jury, and in this case, a jury that is not
sequestered is subject to the manipulation that the Skakel jury was
subjected to, when demagogues like Dominick Dunne dined within earshot
of the jurors that lynched Michael Skakel. Needless to say, this
prosecution is seeking an equally creative way to manipulate the
Peterson jury; is that why they opposed the request to sequester the
jury?
Judge Alfred A. Delucchi said jurors will be allowed to go home each
night with an admonishment not to discuss the case, "and we'll see
what happens." We'll see what happens, if this selected fool who is
supposed to be a judge, continues to preside over a kangaroo court.
I repeat; The case against Scott Peterson is OVER, because Scott
Peterson, the most investigated man in America, has been absolutely
cleared by 24/7 scrutiny. In the alternative, you can promote the so
called credibility of the January 6, 2004 issue of the National
Enquirer, because every other issue has prompted widespread laughter
--and now, it's just a matter of time... before the media rejects the
latest fraud.
711 Date: 2004-02-29 15:44:47
Jake Stewart ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
By Kim Curtis
ASSOCIATED PRESS
12:22 a.m. February 26, 2004
REDWOOD CITY – Laci Peterson's trail ended at the water's edge.
It began as a scent path picked up by police dogs, leading from Scott
and Laci Peterson's Modesto home down the road to nowhere.
According to testimony this week by the dogs' handlers, Laci
Peterson's scent was again picked up at a nearby warehouse that Scott
Peterson rented and on a boat he had stored inside – the same boat
prosecutors say he used to ferry his wife's body out into the San
Francisco Bay.
_______________________________
Wow, Associated Press read the January 6, 2004 issue of the National
Enquirer, and it publishes it as "the news" for February 26, 2004. LOL
710 Date: 2004-02-28 14:04:07
Mike ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
When did the National Enquirer become the medium for who goes to jail
and who does not?
Does the judge in the Scott Peterson case read the National Enquirer?
For those with a low IQ, this is not a trick question !
http://www.geocities.com/botenth/national.htm
Complete Labor
Law Poster for $24.95 from www.LaborLawCenter.com,
includes State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements
