Saturday, December 26, 2009

Where Do They Come From?

Comments are a wonderful thing. I got this one on Christmas Day. Nice to clarify that Voice of Sanity is a man, and not one of the silly tarts who chased after Scott Peterson, and still do.
A Voice of Sanity said...

I am a MAN you silly tarts. Logical, reasonable, intelligent. I'm not a silly woman like you, unable to feel anything except hatred for an innocent man convicted by evil scum and morons and unable to think of anything except where your next meal will come from. As for 'reason', this is beyond your competence level. Leave reason to me - you'll never manage it.

Nice, huh?

FYI, VoS, I know where my next meal is coming from because I provide for myself.

So tell me something. If Scott was so "innocent," why did he go out of his way to display guilt? Why was he watching the bay, day after day? Why did he forget where he said he was going on that fateful Christmas Eve? Why did he shut off his phone on national TV, when Laci was still classified as "missing?" Why was he driving around with "Missing" posters in his car, and not nailing or taping them to every available spot? Why didn't his FIL know about the boat? Why did he buy a car, using his mother's ID, and load it up with camping gear and cash? Why dye his hair that peculiar shade of orange? There are many other examples of Consciousness of Guilt. I know that you can explain away every one of them, individually, and I might buy your explanations for one or two of them. But, it total, these things are not so easy to dismiss.
Both Dr Henry Lee and Dr Cyril Wecht measured Conner. Both said he was 19.5" That's a full term baby, as every other witness said except one ego maniac prepared to do anything to get his name in the papers. The baby was full term and showed no signs of prematurity at all. No more proof of Scott's innocence is needed.

So Laci's OB/GYN is an egomaniac? Right. I think that term could be much more easily applied to Lee and Wecht, both of whom have discredited themselves since the trial--Lee by mishandling evidence during the Specter trial and Wecht over some improprieties...something to do with mixing private and public work in the morgue where he worked. I believe that criminal charges were dismissed after two or three trials, but he did pay $200K after a civil suit.

In any case, Lisa is right--as far as pregnancy goes, these two are less than expert.
If Sharon Rocha hadn't shut down the search center out of spite against Scott, Laci and Conner might have been found alive. Nobody hates as much or for as little reason as a woman.

Scott was the only one who never gave up hope of finding them alive until there was proof of there(sic) deaths. He loved them better than anyone.

VoS, Laci and Conner were never going to be found alive. Scott managed to make appropriate noises, but it was all hollow, just like he is.

Apparently, you manage to harbour a bit of hatred, yourself. Not to mention bitterness, and a bit of motion sickness from your prolonged voyage down that River of Denial.

65 comments:

  1. If he is a man I will eat my foot. Talking about agriculture as an adult when he was 7 to someone (at women in crime ink).

    I happen to have a HIGHLY educated 8 year old nephew and he wouldnt speak that way to someone. He would know, but he would also laugh. And there are PLENTY of cattle ranches left in the west. (this is cross posting, the bitch just wants to make it seem like she is smarter). Tarts indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Please explain about the cattle ranches...is VoS over there raising hell, too?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Maybe VoS stands for "Vull of Shit"

    haha
    ...t

    ReplyDelete
  4. The first two comments here make zero sense and the last is beyond contemptible. As for the original post, I notice you posted none of the insults aimed at me.

    Nothing Scott did displayed the slightest consciousness of guilt except about his 4 'dates' with Frey on each of which they had sex. Apart from phone calls, mostly prompted by her, they had no other contact. So much for 'romance'.

    Nothing he did was evidence of a crime. NOTHING. And you misquoted me. It was the dreadful Dr Devore who came up with the ridiculous theory that Conner was killed within a couple of days of Laci being abducted, NOT Laci's ob/gyn. Devore's 'methods' were claptrap that should never have been allowed in court and they prove nothing as to Scott's guilt. The FBI will tell you that kidnap victims are often killed within hours. Conner's body showed that Laci lived much longer than that.

    Laci Peterson could have died as late as March 14th approx. No, they had little chance, both she and Conner. As the MPD admitted, "Laci sightings were NOT a priority". Framing Scott Peterson was the priority. The only priority.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am not obligated to post anything. If anyone wants to read the comments, they are attached to that post.

