Amber Frey interview airing tonight.

[GypsySorcerer]

Matt Lauer is interviewing her on Dateline NBC at 10:00. I'll be watching. Anyone else? I'll probably read her book too.

[estranged4life]

Matt Lauer is interviewing her on Dateline NBC at 10:00. I'll be watching. Anyone else? I'll probably read her book too.

not going to miss the OU vs. USC game...NBC should've put it on a different night, Then I may have been interested in watching just to see how dumb Amber Frey is :lol:

Brian j.

[BTFLCHLD]

dumb Amber Frey:lol:

What makes you think she may be? :confused:

[amber]

What makes you think she may be? :confused:
well, first of all, her name is Amber.... :laugh: :lol:

[Neal]

I'll watch the interview, but will not be buying her book. It's waaay too soon for her to be cashing in on this tragedy...

[estranged4life]

What makes you think she may be? :confused:

she seemed so believable with the relationship she had with Scott the Murderer when this whole mess first came to light, But now she has a book to cash in on the hoopla surrounding the end of trial? I say that's kinda dumb...

Brian j.

[BTFLCHLD]

Matt Lauer is interviewing her on Dateline NBC at 10:00. I'll be watching. Anyone else? I'll probably read her book too.

I will be watching tonight, as well as taping O tomorrow...
The transcripts alone peeked my interest in the book...

[BTFLCHLD]

well, first of all, her name is Amber.... :laugh: :lol:

:lol: No wonder thats my petname :xoxo:

[SuzeQuze]

she seemed so believable with the relationship she had with Scott the Murderer when this whole mess first came to light, But now she has a book to cash in on the hoopla surrounding the end of trial? I say that's kinda dumb...

Brian j.

I see your point. It is very therapeutic to do this though and this was an extremely traumatic event in her life. I can't fault her for going for this and people are interested, I would read it.

[estranged4life]

I see your point. It is very therapeutic to do this though and this was an extremely traumatic event in her life. I can't fault her for going for this and people are interested, I would read it.

I believe she should do it, But she should have waited another year...Cause it makes her sound like another "Glory Seeker" of fame & $$$$$

Brian j.

[BTFLCHLD]

Did I type I was purchasing? :rolleyes: ;)

She was flung a wad and is now scrambling to write it...
IMO the printed excerpts will be the jist of the book...
Much like a bad film preview...what's the point in seeing the film when you just watched the worst majority of it?

I will be watching the interviews...

[SuzeQuze]

Did I type I was purchasing? :rolleyes: ;)

She was flung a wad and is now scrambling to write it...
IMO the printed excerpts will be the jist of the book...
Much like a bad film preview...what's the point in seeing the film when you just watched the worst majority of it?

I will be watching the interviews...

I'm sure you're right, she was offered a bunch of money with a deadline because the publisher would want to ride the coattails of the trial. Sad but true. I do see the tastlessness of that.

[estranged4life]

Did I type I was purchasing? :rolleyes: ;)

She was flung a wad and is now scrambling to write it...
IMO the printed excerpts will be the jist of the book...
Much like a bad film preview...what's the point in seeing the film when you just watched the worst majority of it?

I hope her book bombs, So she can climb back under the rock she came out from under to grab those precious $$$$ :lol: :thumbsup:

[dissention]

I have no interest in her. I really had no interest in the Peterson case, either, but the media jammed it down everyone's throats.

[BTFLCHLD]

Yes, this is old news..."we" have now moved on to BARETTA! :lol:

[estranged4life]

meet yer new cellmate Butch, He will make sure yer "retirement" years in a 6X9 foot cell are as pleasant as having to put with 8 years of the Shrub (12 years if ya count Shrub Sr.)

By the way, Don't drop the soap..."

Brian j.

[BTFLCHLD]

so looking forward to huggybear's tell-all :p

[estranged4life]

so looking forward to huggybear's tell-all :p

if ya ask his pet bird if he did it the cock-a-too will look at ya, laugh and say "Are ya f**kin' kiddin' me?"

Brian j.

[Kelly]

I will watch her interviews but man, I cannot stand her attorney. Gloria makes my skin crawl. I could not stand how she pranced around throughout the entire trial, acting as if she was supposed to be there, and constantly pushed the fact that Amber was a "victim" down our throats. Yea, I know she sort of was but damn the girl had four dates with Scott. FOUR dates. They knew each other for like a month and now she is such a devastated victim from his lies. I know the trial and publicity was awful for her and I dont mind her writing a book, although it is tasteless...but don't try to portray Amber as this poor victim who was taken advantage of by big bad Scott. Sorry that was LACY.

[dissention]

I will watch her interviews but man, I cannot stand her attorney. Gloria makes my skin crawl. I could not stand how she pranced around throughout the entire trial, acting as if she was supposed to be there, and constantly pushed the fact that Amber was a "victim" down our throats. Yea, I know she sort of was but damn the girl had four dates with Scott. FOUR dates. They knew each other for like a month and now she is such a devastated victim from his lies. I know the trial and publicity was awful for her and I dont mind her writing a book, although it is tasteless...but don't try to portray Amber as this poor victim who was taken advantage of by big bad Scott. Sorry that was LACY.

