Here We Go Again: Scott Peterson Back in Court
Ever since his trial in 2003, I’ve often asked myself what the draw has been to Scott Peterson. Let’s face it, there have been other pregnant wives murdered by their husbands, both good looking people and living somewhat “normal” lives. These cases, sadly, are not rare.
What was it that gripped the nation when Laci turned up missing? Why were gripped by this case like no other?
We’ve seen sociopaths appear on television before, calm, cool and collected, only to later be arrested and charged with murder. We’ve seen the mistress with the blond hair, the high-powered attorney looking for the book deal standing by her side, crying at the lectern: “I didn’t know he was married … he lied to me.”
We’ve seen the high-profile defense attorney bellowing the call of the wolf: “My client’s innocent … the facts in this case will prove it.”
So what was it with the Peterson case? A slow news week?
It is one of the great questions in the world of crime media—a world, incidentally, that has grown into preposterous proportions, what, with the Internet now turning computer user slackers into “cyber sleuths” with absolutely no journalistic credibility behind them whatsoever.
Don’t get me started.
As far as Scotty Boy goes, we’ll get our chance to relive it all once again when the convicted death row inmate heads back to trial all over again in early July—but this time, he’ll be in civil court battling a wrongful death suit brought on by Laci’s family.
Laci’s parents filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Scotty, seeking a multimillion-dollar judgment.
Good luck with that.
Can we not just let this go? Can we not just let this evil human being rot in prison, read his fan mail and see tern minutes of sun per day? Do we need to prolong the agony of this case and relive it all over again?
At a hearing last Friday, June 6, Scott Peterson’s defense attorney “cited in court a videotape made at San Quentin State Prison in which he [Scott] maintains his innocence.”
I mean, come on, why would the guy change his tune now? What would it get him?
Why are we Americans so enamored by the high-profile murder case/trial involving middle-class American families of good-looking people? What drives this rubberneck mentality?
This is the question.
Prepare yourselves, people, for all those talking head lawyers to come out of their Burbank and LA and Beverley Hills caves and explain to us why we need to pay attention to this worthless civil case. This guy is on death row. He has nothing left. What is it that Laci’s family will get out of all this?
More misery?
More unanswered questions?
More airtime.
June 10th, 2008 at 7:30 am
My passion is missing persons so I followed Laci’s disappearance from the beginning and still follow the case and playas. It had all of the elements that tend to suck people in: adorable pregnant woman, attractive husband, mistress, other interesting/compelling family members (the Rochas and Petersons), high profile media-ho lawyers…and it played out like a soap opera. In some ways, it was similar to the OJ case but without the celebrity murderer.
There is no doubt that attractive missing adults and children get the most media attention.
June 10th, 2008 at 7:45 am
Oops, didn’t address the civil suit. I am not sure why Laci’s family is proceeding with a civil suit because I am not sure that Scooter has any remaining assets. I thought the house was sold long ago. Sharon Rocha was awarded Laci’s life insurance.
June 10th, 2008 at 7:57 am
I agree E.M. I loved her smile, and to begin with I did think she was missing, but not for long. I hate him. I wish California would get on with the DP (Sorry, Melissa, but I don’t see the use of pieces of trash like him)I know it won’t though. A friend is still waiting seven years for her neice’s killer to be executed and it’s almost certain he will die of old age on Death Row than be executed – Randy Kraft and Richard Ramirez are still alive thirty years on, aren’t they?
June 10th, 2008 at 8:06 am
It seems that wrongful death suits are popular today but when you know you won’t get a dime, why would you bother? Some people will lose money to sue someone just on principal alone. The money doesn’t really mean anything to them anyway, it is the principal.
I think we follow these cases bcause it is hard for a normal, non-narcissistic, non-sociopathic individual to fathom how this happens. I am always infatuated watching an interview with a murderer who can lie as though he really believes what he is saying. And he really expects the rest of us to forget about the evidence and believe him as well. I don’t know why, but it amazes me.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:22 am
I didn’t intentionally follow this case, but it is difficult not to when it is plastered on t.v. 24/7. I am not sure why this particular case made such big news. Maybe the others are correct that it is a case of the beautiful people.
It does seem ridiculous that they are bringing a suit against him. It will accomplish nothing. Not even a monetary gain. If I am correct in the CA penal codes you cannot sell your story for profit if you are found guilty of the crime.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:25 am
There are ways around the Son of Sam Law-perhaps Sharon Rocha believes this lawsuit, if successful, will close up any loopholes that Peterson might use to promote his innocence in a book or a movie or whatever. As well as not wanting him to profit- well, Peterson has also misrepresented Laci-and that has to stick under Sharon’s skin. I’m a mother, and it would stick under my skin if I was in that situation, and I’d sue his ass off, too, if it meant he wouldn’t be able to do that again.