    I grow weary of your ravings...

    ReplyDelete
  6. You left a comment on WCI talking about how much smarter you were than the person talking about cowboys. Do you not remember?

    ReplyDelete
  7. BTW - Ronni loves me and I have troubles with SP's circumstantial case as well. I think he needs to be in jail yes, because he pretty much hung himself like a regular psycho. But DP on a circumstantial case bothers me a lot. (am being presumptuous saying Ronni loves me lol)

    I would love for him to get another trial.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Melissa, can you link the post? Or, at least give me the title of it? Curious, here...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Framing Scott Peterson was the only priority? Excuse me, but did you not catch the "Pregnant woman missing BOL" bulletin? WTF?

    Laci Peterson's head is still rolling around the San Francisco bay. Don't know about you, but I think about that. How awful it must have been to anchor her body and push it off the side of a little boat in those big waves. That was after his son died. In utero. All alone.

    Scott Peterson did not display the slightest consciousness of guilt because he doesn't feel it. He has no mercy. Measure for measure, I have none for him. For you I almost feel pity. Almost.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Melissa said: I have troubles with SP's circumstantial case as well.

    There was no circumstantial evidence against him. None. Real circumstantial evidence is evidence that cannot be explained away. A large bloodstain in the house, the car, the boat. Laci's body in his locked warehouse. A knife in her back with his fingerprints. That is real circumstantial evidence. All that was offered was gossip that would shame a fish wife. Scott wanted three things: Find his wife alive; avoid any exposure of his trysts with Frey; get the press off his back. These simple and reasonable desires were twisted into something they were not by liars and idiots.

    Melissa said: I think he needs to be in jail yes, because he pretty much hung himself like a regular psycho.

    He never testified.

    Melissa said: But DP on a circumstantial case bothers me a lot.

    The DP bothers me because the US is too incompetent to apply it. There are so many near misses that it is certain that the US has executed the innocent.

    Melissa said: I would love for him to get another trial.

    With competent lawyers and a fair jury he would be exonerated.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Oh, bring it on! He would be found just as guilty, because he is guilty.

    ReplyDelete
  12. mtnwmn said" Framing Scott Peterson was the only priority? Excuse me, but did you not catch the "Pregnant woman missing BOL" bulletin? WTF?

    The cops said she was missing? They must have killed her. Isn't that one of the looney theories? Although I've seen crazy Grace use the word 'missing' many times.

    mtnwmn said" Laci Peterson's head is still rolling around the San Francisco bay. Don't know about you, but I think about that. How awful it must have been to anchor her body and push it off the side of a little boat in those big waves. That was after his son died. In utero. All alone.

    Why didn't the cops stop him then since they were following him 24/7? Didn't they see him go to the secret hiding place where he cut her open and carry her body to his truck? BTW, where did he get the second boat?

    mtnwmn said" Scott Peterson did not display the slightest consciousness of guilt because he doesn't feel it. He has no mercy. Measure for measure, I have none for him. For you I almost feel pity. Almost.

    Feel sorry for yourself All of that hatred for an innocent man. Feel the shame of it. Scott Peterson did not display the slightest consciousness of guilt because he isn't guilty.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ronni said: "Oh, bring it on! He would be found just as guilty, because he is guilty."

    He wasn't found guilty because he was guilty. He was found guilty because the jury was guilty of hatred and naked bias. Not one of them has ever made a case for guilt -- most of the things they have said are quite stupid and sickeningly biased.

    ReplyDelete
  14. He killed her and put her in the bay on Christmas Eve. All your posturing about Conner being cut from the womb at term is just a sick fantasy. If he was full term, why wasn't he just...well...born? Women in labour don't just refuse to give birth, you know...

    ReplyDelete
  15. A voice of sanity? You lose me by implying that cops killed her. Do you know how busy Christmas is? Why would they make work for themselves?

    You mistake me for someone who feels hatred. You couldn't be farther from the truth. It's a tragedy, all the way around and I don't derive any personal satisfaction for having been witness to it.