Gloria is so annoying, watching her makes me want to stick my head in a K-Mart bag and wrap it around my neck as tightly as possible. That chick needs to be medicated. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Gloria is so annoying, watching her makes me want to stick my head in a K-Mart bag and wrap it around my neck as tightly as possible. That chick needs to be medicated. :laugh:

they BOTH are horrid people. He was convicted based on her testimony and all it showed was that he lied to her to get in her pants and than to get out of them. Now - her tell all book will make her millions - blood money as far as I am concerned and she is nothing more than a whore :mad: - and a skanky one at that :nod: does anyone else see the resemblence to between Amber and the Coultergeist :eek: :laugh:

[amber]

they BOTH are horrid people. He was convicted based on her testimony and all it showed was that he lied to her to get in her pants and than to get out of them. Now - her tell all book will make her millions - blood money as far as I am concerned and she is nothing more than a whore :mad: - and a skanky one at that :nod: does anyone else see the resemblence to between Amber and the Coultergeist :eek: :laugh:
I noticed the resemblence. Mostly I noticed that she looked very PWT. :laugh: But i have an eye out for that blond, skinny, rat faced look... :laugh: I actually think Coultergeist is prettier... :eek:

[gldstwmn]

I never liked Amber Frey. Apparently, my intuition was correct. Her book is a disgusting way to make a profit off of a tragedy. Ugh. :mad:

[amber]

I never liked Amber Frey. Apparently, my intuition was correct. Her book is a disgusting way to make a profit off of a tragedy. Ugh. :mad:
was it her skinny rat face and thin lips? :laugh: :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

does anyone else see the resemblence to between Amber and the Coultergeist :eek: :laugh:

A bit, yes. :laugh:

[GypsySorcerer]

they BOTH are horrid people. He was convicted based on her testimony and all it showed was that he lied to her to get in her pants and than to get out of them. Now - her tell all book will make her millions - blood money as far as I am concerned and she is nothing more than a whore :mad: - and a skanky one at that :nod: does anyone else see the resemblence to between Amber and the Coultergeist :eek: :laugh:

I kind of feel sorry for her. :shrug: Obviously, she ain't the brightest crayon in the box, but I don't feel she is evil. The timing of the book is tacky, but is that really her fault?

[gldstwmn]

was it her skinny rat face and thin lips? :laugh: :laugh:

No. She hired an attorney right from day one. I knew then that she was going to try and profit in some way from this.
A couple of months after she and Peterson were over she was pregnant by some other guy. She had the baby and is reportedly still with the guy but not married to him. :o Not good for the kiddies nor a sign of true commitment, IMO.
Her father kept selling stories to the National Enquirer. Whether or not she was the recipient of any of that money, I do not know but I wonder.
The tapes. Ugh. To quote Kathy Bates character in Primary Colors, " God, what a whiney bitch..." They are going to kill a man over those tapes. And to my ears, all I kept hearing was a guy who was trying to get the hell away from her. Any woman knows the lies a man is capable of telling. The tapes were no smoking gun for me.
Have I answered your question? :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

I kind of feel sorry for her. :shrug: Obviously, she ain't the brightest crayon in the box, but I don't feel she is evil. The timing of the book is tacky, but is that really her fault?

Well, I think she had this planned from the start. I think as soon as she saw the media attention, she went for the gold. I also think she lied. But, he is convicted and that is really all there is too it. Hopefully, she will find salvation in her blood money :mad:

Sorry - I just cannot abide a lying or coercing witness :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

I kind of feel sorry for her. :shrug: Obviously, she ain't the brightest crayon in the box, but I don't feel she is evil. The timing of the book is tacky, but is that really her fault?

The woman hired Gloria Alred from the get go and she's not the brightest crayon in the box? She's got you snowed.

[strandinthewind]

No. She hired an attorney right from day one. I knew then that she was going to try and profit in some way from this.
A couple of months after she and Peterson were over she was pregnant by some other guy. She had the baby and is reportedly still with the guy but not married to him. :o Not good for the kiddies nor a sign of true commitment, IMO.
Her father kept selling stories to the National Enquirer. Whether or not she was the recipient of any of that money, I do not know but I wonder.
The tapes. Ugh. To quote Kathy Bates character in Primary Colors, " God, what a whiney bitch..." They are going to kill a man over those tapes. And to my ears, all I kept hearing was a guy who was trying to get the hell away from her. Any woman knows the lies a man is capable of telling. The tapes were no smoking gun for me.
Have I answered your question? :laugh:

:xoxo: :xoxo: :xoxo: :xoxo: for that :cool:

To quote a good friend of mine "What can you expect from a hog but a grunt" :laugh:

[amber]

She had the baby and is reportedly still with the guy but not married to him. :o Not good for the kiddies nor a sign of true commitment, IMO.

I totally see your point, except for this part.... :shocked: :D

[GypsySorcerer]

The woman hired Gloria Alred from the get go and she's not the brightest crayon in the box? She's got you snowed.