The first thing that ever caught my attention about the case was Laci’s smile. That sounds really shallow, and the case did have the other elements that EM mentioned-but it was the smile that made a lot of us pay attention.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:51 am
I agree with what you say about Laci’s smile, Rae. Looking at her just made me think, “Who could kill HER?” It wasn’t just because she was pretty. She seemed to have a warmth and kindness to her.
Maybe Sharon just wants to drag Scott’s ass to court, as it is her only means of punishing him further and making him face those who loved the woman he murdered.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:55 am
This was the case extraordinaire of its day. I am often surprised at how far reaching some these stories will go. It was tragic and heartbreaking, and Scott, in my opinion, is exactly where he needs to be — locked away forever, or we can hope so.
I suppose the family feels a need to exact some other punishment on Scott, or perhaps, heartless as this may sound, they just can’t let go of the attention. It may make them feel they are doing something else for Laci, or they have wrapped their identity around being a victim. Only they know their true and full intent, but if they want to go there, there will be an army of supporters and hanger-on’s.
Surely, you must encounter this when talking with victims and families. What do most people do when the culprit is caught, the trial is over, and the attention fades? How do people resume a normal life when such a unfantomable trauma has occurred? It is hard enough to lose a loved one to disease or accidents, but to lose them to violence has to be hard to ever accept or overcome.
As for me, a mere distant observer, let him sit in his tiny cell. I don’t see any reason to give him any attention for any reason. I regret this will make him the center of attention again and, it seems he has some very passionate supporters.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:57 am
It’s stupid, and as much as I feel for Sharon Rocha, WTF is she thinking? What IF she loses? As we have all discussed before, the case is highly circumstancial.
It would be wonderful fodder for a defense attorney to appeal his State conviction. Silly woman. There is no point to this whatsoever, he is on DEATH ROW for God’s sake. He has nada. He has no chance of making anything.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Well said Rae. I couldn’t agree more
I think the fact that Laci disappeared on Christmas Eve is what brought it to the attention of the media.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:31 am
If they win this civil suit, would that mean any money, besides any supposed book profits he might get, such as money his fan club sends him would go the Laci’s family? I am sure they would love to grind him down to virtually nothing.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:51 am
I doubt this has anything to do with money for Sharon Rocha. It’s possibly just one more angle on justice, that she feels like she needs. And if she needs it, if it will help her cope with the enormous loss of her only daughter and her grandson, then who are we to question it?
The part of the story that drew me in, was how many people loved Laci. She was so full of life. So talented, with so much hope for the future. For Scott to cut that off for no good reason, is what makes this a mystery. Why he, and others like him, can’t just let a woman (whom they no longer love) go and live life with people that really love them, is baffling, terrible and fascinating.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:55 am
I doubt it Rose. They dont even get that much, there is a limit of how much they can spend and how much money can go into that account in any case.
They specifically said they are doing this so that he cannot profit from any book or movie deal, which is confusing, because its against the law for him to make any money from a book or movie deal.
I think you are right in your first thoughts. It may not be they are looking for attention for themselves mind you, but grieving parents often get worried people will forget about their children. But they have a tough road ahead of them. The judge ruled that they will have to prove their case, and said his conviction is not proof.
June 10th, 2008 at 10:04 am
I agree with Rae’s comments about Laci’s smile and how I would feel as a mother. Also with Terri, who said, “I agree with what you say about Laci’s smile, Rae. Looking at her just made me think, “Who could kill HER?” It wasn’t just because she was pretty. She seemed to have a warmth and kindness to her.”
Yes…she just had a wholesome, kind, and warm look about her that captured everyone’s heart. On the other hand, there is Scott, equally “beautiful”, yet on the other end of the spectrum as far as having warm, compassionate,loving characteristics. I keep wishing there could be some more horrible punishment for him than what is available, so I would imagine Laci’s family feels this desire as well.
June 10th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Yeah, it makes one wonder how they ended up together. It seems so unfair that someone like Laci would end up with an evil, selfish, lying sack of shit like Scott.
June 10th, 2008 at 10:32 am
I can’t help but think that something precipitated this lawsuit. Maybe Sharon Rocha got wind of something that was happening in the Peterson camp. Otherwise, it seems odd that she would decide to do this now. I could better see it within the first year of his conviction/sentencing, but it’s been a while.
Time will tell, I guess.
June 10th, 2008 at 10:33 am
When I say the beautiful people I don’t mean just pretty. I mean to others they had a wonderful life and a great relationship etc. So when one does the unthinkable it is hard to understand and easy to become engrossed.
Good point about another avenue to punish him. It is true that when you live with this sort of thing it becomes a part of your life. After it is over, life must seems somewhat empty. I don’t know this first hand about a family of a murder victem, but when my mother had cancer my father and sisters life was taking care of her. It became their norm. After she died my father could not function. Not just because she was gone, but most of the daily rituals were gone also.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:03 am
This may very well be true Rae.
