Truck Driving Jobs

Lady18wheels · Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2004 4:20 pm Post subject: Scott Peterson - is he guilty?

What do you think?

R.C. · Joined: 19 Sep 2004 Posts: 212 Location: California

BTW Modesto is about 40 mi. South of me.
Anyway I don't want to judge, It seems like he is... but ...still I DON'T KNOW.......Oppps Almost judged. :?

73Firebird · Joined: 05 Aug 2004 Posts: 115

if I was a gambling man I would say his girlfriend got pissed when she found out he was married killed her and tried to set him up.

she was REAL interested in trying to get him to say things (while she had the law on the line) that would make him look guilty.

jims34 · Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2004 9:26 pm Post subject:

Thats an intresting point of view guess anything is possible.

wannabe?too · Joined: 23 Jul 2004 Posts: 65 Location: FL

Even though there is very little direct physical evidence in this case, I think he is as guilty as he can be. The man is a scheming pathological liar. Look at his demeanor and his attitude towards his "missing" wife during the weeks and months after December 24th, 2002. GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY!

mstweety · Joined: 23 Jul 2004 Posts: 322 Location: Mississippi

We can all think what we want to think about the case. However, there is NO hardcore evidence, no dna, no admittance to guilt, no concrete proof.

I really dont think that he did it, no. I think Amber Frey did it. She wanted Scott. She has a history. See she was seeing her dentist at one time. He was married. He kept tellung her he was going to leave his wife and never did. Amber threatens to tell his wife, even tells him she has proof they have been together. Why would she have proof? She was setting him up. She wanted him. She did call his wife and tell her what was going on. After that the dentist did seperate from his wife. But stupid Amber did not realize that he would not want her after she busted his marriage.

This woman recrded phone calls even before Lacy come up missing. She set Scott us too. But I think that she went too far this time. She is the one they should be looking at.

This is just my opinion/theory.

But the facts remain there is no concrete evidence at all. Yes they found a few hairs on Scotts boat. But Lacy was his wife, do they not think that she was ever with him around the boat?
Or at his storage shed? She was his wife for gods sake. You can loose hairs anywhere. It is not uncanny at all that his wifes hair wold be on anything that is his.

If he is guilty they will have to prove without a shadow wof a doubt. I am thinking on the lines of OJ here. There was never a way to completly prove that OJ killed Nichole. There is no way to prove that Scott killed lacy. You can think he did it, you may never know who did it. We may never knmow, we can only speculate.

Just as in the Oj cade, yed Nichooe is dead, and a lot of people think that OJ or Cato or both did it. But do we have concrete proof? Nope we sure dont.
So like I sid looks like the OJ case all over again. Unless the DA can pull a rabit out of his hat and has somethhing he is holding for a later date, i think Scott is a free man. This may not be true, but thats were its heading.

littleman2 · Joined: 03 Jul 2004 Posts: 1954 Location: Washington State

there are far more important thing we need to worry about than if some dip :dung: killed his wife. how about getting the sobs that are lopping off heads or I know winning the war on islamofashism.

Guest · Posted: Sun Sep 26, 2004 12:41 am Post subject: RE

Reality.......none of us actually knows what the evidence against Perterson is.

Do they have Direct Evidence? NO, not that we are aware of.

Do they have Circumstantial Evidence? YES, and at times the preponderance of this type of evidence is all it takes.

You can prove murder without having a body!! He would have got nailed eventually, God just saw fit to make it happen a little quicker.

Did he lie, were the bodies found in the very bay he claimed to be fishing in, was he caught carrying cash, dyed hair, beard, brothers ID, close to the boarder, did he start selling off her things before the bodies were found????

Hell the evidence all points a finger at his nappy mug. Was his flavor of the month involved? Who knows. If she was, she's smarter than he is!!!

Lets face it, he wanted out of the marriage. He just wasn't willing to give up the marital assets.

wannabe?too · Joined: 23 Jul 2004 Posts: 65 Location: FL

mstweety wrote: I really dont think that he did it, no. I think Amber Frey did it. She wanted Scott.

Yeah, Right!!!! and I guess OJ Simpson was innocent too!!!BUUUUUAAAAHHHAAAAAAA':P'

Excellent observation snow1

mstweety · Joined: 23 Jul 2004 Posts: 322 Location: Mississippi

I never said who was for a fact guilty and who wasnt....
I stated a opinion, we all have one.
It is just one of those things. We may never know the truth.
We never KNEW the REAL truth if OJ did it or not.
And probably never will, this Petterson case just might be the same way.