I always thought Alred sought her out, but I've been wrong several times. ;)

[gldstwmn]

:xoxo: :xoxo: :xoxo: :xoxo: for that :cool:

To quote a good friend of mine "What can you expect from a hog but a grunt" :laugh:

Oh my! :laugh: You can't put lipstick on a pig. :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

I always thought Alred sought her out, but I've been wrong several times. ;)

Miss Frey is always free to decline.

[estranged4life]

I'm glad to see others think she is dumb too :thumbsup:

Brian "Amber Frey-A money grubbin', Whorebag pigbitch Glory Seeker" j.

[gldstwmn]

I totally see your point, except for this part.... :shocked: :D

I had to learn that the hard way. Many fine children have come from single parents. My daughter is one of them. But Amber's behavior shows a certain character flaw, IMO.

[amber]

I had to learn that the hard way. Many fine children have come from single parents. My daughter is one of them. But Amber's behavior shows a certain character flaw, IMO.
you mean her behavior besides that, i hope :D (my parents didn't marry till i was fifteen. not that that makes it ok, but it just all depends on the parent. my friend finally got married, after she'd had two by different fathers, and i swear those kids are no better off, she is the best mom evah.)
anyways.... :wavey:

[BTFLCHLD]

OK...so not a one of you in her situation, whatever that is/was, would write a book then?

[gldstwmn]

OK...so not a one of you in her situation, whatever that is/was, would write a book then?

Would all the profits go to charity? Would it be 20 years down the line after I'd had a chance to reflect on what happened and the families had more time to heal? Maybe. Both families just got over a horrific trial. No one won except maybe Amber. Bitch.

[strandinthewind]

OK...so not a one of you in her situation, whatever that is/was, would write a book then?

It is not so much that I mind her writing a book - in fact I really do not. My sole objection is I think she sold her testimony and I think she spun it so that it make her look the most victimized and the story more salacious - I think ALL of that was an effort to sell this future book. Sadly, Peterson will be put to death on her maneuvering, which means a man will die based on no direct evidence. For that - she is a calculating "brand of ketchup."

[amber]

It is not so much that I mind her writing a book - in fact I really do not. My sole objection is I think she sold her testimony and I think she spun it so that it make her look the most victimized and the story more salacious - I think ALL of that was an effort to sell this future book. Sadly, Peterson will be put to death on her maneuvering, which means a man will die based on no direct evidence. For that - she is a calculating "brand of ketchup."
that's a really good point. I see the light. Although, of course, previously, the rat face and thin lips tipped me off... :rolleyes: :laugh:

[Mad4stevie]

The question that I have is:

What was the court mandate about not accepting money or compensation for anything related to the case for 90 days? Did that just apply to the jurors or to anyone who was covered by the gag order?

[GypsySorcerer]

It is not so much that I mind her writing a book - in fact I really do not. My sole objection is I think she sold her testimony and I think she spun it so that it make her look the most victimized and the story more salacious - I think ALL of that was an effort to sell this future book. Sadly, Peterson will be put to death on her maneuvering, which means a man will die based on no direct evidence. For that - she is a calculating "brand of ketchup."

Very true.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

The only thing Amber Frey's testimony even proved IMO was that Scott Peterson cheated on his pregnant wife..the end...

Scott seemed to show no remorse, and I also think he should've testified...but that doesnt make him a murderer...I have many doubts about this case..

Chris

[strandinthewind]

The question that I have is:

What was the court mandate about not accepting money or compensation for anything related to the case for 90 days? Did that just apply to the jurors or to anyone who was covered by the gag order?

I did not read that one?

[Mad4stevie]

I did not read that one?

Yes - it was mentioned the day that the sentence was handed down by the jury. The judge made it part of the record. The prohibition was that no one could accept any compensation for interviews, etc. until 90 days had passed. If anyone did any interviews, etc., during the first 90 days, any expense was all on their own dime. In other words, no free limos, plane rides or hotels.

I was not clear, however, if it applied to everyone in the case (as the gag order did) or if it was only for the jurors. It's CA state law, apparently.

[strandinthewind]

Yes - it was mentioned the day that the sentence was handed down by the jury. The judge made it part of the record. I was not clear, however, if it applied to everyone in the case (as the gag order did) or if it was only for the jurors. It's CA state law.

I am unsure if a judge could tell a witness not to talk about the trial or the testimony - even during the trial. The First Amendment would probably trump the judge unless the judge ruled that the public airing of the testimony would somehow jeapordize the Const. rights of the party. But, in this case Frey already spilled her pathetic beans prior to, I think, the arrest. So, the point was moot :shrug:

[Mad4stevie]

I am unsure if a judge could tell a witness not to talk about the trial or the testimony - even during the trial. The First Amendment would probably trump the judge unless the judge ruled that the public airing of the testimony would somehow jeapordize the Const. rights of the party. But, in this case Frey already spilled her pathetic beans prior to, I think, the arrest. So, the point was moot :shrug:

So, are you saying that there is no such thing as a true "gag" order in this trial? She was covered by the gag order that the judge imposed which was in place from the time the trial started until the end, that I know for sure.