    Scott Peterson is right where he belongs. If you've got a beef, I suggest you take it up with his defense attorneys. Didn't he put on a defense?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ronni said: "He killed her and put her in the bay on Christmas Eve."

    Impossible. The absolute longest she could be in the bay and not be a skeleton when found is 28 days and that's unusual -- even 20 days is a stretch. 111 days is beyond even the wildest fantasy.

    Evelyn Hernandez was a skeleton long before being found at 84 days and she was put in the bay after death - Laci was not.

    Laci decomposed on land and was dumped in the bay at the same time Conner was placed on the shore - not more than 24 hours before being found. Scott was being followed 24/7 -- he could not have been involved.

    Scott is not guilty.

    ReplyDelete
  17. mtnwmn said: "If you've got a beef, I suggest you take it up with his defense attorneys. Didn't he put on a defense?"

    Not a good one. Geragos has admitted he failed Scott, a view I agree with. He wasn't worth what he was paid, whatever it was. I guess the state got screwed too. They spent $11 million so Distaso could get to be a judge. Why is convicting the innocent the best way to achieve this? It is very troubling to see it happen so often.

    ReplyDelete
  18. If you have proof to back up your charges against Distaso, I suggest you take it to the appropriate authorities, otherwise state that it is your opinion, only.

    Laci was tethered to the bottom, where water is deeper and colder, thus retarding decomposition.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ronni said: "Laci was tethered to the bottom, where water is deeper and colder, thus retarding decomposition."

    Wouldn't help. In actual experiments in much colder water, nothing was left after 28 days. And how did Scott get 350 lb of weights in the boat along with everything else? The boat would have sunk at the dock. Also, Conner's body is absolute proof that he was never in the sea.

    Scott is innocent.

    ReplyDelete
  20. How do you know there were 350 lbs of weights? As far as I can remember, none of the weights were recovered.

    It was determined that Conner had only recently been expelled from Laci's womb, probably when she came loose from the weights and rose to the surface.

    Still...nice attempt to acquit Scott in the court of public opinion. As he was not convicted here, he cannot be exonerated here.

    I await the appeal with bated breath!

    ReplyDelete
  21. How do you know there were 350 lbs of weights? As far as I can remember, none of the weights were recovered.

    Laci weighed 153lb. It would take 350 lb to keep the body down for more than 3 days. No weights were found because there were no weights and no proof they existed.

    It was determined that Conner had only recently been expelled from Laci's womb, probably when she came loose from the weights and rose to the surface.

    No such determination was made. Dr B. Peterson got away with stupid guesswork (more than once) because he wasn't seriously challenged. All such scenarios are ridiculous and fall apart after a tiny bit of analysis.

    Still...nice attempt to acquit Scott in the court of public opinion. As he was not convicted here, he cannot be exonerated here.

    You seem intent on (re) convicting him here.

    I await the appeal with bated breath!

    As do we all. Too bad Rocha dropped her suit. I'm sure there would have been many shocking revelations had it proceeded.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hey. I just mentioned his name. You're the one who jumped in all challenging...calling myself and my friends names and being nasty and insulting.

    Shocking revelations? Dream on! the most shocking thing about this case is Scott's utter disregard for the right to life that his wife and son deserved.

    ReplyDelete
  23. A voice of skewed perspective?

    Now the state has bought a judge? Who had something to prove via a change of venue? Not the taxpayers.

    Seriously, if you want to effect change take it up with Scott Peterson's defense attorney. Go see if a court of appeal will hear your case. Consider that society has no place for a man who murders his wife and unborn son.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Sorry, Pat Brown doesnt let me post there. I may have mistaken FleaStiff for VOS.

    Like I said, I surely think he did it. But did they prove it? Thats a different question. I guess I am a twit. It goes along with the holidays I think.

    ReplyDelete
  25. mtnwmn said:

    A voice of skewed perspective?

    Huh?

    Now the state has bought a judge? Who had something to prove via a change of venue? Not the taxpayers.

    What? As Delucchi himself commented, "Scott Peterson couldn't get an unbiased jury anywhere in California". He should have said "anywhere on earth". It is quite clear that people want him to be guilty, no matter the evidence. They cling to worthless scraps like drowning men cling to bits of flotsam.