If I recall correctly, Scott’s family was one piece of work. I wouldn’t put it past them to be scheming along the lines of sheltering some assets for him. And I’m sure Sharon will be having none of that.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Huh? They are a piece of work because they think their son is innocent?
What the hell did his family do? And sheltering assets for what exactly? He is in prison, he is still going to get his appeal, and most DP lawyers are pro-bono so I dont think there is an issue with attorney fees either.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:33 am
A conviction in either civil or criminal court is never proof in the other court. They have already gotten past the biggest hurdle, which is guilty BARD. All they have to prove in civil court is a preponderence of the evidence. I will be shocked if they don’t win.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:56 am
I think if they’re going through the trouble of a civil trial after this POS has already received the maximum sentence there must be an underlying reason.
I would bet that it has something to do with ensuring that any potential money that could come to him at anytime in the future is directed elsewhere.
This may be one more way that they making sure that all of their T’s are crossed. I don’t think this is about being attention seekers, I think there’s more to this than what we know and for whatever reason they believe that this is something that they need to do in order to fulfil what they believe is justice for their daughter and grandchild.
If it was me, I’d never want to quit sticking it to the SOB, death row or not. If he killed my daughter and my grandchild, let alone in such a brutal and cold manner, you bet I’d be out for a pound of flesh in any and every manner available to me until the put his worthless carcus 10-feet under. I would probably never rest. And I know I would never want the SOB to get comfortable in thinking he could live out the rest of his life, jail cell or not, never having to look in my face again.
If it was me I’d be looking right into his eyes as he took his last breath. I would want the last face he saw to be mine. I would hope that he would be crying like a child, peeing his pants and terrified of what might be waiting for him on the other side. I’m sure that I would not feel an ounce of remorse or guilt for how much I hated him or for any small bit of satisfaction I might gain from his execution.
June 10th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Melissa says:
“What the hell did his family do”
Lol, here we go again.
Okay, where to start…they raised a sociopath, and imo, that is done with a very specific formula involving spoilage, entitled attitudes, denial, spoilage, shirking responsibility, etc.
And yes, to think your son is innocent, when presented with factual evidence, is not helpful to the situation.
I’m not saying they should stop loving their son, but for crying out loud, have a love based on reality. Otherwise everyone’s paradigm is shifted away from reality, and that’s not healthy.
Lee and Jackie are a piece of work. In addition to the issues surrounding the raising of their sociopath, they also enabled him, with financial and practical support, to run from the law.
June 10th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
You said it, A! They are two lovely pieces of work, Jackie littering and abandoning her kids like they were unwanted kittens. The way Scott was treated would ruin any kid.
June 10th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
“Melissa Says:
June 10th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Huh? They are a piece of work because they think their son is innocent?”
No. C’mon, Melissa. Even you have to admit that there was quite a lot to indicate that the Petersons were first class enablers who thought Scott could do no wrong.
Believing in your child’s innocence is one thing-believing in it in defiance of numerous indications to the contrary is just plain delusional. That’s what makes them “pieces of work”.
And that’s not even including all the crap they pulled before, during, and after the trial. I mean, seriously. Denying Sharon Rocha access to a few of her dead daughter’s sentimental belongings? That’s just bullshit.
June 10th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
I also agree that this isn’t about money for Sharon. No way. It’s a little like victim’s families that go to every parole hearing of the perp. Get right in their face. I think Sharon will do ANYTHING she can to exact a little more justice for Laci.
Make Scott-O squirm a little. Bring it up for him again. MAKE him remember, just in case his POS ass chooses to forget.
I wonder if that one juror is still writing to him. No matter, this loser is where he belongs, and I hope I see the day he is put to death. I hope Laci and Connor’s spirits are there, making him REMEMBER…. “YOU did this to us, monster, now die.”
June 10th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
One more thing, wouldn’t it be nice, if instead of a last “dinner”….. they could bring him a fork and knife, then plop a cement anchor on his plate and say, there ya go Scotty Boy, chew on that.
June 10th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Thats just it, while again I stress, I DO think he did it. I havent seen any factual evidence to prove it. Just circumstantial evidence. A lot of it, but still nothing that is a smoking gun, or fingerprint for that matter. Or even blood.
Parents are parents, they love their kids, and I dont blame them for thinking he is innocent, hell, they certainly arent the only ones.
And Fiz? Are you being sarcastic? lol, because I really cant tell.
I too think something is up with the timing of this, and again, I think its a dangerous gamble for them.
June 10th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Melissa–Jackie (and Lee, most likely) have a life-long habit of not thinking Scott did anything wrong. That’s part of what makes a guy like Scott believe that they can lie their way out of anything and everything. They first perfected it with their parents…and if it works, they move on to every other trusting sucker they encounter, as it suits their purposes.