But lord knows, I don't want to get into a debate about the First Amendment with you, Jason! :xoxo: :)

[strandinthewind]

So, are you saying that there is no such thing as a true "gag" order in this trial? She was covered by the gag order that the judge imposed which was in place from the time the trial started until the end, that I know for sure.

But lord knows, I don't want to get into a debate about the First Amendment with you, Jason! :xoxo: :)

LOL - I LOVE CON LAW!!!!!!! :laugh:

In any event, apparently, Amber was not bound by any such rule.

[amber]

LOL - I LOVE CON LAW!!!!!!! :laugh:

In any event, apparently, Amber was not bound by any such rule.
As far as i've been able to discern, the law is veeeeeery multifaceted when it comes to such issues...the judge could decide, precedent could decide, the constitution could decide, some random state precedent and/or law could decide... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
lawd!!! the law!!! :shocked:

[sparky]

was it her skinny rat face and thin lips? :laugh: :laugh:

I stand in defense of all rats. If I were an attorney, I would take their libel case pro bono.

[strandinthewind]

As far as i've been able to discern, the law is veeeeeery multifaceted when it comes to such issues...the judge could decide, precedent could decide, the constitution could decide, some random state precedent and/or law could decide... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
lawd!!! the law!!! :shocked:

I have always said the Court is the concious of the US and it will always be. AND - I think the framers knew this. But, I digress :laugh:

[amber]

I have always said the Court is the concious of the US and it will always be. AND - I think the framers knew this. But, I digress :laugh:
yes, obviously constitutional law has the first say. But i've recently seen it be fuzzy here, as well. :rolleyes:
okay, that was only one research paper, but still. I've seen other cases where, randomly, there'll be a federal precedent that will allow state law to supercede, blah, blah, add frustration and nauseaum...*sigh*
but, obviously, you have a vastly larger body of knowledge on this subject. But may i refer you to...Blah Blah v. Blah Blah Irrigation Co. Cal. App. 3d blah,(West 1998) P. 4th. 587, 589 (1997)? :lol: :lol: Just joshin with ya, and practicing my deficient citation skills at once... :D

[strandinthewind]

yes, obviously constitutional law has the first say. But i've recently seen it be fuzzy here, as well. :rolleyes:
okay, that was only one research paper, but still. I've seen other cases where, randomly, there'll be a federal precedent that will allow state law to supercede, blah, blah, add frustration and nauseaum...*sigh*
but, obviously, you have a vastly larger body of knowledge on this subject. But may i refer you to...Blah Blah v. Blah Blah Irrigation Co. Cal. App. 3d blah,(West 1998) P. 4th. 587, 589 (1997)? :lol: :lol: Just joshin with ya, and practicing my deficient citation skills at once... :D

True - I love Con. Law. Interestingly, people on both sides can paint the Const. to do pretty much whatever they want. Sadly, sometimes for bad things :mad:

[amber]

True - I love Con. Law. Interestingly, people on both sides can paint the Const. to do pretty much whatever they want. Sadly, sometimes for bad things :mad:
yep. goes right well with my point, i think. :wavey: :distress: P.S. did you pick up citation form easily? Or did ya just leave that to the paralegals?

[Mad4stevie]

yep. goes right well with my point, i think. :wavey: :distress: P.S. did you pick up citation form easily? Or did ya just leave that to the paralegals?

Looking back now (after 6 years in practice), it amazes me how much pressure they put on me in law school to be perfect with my "blue book" citations. They always tried to scare us by telling us that we would be thrown out of court and/or would be committing malpractice if we got one period wrong, etc. Too much unnecessary pressure, IMO. But then again, what else is law school for? :laugh:

If you could only see how ridiculously pathetic alot of practicing lawyers are with their citations in pleadings and briefs! :laugh:

[amber]

Looking back now (after 6 years in practice), it amazes me how much pressure they put on me in law school to be perfect with my "blue book" citations. They always tried to scare us by telling us that we would be thrown out of court and/or would be committing malpractice if we got one period wrong, etc. Too much unnecessary pressure, IMO. But then again, what else is law school for? :laugh:

If you could only see how ridiculously pathetic alot of practicing lawyers are with their citations in pleadings and briefs! :laugh:
I've heard pathetic lawyer stories. Yeah, I got a lot of pressure this semester from one class about citations. And it sucks, because of course blue book citation is different then California citation :rolleyes: I dunno, it's something that's more challenging then the norm for me to pick up on. :confused:

[strandinthewind]

yep. goes right well with my point, i think. :wavey: :distress: P.S. did you pick up citation form easily? Or did ya just leave that to the paralegals?

Once I got that a citation is just another form of a sentence with similar punctuation, it was and has been pretty easy. But, once you get in the real world, you try to abide by The Blue Book and the court rules (which are not always the same :laugh: ) and if ya mess up - oh well :laugh:

[SuzeQuze]

Well, I think she had this planned from the start. I think as soon as she saw the media attention, she went for the gold. I also think she lied. But, he is convicted and that is really all there is too it. Hopefully, she will find salvation in her blood money :mad:

Sorry - I just cannot abide a lying or coercing witness :laugh:

What did she lie about?

[strandinthewind]

What did she lie about?