Snow:
We cant for sure say that Scott did this, they have circumstancial evidence. Nothing point directly to him. It just surrounds him. Of coarse it does, they were married.
About the goatee and money, he didnt have that much cash. He was scared, he knew they wanted him.
Read the documents on court TV.

He may have done it, he may have not. But the point is that a woman and a baby are dead and the blame has to be laid somewhere.

Guest · Posted: Sun Sep 26, 2004 3:46 pm Post subject: RE

Hell yeah the little snot was scared!!!

Lets face it our prison's aren't full of intelligent criminals. It's full of the Stupid ones.

You're right about one thing, it is circumstancial evidence. And again I will state that a PREPONDERANCE of the evidence is all that is needed.

They Do Not need Direct evidence, they don't even need a body, if the evidence they do have has enough weight to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a murder has been commited and someone is guilty.

Reading court TV documents isn't my thing. I put them up there with the A&E site and news papers. I prefer to read Law books and Journals.

Tweety you have to stop believing that the system has to have absolutes if your career goal is to be in law. There are no absolutes in justice.

Yes she was his wife, so DNA is irrelevant to this case, other than to
prove that it was Lacey and Connor. Try looking at all the other evidence, and explaining it. Like why would somebody have cement fragments on a boat. Tryin to plug a hole!! Why was he out fishin on a day even seasoned fisherman were staying in?? Where are the fish he caught?? Let me guess he's the sporting type.....To damned bad, he wasn't sporting when it came to his wife and childs lives.

The only other plausible explaination, he hired someone to kill them and then being the arrogant butt wipe that he is, shirked them for the money. So they got even by dumping the body in his alibi.

HE'S STILL GUILTY. Look up California Law/ Penal Codes on the subject. Findlaw.com

The blame does have to lie somewhere, and the most likely suspects in a disappearance and murder , are always the immediate family. Until they can be ruled out. UNEQUIVICALLY!! He wasn't!!

Oh and BTW, OJ was guilty as sin. That case got f'ed up by people playin to the camera.
That And
Money Talks.

Check your resources, throughout history, people have been buying their way out of trouble...

Sorry to sound crass, but you need to look at the whole picture. Use critical thinking when dealing in/with the law.

mstweety · Joined: 23 Jul 2004 Posts: 322 Location: Mississippi

I dont know that Scott is guity as well as I dont know that OJ was.
I feel if tere is a reason to doubt, you ogotta look harder. Yes people have baught thier wasy out of many things. Thats what we do when we pay pre-paid legal services. It legal too.
But I am from the SHOW ME STATE, I have to have hard core proof before I belive. At first I really thaught that Scott did it, bar none. I have wrestled with this. But I am just not sure now, and that leaves me with reasonable doubt. I have followed this case. I am stil undecided.
I just dont think that he acted alone if he did do it. But I stil belive that Amber did it. Maybe with Scott, maybe without.

wannabe?too · Joined: 23 Jul 2004 Posts: 65 Location: FL

What'ya need it on video tape there "show me state". OJ murdered them cause the victim's blood was in his Bronco and on his socks. The ONLY reason he was found not guilty was because he is black and had an almost all black jury, and they didn't want to convict one of their favorite sons. Johnny Cochran was a very good attorney, and he was able to give the jury an excuse to aquit by casting suspicion on the police.

sanchez498 · Joined: 24 Feb 2004 Posts: 2777 Location: Arkansas

Your TREADING on thin ground there wannabe?too. Us Southerners dont take highly to insults about are intelligent's. :twisted:

jims34 · Posted: Sun Sep 26, 2004 8:40 pm Post subject:

the fact of the matter is that he was found not guilty. It does not matter what anyone thinks about it he can never be charged with the same offence. As for Scott Peterson they don't seem to have any evidence to find him guilty. The thing that might fry his bacon is how he acted in the days after his wife went missing. I think it is strange that the witnesses that saw Lucy walking her dog didn't have any barring on the case. If one old lady says she seen her it maybe because of her eye sight and can be dismissed but there was more then one person that saw her. So if this is the fact then how could of he killed her before leaving to go to the Bay when she was seen after that time.

Truck Driving Jobs

Trucking Jobs

Truck Drivers

Trucking Companies

Class A Drivers.com