Amber Frey interview airing tonight.

[BTFLCHLD]

"Occupation: Fertilizer Salesman"

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

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

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 ) - 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

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Mad4stevie

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

Wanna bet

[Mad4stevie]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Wanna bet

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.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Mad4stevie

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.

I know

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 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]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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 ) - 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

Bravo!

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I know

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 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]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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 ) - 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

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. I will never see it your way.

For example "just because they were adulterous on a pregnant woman" 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 "for Amber it was the champagne two hours after meeting the magnetic Peterson ", 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 "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." 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]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

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. I will never see it your way.

For example "just because they were adulterous on a pregnant woman" 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 "for Amber it was the champagne two hours after meeting the magnetic Peterson ", 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 "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." 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

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

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 ) 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

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

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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 But, if people sympathize with her - good for them - I, of course, do not

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by 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.

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