Well, it depends on which person you believe. For starters, she taped her conversations with Peterson, which was a betrayal of his trust, which I think is tantamount to a lie - I know I would feel betrayed if some I cared for did that to me - who wouldn't. I will never believe she was not thinking "book deal" when she was doing that.

Even the detectives considered her to be a liar at a few points in the investigation http://www.findlaci2003.us/amber-2x-detectives.html

Here is a page on Amber http://www.findlaci2003.us/amber-index.html

[BTFLCHLD]

"Occupation: Fertilizer Salesman" :nod:

[SuzeQuze]

Well, it depends on which person you believe. For starters, she taped her conversations with Peterson, which was a betrayal of his trust, which I think is tantamount to a lie - I know I would feel betrayed if some I cared for did that to me - who wouldn't. I will never believe she was not thinking "book deal" when she was doing that.

Even the detectives considered her to be a liar at a few points in the investigation http://www.findlaci2003.us/amber-2x-detectives.html

Here is a page on Amber http://www.findlaci2003.us/amber-index.html

She started taping the conversations after she realized his wife hadn't been "lost" prior to Dec 9 when he told her that. She began taping after she found out that Laci and Connor went missing on Christmas Eve, that Scott wasn't anywhere he'd said he'd been since they began dating.

As far as a betrayal of trust, Scott was a pathalogical liar, and a suspect. I disagree, I think taping the conversations was a good thing so that data could be compiled showing how sociopathic Scott was.

As far as sneaking around behind the cops' backs, if she did it that was wrong and disturbing but there aren't many details out there or corroboration of that story. Maybe she just wanted to have a private conversation with her ex lover, or maybe she did want to help him at first. I don't know what her motive was for calling him on the sly, if it happened.

And I don't think she had the foresight to see a book deal during the taping. I think she was too scared. I really don't think Amber is this horrible person some of you want to make her out to be. She is not flawless but I also do not think she is malicious.

Even if she is at the forefront of the media right now, I will never forget Laci and Connor and that they were the victims.

[Mad4stevie]

Well, it depends on which person you believe. For starters, she taped her conversations with Peterson, which was a betrayal of his trust, which I think is tantamount to a lie - I know I would feel betrayed if some I cared for did that to me - who wouldn't. I will never believe she was not thinking "book deal" when she was doing that.

Even the detectives considered her to be a liar at a few points in the investigation http://www.findlaci2003.us/amber-2x-detectives.html

Here is a page on Amber http://www.findlaci2003.us/amber-index.html

If she did have additional phone calls with Scott, why wasn't she cross-examined on them? Surely Geragos isn't that incompetent! I would think that any information on her motives would be prime cross examination material.

As for a betrayal of trust, how exactly can that be measured in a situation involving a pathological liar? She was taping the calls after Dec. 29th when she found out his "true" situation from the police, and she used equipment bought by the police department. At this point, Laci was just considered missing, not dead. That focus didn't change until after the last recorded phone conversation in February 2002.

[gldstwmn]

Well, it depends on which person you believe. For starters, she taped her conversations with Peterson, which was a betrayal of his trust, which I think is tantamount to a lie - I know I would feel betrayed if some I cared for did that to me - who wouldn't. I will never believe she was not thinking "book deal" when she was doing that.

Even the detectives considered her to be a liar at a few points in the investigation http://www.findlaci2003.us/amber-2x-detectives.html

Here is a page on Amber http://www.findlaci2003.us/amber-index.html

Additionally, when the police told her they didn't need her to tape anymore, she told them she wanted to continue! I guess she needed more pages for her blockbuster tell all. :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

She started taping the conversations after she realized his wife hadn't been "lost" prior to Dec 9 when he told her that. She began taping after she found out that Laci and Connor went missing on Christmas Eve, that Scott wasn't anywhere he'd said he'd been since they began dating.

As far as a betrayal of trust, Scott was a pathalogical liar, and a suspect. I disagree, I think taping the conversations was a good thing so that data could be compiled showing how sociopathic Scott was.

As far as sneaking around behind the cops' backs, if she did it that was wrong and disturbing but there aren't many details out there or corroboration of that story. Maybe she just wanted to have a private conversation with her ex lover, or maybe she did want to help him at first. I don't know what her motive was for calling him on the sly, if it happened.

And I don't think she had the foresight to see a book deal during the taping. I think she was too scared. I really don't think Amber is this horrible person some of you want to make her out to be. She is not flawless but I also do not think she is malicious.

Even if she is at the forefront of the media right now, I will never forget Laci and Connor and that they were the victims.