The evidence in this case is as logical as any. Parents are faced with logical evidence all the time. We don’t need a DNA analysis to tell us that our kids are capable of wrongdoing and should be encouraged to tell the truth and pay the consequences for poor decisions.
If they (Scott’s parents) believe him to be innocent, then it really wouldn’t matter what evidence one produced anyway. They wouldn’t believe it.
June 10th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
I understand the circumstantial thing, and for the longest time I really thought they should have given him LWP. But for some reason, in this particular case, the evidence was so overwhelming it was like getting hit in the face with a hockey puck. Seriously. Yes, as a rule, I’m leery of the death penalty for purely circumstantial cases. Why do I feel different on this one??? Got me. I just do. Period. No doubt. None.
June 10th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
No, Melissa, of course I wasn’t being sarky – I nearly said so, and then thought it wasn’t necessary as there’s no beef between us! (I hope!)
June 10th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
I think the reason it got so much attention was that she disappeared right before Christmas, she was pregnant, and that picture of her bright smile.
June 10th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
AH, I just never paid attention to Jackie. Have always felt that she was just like that because she thinks he is innocent, which still may be true mind you. But having read a bit more about her, I agree, she is a piece of work.
June 10th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Fiz, I didnt know about the adopted kids either, that was why I was confused, I have always thought that her kids were all very well (maybe too well) taken care of. (the 5 obviously). I totally missed that during the trial. Not that it would be relevant to the trial.
June 10th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Melissa, how did you ever miss that?? Anne Bird, Jackie’s adopted daughter, wrote Blood Brother and that, among other things, got her disowned from the family.
June 10th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Anne Bird isn’t Jackie’s adopted daughter – she’s Jackie’s biological daughter whom Jackie gave up for adoption. Just to clarify.
Personally, Lee and Jackie’s continued behavior just defied credulity right down the line. Especially when they sued Laci’s estate for half of the mortgage payments made AFTER Laci’s death. Unbelievable. Every time you had to wonder if they were for real, they’d do or say some other appalling thing. The apple does not fall far from that tree.
June 10th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Thanks Rae….that is what I meant to say.
June 10th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
She was in fact given up for adoption. I didnt say she adopted her lol. And I didnt read the gossip books, I remember thinking that one wasnt really worth reading. She seemed to have an agenda. I thought she was the other sister.
Yeah, I remember them being pissed, but I always kinda thought they were made out to look bad in the press.
I always felt that the Peterson’s were upset because their son was being vilified, and they truly believe him to be innocent, so I kinda tuned that part out and paid more attention to the case itself.
June 10th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Wow. I never heard a peep about his parents. Of course, I wasn’t following the case very closely. I hope that this civil suit is driven by a specific reason instead of just wild, undirected rage on Sharon’s part. I completely understand her desire to turn the screws, but I hope it’s not just a case of her flailing about in her anguish, trying to find *ANY* outlet.
Oh, and I SERIOUSLY do not get the fact of people being on death row for 30 years.
June 10th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Um what gossip books are you referring to? I didn’t know there were any.
June 10th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
I think Amber Frey’s was a “gossip” book. I respect her for coming forth, and for taping the phone calls from Scott-I think she was honestly trying to help. But, the whole book thing-sorry, but, rightly or wrongly, I think she capitalized on the notoriety.
I never felt that way about Anne Bird’s book, though. I genuinely had the feeling that Anne wrote it as a sort of cathartic effort to make sense of the whole mess. It had to be tough-she never sought out her biological mother-Jackie approached her, not the other way around, and then it turned into a nightmare. I also had the feeling that she truly loved Laci, and was devastated by her death and the realization that Scott was involved. Maybe the book wasn’t the best way to purge herself-or maybe it was the only way to do that, since she was never called to testify and couldn’t set the record straight on the stand.
June 10th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
I believe I said that I thought her book was a gossip book and didnt bother with reading it. That I thought she had an agenda, where is the confusion as to what book I am referring to?
And seriously what is with the TUDE lately Sophie? I dont have a right to an opinion?
June 10th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
I haven’t read ABs book either [I haven't read any book about S&LP], but I remember it because of an interview I saw with AB and Matt Lauer. I felt bad for Anne because Jackie basically evicted her from her life, once again, just because she has a different opinion of Scott than she and her husband. I felt bad for AB.
June 10th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Oh and I agree with you Rae on Amber’s book as well. She may have been brave to do what she did, but I think she has issues as well.
And yes, she cashed in on her notoriety. And no, I didnt read that one either. I did see the Lifetime movie though. Rolls eyes lol.
June 10th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
EXACTLY Sophie, which is where I get (and got at the time) she had an agenda.
June 10th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
I am so tired of hearing about Scott Peterson. He has been convicted and is in jail. End of story. Done!
June 10th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
No TUDE here Melissa. I have just never heard the term “gossip book” and was wondering what you were talking about.
Who had an agenda??