    As for Distaso, this has been observed all over the USA. If you want a judgeship, and most prosecutors do, you have to convict the unpopular in a trial full of notoriety. Convicting the mass of criminals won't do it. That's why Scott Peterson was ideal for the purpose - and was ruthlessly used for it.

    I ask again, why was Gilbert Cano let off with such a light sentence? While I'm at it, why were Todd and Pearce given 6 months for the burglary across the street from Laci? They should have gotten 75 to life. It stinks.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Melissa said: "Like I said, I surely think he did it. But did they prove it?"

    The state with their own witnesses and evidence proved he could not possibly have been involved. Too bad Geragos failed to use them to prove that.

    This wasn't a maybe/maybe not case like Robert Blake, where the defendant gets the benefit of the doubt. This was a case where the evidence of guilt was completely absent and the evidence for innocence was overwhelming. It was, however, a case where his defense failed him. Perhaps he was doomed by the judge shopping and the jury fixing. I still think his lawyers missed too many opportunities.

    They certainly should have had Wecht and Lee testify and show all of the holes in the forensics. It's too late for them to write about these in books after the case is over. They should have said these things on the stand.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Where do they come from, indeed. This one's a bottom feeder. Good Lord.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Stung by my rapier wit you respond with your plastic teaspoon wit? I'm not impressed by that or your ability to argue the facts.

    ReplyDelete
  29. P'raps the sharky one should be put in the terlit in cold storage.
    Shoot, don't dignify "him" (?) with the space!

    ReplyDelete
  30. I've yet to see a fact.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Quote (from someone else about something else):
    "Back in the 1990s, I was teaching persuasion at Texas A&M. Michael Jordan was the biggest thing in sports, and he'd been hawking Nike sneakers for a couple of years. I used the Nike campaign to point out advertising strategies and demonstrate how irrational they were. I also pointed out that every evaluation of the quality of Nikes came to the conclusion that they were (then) one of the worst athletic shoes on the market.

    The class laughed at anyone dumb enough to fall for the stupid techniques used in the Nike ads. Then, I surveyed the class by going down the aisles to see what athletic shoes each male was wearing. Every single one of them wore Nikes.

    Moral: Irrational thought and behavior are, by definition, what other people engage in."

    ReplyDelete
  32. You still havent pointed out the proof that he DIDNT do it.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Wrong. First, it is up to the STATE to prove him guilty. They didn't even try. All they ever managed to say was that he MIGHT have been able to do it and that he was a dirty dog who cheated on his pretty wife and therefore that was close enough.

    RUBBISH!

    Second, there are multiple points at which the evidence positively excludes Scott Peterson. This case isn't even close. If the judge hadn't been senile he would have dismissed the case; and if the jury hadn't been bigoted idiots afraid of public reaction they would have found him not guilty.

    Laci's underwear alone excludes Scott from involvement.

    ReplyDelete
  34. We are not THE STATE. As far as I can see, THE STATE proved their case to the satisfaction of a jury.

    What you are doing is playing Monday morning quarterback, with your shoulda, coulda, woulda, and throwing crap out there that, if it were relevant, Geragos would have brought up at trial.

    The SODDI (Some Other Dude Did It) defense. The ABS (Anyone But Scott) defense. During the grueling months on the Boards during the investigation and trial, we heard them all, including you.

    I repeat, is Scott's appeal starting to roll? Is that why you are out here, desperately trying to exonerate Scott in the public eye, one blogger at a time?

    ReplyDelete
  35. The state proved its case?

    What was the prosecutor's evidence? He said the only thing you needed to consider was that Laci was found 'exactly' where Scott was boating. Let us look at that argument. What he is saying is

    * Laci Peterson lived in California
    * Laci Peterson was abducted from California
    * Four months later Laci Peterson's body was found in California
    * Scott Peterson lived in California

    Therefore Scott Peterson is guilty.

    That doesn't convince me - or many others!