I agree Laci and Conner were the victims of murder, which is a horrible thing. But, Scott Peterson was the victim of being convicted without any direct evidence and will now die for it - our judicial system was bypassed. He was convicted mostly because he had an affair with Amber Frey - who clearly knew good and well what she was doing in the end and that was selling out his life for her personal gain. I mean she suddenly has her book on the shelves a month after the verdict :rolleyes:

Whether Peterson did it or not is irrelevant to this argument :shrug: The system is supposed to protect people from other peoples' prejudices - that is why there are elements of a crime that the prosecution must prove. I mean who would like to be convicted on murder just because they were adulterous on a pregnant woman. While I think that is an awful act and Scott is bad for doing it (for Amber it was the champagne two hours after meeting the magnetic Peterson :rolleyes: ) - I do not think he should be put to death for it. I know I would not, though I have never cheated on anyone in my life :cool: But, if you would be fine with someone convicting you on those unrelated grounds - so be it :cool:

I mean why bother with a trail - why make the state prove anything. Instead, why not just have some random person say one day to Peterson "though no evidence directly links you to the crime, you are a creep, an adulterer, and you do not appear to be grieving in the media" then pull out a gun and shoot him in the head? That essentially is what happened here. Then the question becomes, well if Peterson really was guilty what harm has been done by this conviction of less than the required evidence? Well, the harm is that social vigilanteism (sp.?) is never correct and I sure as hell do not want it applied to me :shrug:

Can ya tell this is a pet peeve :laugh: :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

. . . Surely Geragos isn't that incompetent! . . . .

Wanna bet :laugh: :laugh:

[Mad4stevie]

Wanna bet :laugh: :laugh:

Ya! I do tend to agree :)

I would think this would give alot of ammunition for appeal, but it seems that if the lawyer is anything but asleep during the trial, there is not a valid argument for ineffective assistance of counsel. :distress:

[strandinthewind]

Ya! I do tend to agree :)

I would think this would give alot of ammunition for appeal, but it seems that if the lawyer is anything but asleep during the trial, there is not a valid argument for ineffective assistance of counsel. :distress:

I know :nod:

But, I think there may exist grounds for appeal in that the trial judge did not allow Peterson to present evidence that his boat could not have been used to commit the crime. I mean that is exculpatory :shrug: I never got why the trial judge excluded it. The presecution could have called their own expert and then the jury would have had to have determined that issue of fact, which is what they are there to do.

Who knows with this case though.

[gldstwmn]

I agree Laci and Conner were the victims of murder, which is a horrible thing. But, Scott Peterson was the victim of being convicted without any direct evidence and will now die for it - our judicial system was bypassed. He was convicted mostly because he had an affair with Amber Frey - who clearly knew good and well what she was doing in the end and that was selling out his life for her personal gain. I mean she suddenly has her book on the shelves a month after the verdict :rolleyes:

Whether Peterson did it or not is irrelevant to this argument :shrug: The system is supposed to protect people from other peoples' prejudices - that is why there are elements of a crime that the prosecution must prove. I mean who would like to be convicted on murder just because they were adulterous on a pregnant woman. While I think that is an awful act and Scott is bad for doing it (for Amber it was the champagne two hours after meeting the magnetic Peterson :rolleyes: ) - I do not think he should be put to death for it. I know I would not, though I have never cheated on anyone in my life :cool: But, if you would be fine with someone convicting you on those unrelated grounds - so be it :cool:

I mean why bother with a trail - why make the state prove anything. Instead, why not just have some random person say one day to Peterson "though no evidence directly links you to the crime, you are a creep, an adulterer, and you do not appear to be grieving in the media" then pull out a gun and shoot him in the head? That essentially is what happened here. Then the question becomes, well if Peterson really was guilty what harm has been done by this conviction of less than the required evidence? Well, the harm is that social vigilanteism (sp.?) is never correct and I sure as hell do not want it applied to me :shrug:

Can ya tell this is a pet peeve :laugh: :wavey:

Bravo! :thumbsup:

[gldstwmn]

I know :nod:

But, I think there may exist grounds for appeal in that the trial judge did not allow Peterson to present evidence that his boat could not have been used to commit the crime. I mean that is exculpatory :shrug: I never got why the trial judge excluded it. The presecution could have called their own expert and then the jury would have had to have determined that issue of fact, which is what they are there to do.

Who knows with this case though.

Not to mention, jurors kept getting dismissed until there was a guilty verdict. Something foul seemed to be going on there. The eventual foreman said in a press conference that he was unable to say what exactly made him convict Peterson. I was shocked by that.

[SuzeQuze]

I agree Laci and Conner were the victims of murder, which is a horrible thing. But, Scott Peterson was the victim of being convicted without any direct evidence and will now die for it - our judicial system was bypassed. He was convicted mostly because he had an affair with Amber Frey - who clearly knew good and well what she was doing in the end and that was selling out his life for her personal gain. I mean she suddenly has her book on the shelves a month after the verdict

Whether Peterson did it or not is irrelevant to this argument The system is supposed to protect people from other peoples' prejudices - that is why there are elements of a crime that the prosecution must prove. I mean who would like to be convicted on murder just because they were adulterous on a pregnant woman. While I think that is an awful act and Scott is bad for doing it (for Amber it was the champagne two hours after meeting the magnetic Peterson :rolleyes: ) - I do not think he should be put to death for it. I know I would not, though I have never cheated on anyone in my life But, if you would be fine with someone convicting you on those unrelated grounds - so be it

I mean why bother with a trail - why make the state prove anything. Instead, why not just have some random person say one day to Peterson "though no evidence directly links you to the crime, you are a creep, an adulterer, and you do not appear to be grieving in the media" then pull out a gun and shoot him in the head? That essentially is what happened here. Then the question becomes, well if Peterson really was guilty what harm has been done by this conviction of less than the required evidence? Well, the harm is that social vigilanteism (sp.?) is never correct and I sure as hell do not want it applied to me

Can ya tell this is a pet peeve :laugh: :wavey:

This just seems like twisted logic to me. I feel like we're not even talking about the same person/trial. You may even be from another planet on this one. :D I will never see it your way. :distress:

For example <font color=red>"just because they were adulterous on a pregnant woman"</font> is a "spun" statement because this is NOT why he was convicted. He was convicted for committing a murder. Also HE was adulterous, Amber was not.