I don’t have any bad or hard feeling towards AF. She didn’t ask to be drawn into this mess and as far as I am concerned she deserves whatever she gets out of it monitarily.
June 10th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Well, I don’t have any bad or hard feelings towards AF, either. Don’t know her. I was simply putting forth my opinion of her book.
I also don’t necessarily agree that AF didn’t ask to get drawn into this mess. She meets a guy through a blind fix up, sleeps with him right off the bat and, according to her own book, was immediately hopeful that this was “the one” and starting to plan on a future with him, when she knew zip about him. She didn’t deserve to get drawn into Laci’s murder, but she certainly didn’t proceed with much caution, either.
June 10th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
This conversation is veering off of the subject. The agenda part from his sister comes from her own repeated statements that he was the golden boy and she was the throwaway. (I didnt get that back then, but thats why I thought she had an agenda back then)
As for Amber Frey, yes, she certainly didnt show good judgment, before or AFTER Scott. But no, AF didnt ask to be drawn into it.
Thats it on my opinion of the 2 of them. It stands, and you probably wont be able to change my mind, plus it has nothing to do with this civil case.
Unfortunately Rayvyn its not the end of the story, apparently the civil trial is going to be this July, and this is why I think its a gamble for the Rocha’s. If he isnt found responsible, then I would imagine it will effect his appeal in 2009.
June 10th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
It could be that AB had ill feelings about her being adopted out and Scott being the golden boy. I never got that from her interviews though.
I didn’t mean any disrespect to you Rae about AF and your feelings about her book. But since you mentioned it, many women have high hopes for a relationship and sleep with a guy on the first date. They don’t however, expect that to take them to a nationally exploited murder and trial. I see AF as another of SPs victims, that is all.
Melissa says:
‘Fiz, I didnt know about the adopted kids either, that was why I was confused, I have always thought that her kids were all very well (maybe too well) taken care of. (the 5 obviously). I totally missed that during the trial. Not that it would be relevant to the trial’.
Melissa, if you didn’t know about the adopted kids, how did you come to the conclusion about Ab and her book and the “gossip books”??? Maybe I need to go back and reread your posts.
June 10th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Is the criminal verdict admissible (as evidence) in the civil trial?
I know the burden of proof is less for a civil trial, and there won’t be as much scrutiny over the evidence, so much more will make it in, etc.
June 10th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Yes, I thought his sister (step) was the adopted sister.
And frankly I thought most of the books were gossipy and looked garbagy. Again, not the subject of this post. So dont direct it to me anymore Sophie. With all due respect I am getting annoyed.
No A, the judge ruled that they have have to prove that Scott killed them, and that the guilty verdict is not admissable. The gamble as I see it is that his lawyers have been working on his appeal for so many years that they can throw a wrench into almost any argument. Granted the burden of proof is less.
Its a gamble and a big one. I am wondering why as well. Its been a long time.
June 10th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Melissa says:
“…Its been a long time.”
It really hasn’t been that long.
It’s a given, for those that have been directly affected by the loss of Laci and Conner, that this will never be over. It will be many, many years before this isn’t felt in their daily lives.
June 10th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Oh I am pretty sure it will be felt everyday forever, especially since it was so high profile. I am talking about in terms of what I have seen in criminal then civil trials and timelines.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
“Sophie Says:
June 10th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
It could be that AB had ill feelings about her being adopted out and Scott being the golden boy. I never got that from her interviews though.”
Yeah, I never got that from her book or her interviews at all. She repeatedly stressed that she had very loving parents, and, although she knew who her biological mother was for many years, she had absolutely no desire to seek Jackie out. She liked Scott, but I don’t think she envied him at all.
“I didn’t mean any disrespect to you Rae about AF and your feelings about her book. But since you mentioned it, many women have high hopes for a relationship and sleep with a guy on the first date. They don’t however, expect that to take them to a nationally exploited murder and trial. I see AF as another of SPs victims, that is all.”
I don’t disagree that she was a victim, or that many women feel that way in the beginning of a relationship. BUT, in this day and age, when it is not that hard to do a little background research, and one has only to read a newspaper to learn that they should be wary to some extent- to immediately dive into a relationship to the degree that AF did with SP-well, that’s foolhardy. I won’t say that she deserved what happened, because she didn’t, and I didn’t mean to imply that-but I do think she allowed herself to be more emotionally vulnerable than she should have. Sadly, women really need to be more careful these days.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Well, I actually read all the books before I passed judgment on them.
Anne’s was good-not bestseller material, but good. No, she didn’t really have an agenda. She set the record straight and moved on. Not sorry that Jackie cut her loose, but sorry that any of them had ever contacted her in the first place.
Amber’s book was…well, gossipy. There wasn’t a whole lot to it that hadn’t already been revealed.
Sharon’s book was a moving tribute to her daughter.