    ReplyDelete
  36. If you really think that's all there was to it, you should hang up your Voice!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Even the prosecutor admitted there was no other evidence. The argument is that Scott was as close to the location where the bodies were found as 2 miles, 4 months before. We therefore ask, if another person can be found who was, say, 4 miles away from that location 8 months before are they 'more guilty'? Most would reject this.

    As a counter proposition, if another person can be found who was, say, 1 mile away from that location 2 months before are they 'more guilty'? Few can ignore this and none has overcome the obvious logic.

    Thus the argument is then that if we can find any person who was closer in time and space, then Scott cannot be the only person this 'evidence' applies to. If there is an objection to this logic, an explanation must be offered - thus far, none has been.

    So can we find another person? Both bodies were within about 1 mile of the I-580 freeway when found, i.e. with no time allowance needed, and with thousands passing by daily. In other words 1 mile and zero days.

    Further, each of the people who found Conner and Laci was immediately close to them in time and in space, in other words zero distance and zero time. If they could be so close, anyone else could be as well, including the 38 million other people who also live in the state. As there are 38 million other possibles, Scott cannot be convicted on this basis. It is not even remotely sufficient to convict, even if other evidence supported it.

    Since no time or place of death can be established no conclusions can be based on these - we are forced to rely on the location of the bodies. The prosecutor stood on proximity to those locations and thus his major argument is destroyed. Scott Peterson is, in fact, one person who can be shown to have NOT been close in space or time. He is eliminated by the prosecutor's own argument!

    ReplyDelete
  38. He was convicted on is own actions, because he is guilty.

    Regardless of your specious "logic," there was no conspiracy, no brown van, no credible sightings of Laci, no senility...the man was convicted on the facts.

    ReplyDelete
  39. He was convicted on is own actions, because he is guilty.

    There were no guilty actions. Everything he did was perfectly normal and reasonable and none of it speaks of guilt.

    Regardless of your specious "logic," there was no conspiracy, no brown van, no credible sightings of Laci, no senility.

    I claim no conspiracy and don't care about brown vans. Delucchi was senile and there were reliable sightings of Laci. However apart from that the evidence is as rock solid as can ever be. EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE without exception goes to Scott's innocence.

    I note also that in the many years since Laci was abducted not a single person on the planet can make a case for Scott's guilt based on evidence and logic. Instead we get just plaintive wailing that he 'must' be guilty because you want him to be. If he was guilty, wouldn't someone, somewhere be able to make the case for this? None has - ever.

    ReplyDelete
  40. VoS, there is no case to be made, because it's already done. "Prevent Wrongful Convictions dot org" is the only place that cares. He was convicted, and rightfully so, in my opinion.

    Your opinion means squat to me. You are not the first, nor the last person on the internet with whom I shall disagree.

    When he case comes up for appeal, we shall hear all about all the things that happened at trial that could possibly result in a new trial. Until then, I have better things to do with my time than arguing with you.

    (any more)

    Sorry, but I have work to do.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Ronni said: VoS, there is no case to be made, because it's already done.

    Either every verdict is correct or some are not.
    If some verdicts are not correct this case could be one of those.
    If this verdict could be not correct then the evidence should be examined.
    The evidence makes it clear that the verdict is not correct.
    Therefore the verdict is not correct and thus no case was made.
    QED.

    ReplyDelete
  42. We shall see, in about 15 years or so. When the appeal happens.

    Prepare to be disappointed.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Ronni said: "We shall see, in about 15 years or so. When the appeal happens. Prepare to be disappointed."

    It'll be quicker than that however I do have very little faith in the US legal system. It has shown itself to be very badly flawed and US lawyers are a sad lot.

    Considering that the US has spent $70 billion on homeland security and that the only reason that bombers have failed to blow up two planes is that the bombers were incompetent I have good reason to be doubtful that the US system will work for Scott. There is just too much incompetence everywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Vos- Someone let you TEACH!?!?!? I bet you failed miserably. You aren't in the least persuasive. I was taught from an early age to think for myself. There's not an ad agency in the world that can trick me into buying something.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I hope he doesn't teach logic...

    ReplyDelete
  46. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Ronni said: "I hope he doesn't teach logic."