Also <font color=red>"for Amber it was the champagne two hours after meeting the magnetic Peterson :rolleyes: "</font>, do you seriously judge her for this? I mean, yes its fast, but that is pretty common nowadays. Remember, she did NOT know he was married.

And <font color=red>"though no evidence directly links you to the crime, you are a creep, an adulterer, and you do not appear to be grieving in the media" then pull out a gun and shoot him in the head? That essentially is what happened here."</font> No that isn't at all what happened here. He was put on trial and the timeline and his behavior lead to his conviction. He's still alive, remember? Also "social vigilanteism" is NOT what happened. He was put on trial where evidence was presented. You are correct that there was no direct evidence but there was irrefutable evidence IMO.

Incidentally I hope that he is not put to death, I don't support the death penalty at all.

I agree to disagree with you on this forever and ever (which doesn't mean that I don't expect a retort ;))

[strandinthewind]

This just seems like twisted logic to me. I feel like we're not even talking about the same person/trial. You may even be from another planet on this one. :D I will never see it your way. :distress:

For example <font color=red>"just because they were adulterous on a pregnant woman"</font> is a "spun" statement because this is NOT why he was convicted. He was convicted for committing a murder. Also HE was adulterous, Amber was not.

Also <font color=red>"for Amber it was the champagne two hours after meeting the magnetic Peterson :rolleyes: "</font>, do you seriously judge her for this? I mean, yes its fast, but that is pretty common nowadays. Remember, she did NOT know he was married.

And <font color=red>"though no evidence directly links you to the crime, you are a creep, an adulterer, and you do not appear to be grieving in the media" then pull out a gun and shoot him in the head? That essentially is what happened here."</font> No that isn't at all what happened here. He was put on trial and the timeline and his behavior lead to his conviction. He's still alive, remember? Also "social vigilanteism" is NOT what happened. He was put on trial where evidence was presented. You are correct that there was no direct evidence but there was irrefutable evidence IMO.

Incidentally I hope that he is not put to death, I don't support the death penalty at all.

I agree to disagree with you on this forever and ever (which doesn't mean that I don't expect a retort ;))

. . . and retort you shall have :laugh:

I believe he has been sentenced to death. So, the gun to the head analogy was correct except in a temporal sense, the latter being immediate and the former being prolonged :shrug:

Also and again, there was no direct evidence linking him to the crime. So, that means he was convicted on circumstantial evidence - none of which links him to the crime and the evidence the judge inexplicably excluded proves Peterson's boat could not have been used for the crime. Part of that circumstantial evidence was his affair with Frey - thus my statement that his affair with Frey got him convicted is and was correct. I mean do you really believe that jury (at least the last one :rolleyes: ) took him having an affair while his wife was preggers and ran with it all the way to a conviction - then I suggest you do not know about juries. I do and they did. Put it this way, if Frey had not testified, do you think on the evidence remaining there would have been a conviction? I submit there would not have been. Again, I do not think the prosecution alleged Peterson's motivation was to kill Lacy in order to wind up with Amber. If they did, the tapes prove them wrong. So, what other possible evidence could her testimony prove - I submit it was to show Peterson had an affair while his wife was pregnant - therefore he killed her. That is a non-sequitor - it makes no sense. People have affairs all of the time without killing their pregnant wives :shrug:

But, people will never see it this way. All they can think is well who cares, Peterson was probably guilty anyway so screw him and the system. These people do not have the foresight to see where that kind of logic and disregard for the rules will lead.

Again, applying that logic, why bother with a trial. Why not just take an internet poll of guilt and if guilty there - shoot him in the head :shrug:

As for the rest of the evidence, it just does not add up. Yes, he went fishing on Christmas Eve - so what - I know a bunch of people who do as well.

He was going to mexico - so what - he knew he had a police escort and therefore could hardly be running away.

Laci's hair was found on his stuff - big deal - she was his wife and had access to it.

Imagine for a second that he is innocent and you were in his shoes. I think you would be helpless against the mounting circumstantial case :shrug:

[Mad4stevie]

It is easy for all of us to judge Amber, and her feelings and motivations regarding this case, BUT how many of us have ever dealt with someone who is a pathological liar like Scott Peterson?