There you have it. Oh, and Catherine Crier wrote the best book about the case overall. Be interesting to see if she updates it after this civil case is over.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Again Rae, this really isnt a book review post. Though I do appreciate that I was right by reviews of all of the books that I have just skimmed through in the store. I can speed read, not saying I absorb much, but it gives me an idea of what I will read or not.
Just googling Anne and her repeated statements of “golden boy” tells me she was jealous (maybe rightfully so, but Jackie didnt abort her, just couldnt afford her apparently, and I will NEVER judge someone for giving a kid (or more) up for adoption rather than aborting given my personal opinion of abortion on demand.
But how this subject got off track is mind boggling. It isnt about Jackie, Anne, Amber etc. Its about an appeal and WHY its happening NOW of all times. (I know I had a part in it lol)
June 10th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
If we are talking about Scotty’s appeal, I hope his conviction and death sentence are upheld. Scotty boy is right where he belongs.
As far as the civil suit goes, it is my understanding that the Rocha’s are bringing it on to ensure that Scotty cannot profit from book and/or movie deals down the road should he be offered any. The Rocha family must know that they aren’t going to make a dime off of this lawsuit. It’s just to make sure that Scott does not make any money or if he does that the money would go to them.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Lee and Jackie Peterson are hiding assets and money for their Golden Boy. The elder Petersons are enablers who believe that their golden boy could do no wrong and would do anything for him. Remember they tried to help Scotty flee to Mexico to excape justice? They paid for their son’s million dollar defense atty and got zip from him. They even have a web site for him.
I’ve read Sharon Rocha’s book which was a tribute to Laci. I cried through the whole book because it was so heartbreaking and sad. I could feel her pain. I’ve also read Anne Bird’s book: Blood Brother. I felt that Anne was trying to make sense of this tragedy and the fact that her half brother was involved in killing Laci.
June 11th, 2008 at 4:10 am
I’ve read all of them, and I felt very sorry for Anne Bird who came across as a nice person stuck with a family she didn’t understand or, eventually, like very much. Catherine Crier’s book is superb and all anyone needs to read about SP, Amber, whose book was called “Witness” I mentally christened “Witless”, because I couldn’t believe two people could get off together so fast and she was envisioning wedding dresses and babies before the second date! For Laci, I loved and her smile breaks my heart – I think she and JonBenet grab most at my heart, out of all the heartbreak out there. (Sorry if this is a book review).
June 11th, 2008 at 5:35 am
Well, whatever you say, Melissa. I’m sure you are right.
June 11th, 2008 at 5:37 am
LOL Rae, and I agree about the back ground check.
June 11th, 2008 at 6:51 am
The thing on the civil trial, is that he CANT make any money from books, its against the law.
Unless of course he gets off on appeal, then I would imagine all bets are off.
June 11th, 2008 at 6:59 am
Of course it’s against the law. And no convict has ever circumvented the law. That would be wrong.
June 11th, 2008 at 7:18 am
If he were to sneak it, then the money would be secret as well, dur. So they wouldnt get shit anyway.
June 11th, 2008 at 7:39 am
Michelle Gray, you said it all. If it were my daughter and grandson, I’d do everything I could, until my dying breath, to make him even MORE miserable than he is. I’d be in his face every chance I got. And I’d definately be front and center when they put him to death. But ya know, he’s such a cocky SOB, he’ll probably have that stupid grin on his face until the end.
Trivial question, but did they ever sell Laci’s house?
June 11th, 2008 at 7:45 am
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,239474,00.html
Yes, in Dec ‘06.
June 11th, 2008 at 8:18 am
Well, whatever you say, Melissa. I’m sure you’re right.
June 11th, 2008 at 8:19 am
Melissa–I’m sure it’s an issue of principle, rather than monetary gain (speaking for the Rocha’s).
Who would ever want to make money off of their dead child?
Ok well, even as I typed that out I realized that there must be some creeps that would do this for money, but it just doesn’t strike me as the interest for these good people.
June 11th, 2008 at 9:23 am
No, I dont think its for the money either, but their stated reason is so that HE cannot make money off of the case, which obviously he cannot in prison. My concern is already what I stated, that the civil trial can effect the appeal. WHAT IF THEY LOSE? It just doesnt seem wise to me. If they are doing it just to stick it to him wouldnt waiting until the appeal is done to do it be a smarter move?
Do they know something we dont about the appeal and are afraid he is going to walk? Or is it simple as they are just lashing out in their grief (or maybe they were used to the spotlight, that could actually be)
June 11th, 2008 at 9:27 am
LOL again Rae.
A, I agree with you re: principal. And maybe they want to take whatever money he would be getting throughout his life time such as inheritance and to get whatever money he already has, if any. Not that he could use it from prison but many prisoners do have money and other assets that they can control from prison.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Even if they lose the civil trial, it won’t affect the criminal appeal. Just like the criminal guilty verdict won’t be a factor in the civil trial. The Judges hearing the criminal appeal are only considereing whether the trial court made any errors during the trial. Has nothing to to with the civil trial, nor the evidence at the criminal trial. They are only looking for judicial errors in the criminal trial.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Even if they lose the civil trial, it won’t affect the criminal appeal. Just like the criminal guilty verdict won’t be a factor in the civil trial. The Judges hearing the criminal appeal are only considereing whether the trial court made any errors during the trial. Has nothing to to with the civil trial, nor the evidence at the criminal trial. They are only looking for judicial errors in the criminal trial.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:15 am
The vast majority of criminal cases in the US are heard in state courts. Most states have an intermediate appellate court and all states have a supreme court (although it’s not always called “supreme”). A criminal appeal would, therefore, typically go from the trial court to the appellate court to the supreme court. Once a defendant’s state court appeals have been exhausted, he might be able to file a habeas corpus petition in federal court, asserting that some federal right (almost always under the fourteenth amendment) has been violated. The federal system also has three levels: district (trial) courts, circuit (appellate) courts, and the supreme court. So a criminal appeal can go all the way to the top of the state judicial system, and then go all the way to the top of the federal judicial system. That’s what happens with a lot of death penalty appeals.
With specific reference to appeals based on the actual innocence of a defendant, courts are usually reluctant to hear any evidence of innocence if it wasn’t introduced in the original trial. The alternative is an appeal based on wrongdoing (poor representation, etc) in the original criminal trial.
The criminal case has no influence in the civil case, and vice versa. Two separate courts, two separate cases.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Well said, Rae. Once the case is out of the Trial Court level, anything being appealed, etc., usually has to do with Constitutional, rather than evidentiary issues.
June 11th, 2008 at 11:23 am
I agree with that, but I do believe in this PARTICULAR case, they are actually basing his appeal on evidentiary issues (could be wrong, since that isnt public and wont even be heard for another year). Basically lack of, and of course it could go on fair trial issues based on not sequestering the jury during such a media firestorm. I would say both given the opinions of his lawyers.
June 11th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Melissa, why do you think that? And it should be public if it is filed in court. All of it is public. All DR convicts get an automatic appeal. I don’t see anything special here.
June 11th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
As Rae would say, whatever you say Melissa, I am sure you are right.
As you would say, LOL Rae, AGAIN.
As I would say, I have already said why I think that. (actually I am holding back, I have MUCH more to say, but as Michelle would say, I would rather converse with Kirsti)
June 11th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
*Snort*
Whatever you say, Melissa.
June 11th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Maybe snorting is a part of your problem. I heard that does shit to your teeth. AND attitude.
June 11th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
After reading here for almost two years, I would have never guessed it to be Rae who had the problem.
June 11th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
I feel the love in this room!
>
June 11th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Me too! Group hug and extra big hug to Melissa!
June 11th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Hi guys! (It’s been a VERY long time!)
What draws me to the Laci-Conner-Scott case is the innocence and vulneralbility of the case: Laci’s 8th mth pregnancy; unborn Conner; Lying, cheating handsome husband; deceptive mother in law; pain and fear and worry and tears of a mom and grandma to-be and the fact that I can distinctly remember sitting on the floor at home while living in Michigan on Xmas Eve wrapping gifts and the news alert came across the TV that a young, pregnant expectant mother in Modesto Calif had been missing. The first thing I remember saying/thinking: the husband did it. A year later, overwhelming circumstantial evidence proved just that and I was saddend, frightened, horrifed, and happy all at the same time during the trial. Happy that his day in court and hell was coming real friggin’ soon!
I don’t think they’ll get much in civil court. The Peterson’s should be broke by now and Scott has nothing but his lies to still offer. But I’m sure it’s just the principal of the thing. Ya know…
June 12th, 2008 at 12:43 am
Quoted from the New York Times:
“I feel like I let my client down,” said Mr. Geragos, a well-known Los Angeles lawyer who built a reputation representing celebrities and espousing his legal opinions on cable television.
In an admission he acknowledged was highly unusual, Mr. Geragos told the jurors that he had not prepared a case for the penalty phase of the trial until last month’s guilty verdict because he had been so convinced that Mr. Peterson would be acquitted.
I can’t find a link or a copy to the story I read at the time, but I remember reading that when Peterson was escorted into his final cell on California’s Death Row, the guard said, “You’ll probably want to get some sleep now” and Scott Peterson said that he was too hyped up to sleep.
Even as they slammed the lid shut, SP was thriving on his own celebrity. He thinks himself to be super cool. In his own mind, he’s like a movie star. I wonder if the hype and excitement of being locked up in a Death Row prison cell has worn off yet? (yah, it probably has).
June 12th, 2008 at 2:59 am
Rae isn’t the one with the problem.
June 12th, 2008 at 4:34 am
Yes Sophie, I am well aware of that fact.
June 12th, 2008 at 6:08 am
Everyone has problems, but the point of this discussion is SP’s problems. A little understanding goes a long way. Let’s be nice OK?
June 12th, 2008 at 6:09 am
BeWhoYouWannaBe – Welcome back… I’ve missed you. Stick around for a while OK?
June 12th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Real classy, Melissa. Turning a good natured disagreement in to a personal attack is always a sign of superior intelligence.
You should celebrate your “one-upmanship” with a bottle of vodka or two.
June 12th, 2008 at 8:33 am
“You should celebrate your “one-upmanship” with a bottle of vodka or two.”
Was YOUR personal attack somehow “classy”, Wotcher?
June 12th, 2008 at 9:27 am
The gloves are already off Terri.
Might want to stand back lest you get punched by accident. Wouldn’t want you walkin’ round town with a black eye, know what I mean?
June 12th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Oh, way to rationalize it, Wotcher.
And no, I don’t know what you mean unless you are trying to make a threat, which is ridiculous.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:19 am
What worries me is I actually know people that think he’s innocent. Mostly men, that said he didn’t get a fair trial. This happened back in 2002, the media has died down, you never see it anymore as front page news. Now he gets to get in front of another jury, his lawyers have a chance to prove his innocence, and know now how they can twist the facts to show unreasonable doubt. All this scares me, and I wouldn’t play a bet like that if I were Laci’s parents ~ I would let this sleeping dog lie. Shoot, not to mention the fact that he gets to hang out in a better place in Modeto during the trial, off of death row at San Quentin.
Not only is this civil suit a huge gift to the defense team, HUGE gift, it’s also a terrific way of bogging down our court system, the American way.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Mike Schuler–That Geragos quote sounds entirely fishy to me. I wouldn’t put anything past that slimeball, at all. With his supposed admission, he offers up grounds for an appeal on a silver platter.
What a game…
June 12th, 2008 at 10:38 am
OMG I didn’t even think of that A. You think the lawyer is trying to set up a retrial due to poor representation, if that can be done? (Sorry about not using the proper terminology but I hope you know what I mean.) Yes, what a game. Lose to win.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:35 am
LMAO – I have the giggles over the physical threat Wotcher. Thanks for the laugh.
EXACTLY Kim, That is exactly how I see it. This is all too weird.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
It’s the only way to go “all redneck” online, I guess.
June 12th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
I wouldn’t put anything past him either but if that is what he is doing he has to walk a very thin line to be able to pull it off AND keep is law license and Bar membership.
June 12th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
That is definately going the mile for your client. I think he might have a bit too much to lose going that route. Who knows there have been weirder things.
June 12th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
It does seem outrageous that he would go that far to defend Scott, but if he is not up to something, why would he make that admission about not being prepared? That would be just stupid.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Maybe he promised the family that he’d find them an out, if he failed to deliver the goods at trial.
Let’s be real here; this man is the antithesis of humility. He plays the media, every word begets a motive. He’s a fuckwad, and he probably told Jackie and Lee that if they mortgaged their home, and gave him all the money, he’d bend over backwards to get Scott an out.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
ROFLMAO @ fuckwad. I spit my Samuel Adams all over my laptop! I haven’t heard that term in forever.
I’ll be back after I stop choking and clean my screen and keyboard!
June 12th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
I LMAO at fuckwad too, but didn’t have anything to spit out. Just did yardwork and it is hot as hell and a Sam Adams sounds pretty good.
June 12th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
I know Terri, it was just thrown in there and I wasn’t expecting that.
All of that is likely true A, because it was primarily a circumstantial case and G thought he could handle it like the OJ trial. SMF!
June 12th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
To make it like the OJ trial he would need to make up a stupid rhyme that would get stuck in the jurors’ heads.
June 12th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Don’t make me put on my clown suit tampon[etta].
June 13th, 2008 at 5:34 am
Melissa and Sophie, I send you an angel.
June 13th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Tee Hee, Tamponetta. You wanna hear something funny?? About 20 years ago, an old man who was a runner at the law firm I worked at made me a halo from a wire coat hanger. He told me that he had made me that halo because that is the only was I would ever get one!!
June 13th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
NO MORE WIRE HANGERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
June 13th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
You know Terri, I just got that angel and you ought to be ashamed of yourself!!
June 13th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
It was a diet aide. Print it and put it on your refrigerator. Suppresses appetite. LOL
June 13th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
You ain’t right!
June 13th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Sophie, it could also be used for birth control. Print it and put it in your bedroom. lol
June 14th, 2008 at 7:02 am
If I put it in my bedroom, I might not be able to get anyone to have sex with me again! The refridgerator is a better place.
June 14th, 2008 at 7:46 am
That is why it would be good birth control!
June 14th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Yeah, but I don’t need birth control. I had a tubal almost 5 years ago.
June 14th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Oh.
April 30th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
I think he is treated to well in prison. Just Execute him.