    My college professor told the class I was the best of all of them at logic. In my business, a failure in logic can lead to serious injury or death for others - or myself.

    ReplyDelete
  48. VoS, I told you before that you are not allowed to insult my guests, and least of all, my daughters.

    Any further posts containing such insulting language will be deleted.

    And before you go telling me to delete insults from my friends and family, let me say this: it is not going to happen.

    If you want to move in here like gangbusters, proselytizing your own peculiar brand of obsession, you can expect to get razzed. If you don't ditch your attitude, I shall implement comment moderation, and you will be toast.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Your complaints are VERY selective:

    "And there are PLENTY of cattle ranches left in the west. (this is cross posting, the bitch just wants to make it seem like she is smarter). Tarts indeed."

    "Maybe VoS stands for "Vull of Shit"

    "I grow weary of your ravings..."

    "A voice of sanity? You lose me by implying that cops killed her."

    "A voice of skewed perspective?"

    "P'raps the sharky one should be put in the terlit in cold storage."

    "Vos- Someone let you TEACH!?!?!? I bet you failed miserably."

    "I hope he doesn't teach logic.."

    Why am I subject to a different standard than all other posters?

    "I shall implement comment moderation, and you will be toast."

    Remembering that I shall regard any such action as your admission that I am right. If you have facts and logic to defeat me, do it. Bullying fails to impress me.

    ReplyDelete
  50. ROFLMAO! So Neil Morrison is in the house?!! It is an honor to Neil to be banned--isn't that right Charlie! BTW AVOS, your logic is logically flawed--"he left a quick (less than 60 seconds) voicemail BEFORE the vigil." LOL--your college math professor must have told the math class you were the worst of all of them at telling time. Perhaps your college professor didn't teach you on how to actually tell the difference between an actual phone conversation and a voicmail either.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I don't give a continental damn what you think, what you regard, or what you assume. I have no interest in "defeating" you.

    These other posters and commenters are old friends of mine, and family.

    I am not running some politically correct message board, where everyone is equal. This is my blog, and I am in charge of what gets posted.

    If that's bullying, implement the little red X in the upper right corner, and don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Anonymous, Pick a nic and join the fun!

    ReplyDelete
  53. Anonymous is a 14 yr old AOL reject and stalker with an empty head which has never contained an original thought.

    In 6 years, not a single person on this planet has EVER been able to win an argument on this case with me. They twist and evade and change the subject but I stand undefeated as the champion.

    Nothing has changed. I'm still top dog.

    ReplyDelete
  54. No offense, VoS, but, around here, nobody cares.

    We have other cases to follow, where the perp has not been tried and convicted, we have work, children, grandchildren, theater, art, music, and all sorts of things going on. If you want to be top dog and king of all you behold, that's OK with me. It seems that you are not beholding very much. Just saying.

    ReplyDelete
  55. If you don't want to play any more I'll go back to arguing religion. If anyone can ever come up with a fact based, logical argument for Scott's guilt I'll look at it. So far, no one has. Everyone just assumed he was guilty and ignored everything that ever led away from that assumption. Some justice.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Can you come up with a logical, fact-based argument in favour of religion? Just curious...

    ReplyDelete
  57. Nope. The only one I have found so far is that everyone has to eat a ham on rye, swill down 4 oz of wine and say the Lord's Prayer or they don't get on MY plane with me!

    ReplyDelete
  58. I used to work in a deli, and there was a very nice little man in a yarmulke who came in once a month or so for a ham sandwich.

    VoS...we all gonna die of something.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I'm told they sell pork in Israel but they call it "special meat".

    ReplyDelete
  60. As long as they don't call it "long pig..."

    ReplyDelete
  61. The voices made me do it...9:41 am, January 01, 2010

    VoS- Logic? Are you kidding me!? You are a racist jackass. Probably misogynist as well.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Voices Made Me...- Misogynist? YAH THINK??? He's just a troublemaker wandering in the wilderness...

    ReplyDelete
  63. More insults aimed at me? What loathsome, disgusting people. Consumed with toxic hatred for an innocent man, they lash out at those of us who believe in truth and justice instead of stupidity and hatred.

    ReplyDelete