I once dated someone who lied about everything and anything and appeared to have no conscience about it. He was very charismatic and charming and had most everyone fooled. I consider myself to be a fairly intelligent, socially aware person, and I was fooled by his charisma and charm. Granted, he is not a killer (or one who has been charged with such a crime), but I can feel for what it is like to feel that kind of betrayal of trust by a person you think cares about you. It can really mess you up emotionally and spiritually. And I have my therapist to thank for straightening me out ;)

People who lie like that are very scarey to me.

[strandinthewind]

It is easy for all of us to judge Amber, and her feelings and motivations regarding this case, BUT how many of us have ever dealt with someone who is a pathological liar like Scott Peterson?

I once dated someone who lied about everything and anything and appeared to have no conscience about it. He was very charismatic and charming and had most everyone fooled. I consider myself to be a fairly intelligent, socially aware person, and I was fooled by his charisma and charm. Granted, he is not a killer (or one who has been charged with such a crime), but I can feel for what it is like to feel that kind of betrayal of trust by a person you think cares about you. It can really mess you up emotionally and spiritually. And I have my therapist to thank for straightening me out ;)

People who lie like that are very scarey to me.

But the issue is would you convict him of murder without any direct evidence that he did it and based solely on the fact that he was a creep. AND - we would like the pre and post therapy answers please :lol: :lol: :lol: :cool:

As for Amber - I think she knew from the get go that once the media took a hold of this, it was to be a gold mine for her. I mean she is hardly a stand up citizen and in many circles would be called a whore :shrug: But, if people sympathize with her - good for them - I, of course, do not :laugh:

[SuzeQuze]

It is easy for all of us to judge Amber, and her feelings and motivations regarding this case, BUT how many of us have ever dealt with someone who is a pathological liar like Scott Peterson?

I once dated someone who lied about everything and anything and appeared to have no conscience about it. He was very charismatic and charming and had most everyone fooled. I consider myself to be a fairly intelligent, socially aware person, and I was fooled by his charisma and charm. Granted, he is not a killer (or one who has been charged with such a crime), but I can feel for what it is like to feel that kind of betrayal of trust by a person you think cares about you. It can really mess you up emotionally and spiritually. And I have my therapist to thank for straightening me out ;)

People who lie like that are very scarey to me.

Unfortunately for me, my first boyfriend was like this, I identify. No conscience, very scary. :nod: Did a number on me for sure.

[estranged4life]

Unfortunately for me, my first boyfriend was like this, I identify. No conscience, very scary. :nod: Did a number on me for sure.

I can be scary, Deb has seen that side before...But controlling, secretive, pandering is something I am not.

Intimidating? Yes...But fiercely loyal & forgiving (Maybe too forgiving) but I never treated anyone like **** except for those who dared to cross me once too often.

As for Amber Frye, She is similar to the couple who recently came forward with video footage of the Columbus nightclub shooting (I refuse to watch this BS footage)...They did not wait for everything to blow over before they released this sick footage, cause by then their opportunity to cash in and claim their 15 minutes of lame-fame would have died out, But instead they pissed a bunch of people off and now have been targeted/alienated for their deed.

Like I said before, She should have waited til later to write a book, But when money talks the bull**** walks...

Brian j.

[Mad4stevie]

But the issue is would you convict him of murder without any direct evidence that he did it and based solely on the fact that he was a creep. AND - we would like the pre and post therapy answers please :lol: :lol: :lol: :cool:

As for Amber - I think she knew from the get go that once the media took a hold of this, it was to be a gold mine for her. I mean she is hardly a stand up citizen and in many circles would be called a whore :shrug: But, if people sympathize with her - good for them - I, of course, do not :laugh:

I wasn't speaking of Scott's conviction when I made this post. I am looking only at Amber and the fact that everyone here seems pretty content looking down their noses at her ;) without really having any idea of what it feels like to be involved with a pathological liar.

As for the pre-therapy answer: oh my god i am responsible for this man being put to death and i am the cause of Laci's murder! ;)

As for the post-therapy answer: i did what i could to provide information and help to the authorities so that they could find Laci and bring her home to her family. ;)

[bikerchic]

I haven't read this thread but Amber was on Oprah today (I missed it), I don't really care about Amber, I just want to know what Oprah said at the beginning of the show about the Tsunami & her designer Nat Berkus, does anyone know?

[Mad4stevie]

I haven't read this thread but Amber was on Oprah today (I missed it), I don't really care about Amber, I just want to know what Oprah said at the beginning of the show about the Tsunami & her designer Nat Berkus, does anyone know?

Oprah said that he was safe and home and that they are still searching for his partner. They aired a portion of a phone conversation with him from the evening of the tsunami. Nothing really new was aired about his experience or his effort to find his partner. Very sad.

And . . . they are airing the Dateline special on Amber again tonight on MSNBC at 9 p.m. EST.

[bikerchic]

But now she has a book to cash in on the hoopla surrounding the end of trial? I say that's kinda dumb...

Brian j.
......I say that's kinda smart

[bikerchic]

Oprah said that he was safe and home and that they are still searching for his partner. They aired a portion of a phone conversation with him from the evening of the tsunami. Nothing really new was aired about his experience or his effort to find his partner. Very sad.

And . . . they are airing the Dateline special on Amber again tonight on MSNBC at 9 p.m. EST.
Thank you :thumbsup: