Tape looped around Peterson fetus?s neck

[iwearnosox]

Whaaa?

 

[spaceman]

Originally posted by: iwearnosox
Whaaa?

disgusting.

 

[mastertech01]

It could have happened while under water however. All kinds of stuff floating under water, Im surprized there wasnt debris of all sorts, including rope, wire, string, sticks, fishing line, trash bags, anything and everything people litter the waters with.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: mastertech01
It could have happened while under water however. All kinds of stuff floating under water, Im surprized there wasnt debris of all sorts, including rope, wire, string, sticks, fishing line, trash bags, anything and everything people litter the waters with.

It doesn't appear that way if you read the article closely. It seems to have been deliberately wrapped around it's neck, and they are speculating it could have been used as a noose of sorts. I doubt we would hear much about it if it was simply a case of ocean debris being on the body, it would have no relevance to the case.

Edit:

I am patiently watching the details of this case develop as I am waiting to hear more of the facts and evidence before I decide this guy is guilty until proven innocent as most of the country seems to have done already. I find it hard to believe a fair trial is possible with all the media attention this case has received, and the fact that most people already have decided he is guilty.

 

[BCYL]

But I thought they said the baby died in the mother's womb... If there was tape around his neck, then that couldn't have been the case...

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: BCYL
But I thought they said the baby died in the mother's womb... If there was tape around his neck, then that couldn't have been the case...

One of the many reasons while I am witholding my judgement on guilt just yet...

 

[Vic]

Hmmm.... looks like Scott Peterson might be innocent after all. Won't that make a lot of people look stupid? And further affirm my theory that, in the event of a murder, that police are only interested in getting an easy conviction on a convenient family member, even when all the evidence is contrary. Real police work is such a rarity nowadays.

 

[Moonbeam]

The defense probably leaked this info because it favors them. They have also offered a satanic twist to this thing. What I wonder is how much of this, shall we say bs, was created by Peterson and suggested to the attorneys because he knows the manor in which he killed.

 

[Zrom999]

Originally posted by: mastertech01
It could have happened while under water however. All kinds of stuff floating under water, Im surprized there wasnt debris of all sorts, including rope, wire, string, sticks, fishing line, trash bags, anything and everything people litter the waters with.

Like animals getting caught in plastic 6pack rings?

 

[Tripleshot]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The defense probably leaked this info because it favors them. They have also offered a satanic twist to this thing. What I wonder is how much of this, shall we say bs, was created by Peterson and suggested to the attorneys because he knows the manor in which he killed.

Any plausable explanation for her death outside the realm of husband killing his pregnant wife, leaves the jury to consider the circumstances, and conviction with death penalty cannot be levied because of "reasonable doubt". If the evidence shows post mortum injuries to the infant, the speculation that the baby was "born" before it died would alter the charges against Peterson right off the bat.

Remember, the family loved this guy until they found out he had an affair while his wife was 7-8 months PG. He has no record of any kind, and all indications were he was happy to have a new son. None of this makes sense, but history has shown us in California murder cases, law enforcement and prosecutors have done everything from tainting evidence to outright lieing to try and get a conviction.

In my book, he is innocent until "PROVEN" guilty. There is not enough to convince me otherwise so far. It is a long stretch from a cheating husband to a murdering husband,and the circumstances of her death and dismemberment leave alot of doubt to me, and probably the same for a jury too.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The defense probably leaked this info because it favors them. They have also offered a satanic twist to this thing. What I wonder is how much of this, shall we say bs, was created by Peterson and suggested to the attorneys because he knows the manor in which he killed.

Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, Moonbeam. It's the law. Learn it. Love it. Live it.

 

[Moonbeam]

He is innocent in the eyes of the law. He is guilty as far as I'm concerned. The circumstances of the case scream guilty in my opinion. A jury will make the decission. He does not pass the Moonbeam duck test.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
He is innocent in the eyes of the law. He is guilty as far as I'm concerned. The circumstances of the case scream guilty in my opinion. A jury will make the decission. He does not pass the Moonbeam duck test.

Alot of things would have you thinking he's guilty, like he went stugeon fishing while his wife was murders and thrown into the same water area he was "fishing" in. And wasn't there a 55 gallon drum he bought that he can't account for. It's things like that, that make him look guilty. The only puzzling thing is how could someone do something like that? I think that is all he's got going for him. That and no one seen him kill her.

KK

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
He is innocent in the eyes of the law. He is guilty as far as I'm concerned. The circumstances of the case scream guilty in my opinion. A jury will make the decission. He does not pass the Moonbeam duck test.

Alot of things would have you thinking he's guilty, like he went stugeon fishing while his wife was murders and thrown into the same water area he was "fishing" in. And wasn't there a 55 gallon drum he bought that he can't account for. It's things like that, that make him look guilty. The only puzzling thing is how could someone do something like that? I think that is all he's got going for him. That and no one seen him kill her.

KK

I haven't heard anything about her being found in a 55 gallon drum, so the accusation that he bought one wouldn't be relevant.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
He is innocent in the eyes of the law. He is guilty as far as I'm concerned. The circumstances of the case scream guilty in my opinion. A jury will make the decission. He does not pass the Moonbeam duck test.

Wow, I find myself agreeing with Moonie. Could anyone explain to me why you would leave your very pregnant wife alone on Christmas Eve to go fishing. Plus, why did he dye his hair grow a moustache and go to San Diego, where you can walk across the border to Mexico?

This just means he probably did an OJ on her(hired someone to kill her while he came up with a stupid unprovable alibi)

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
He is innocent in the eyes of the law. He is guilty as far as I'm concerned. The circumstances of the case scream guilty in my opinion. A jury will make the decission. He does not pass the Moonbeam duck test.

Plus, why did he dye his hair grow a moustache and go to San Diego, where you can walk across the border to Mexico?

Umm, maybe so the public wouldn't harass him? Do you think this guy was able to buy groceries without being harassed before slightly changing his apearance?

I think the guy is a slimeball, but being a slimeball doesn't necessarily make you a murderer. He will be found innocent in this trial - wether he really is guilty or not

CkG

 

[Bulk Beef]

Gary Condit killed her. No question.

 

[DZip]

All part of a Bush conspiracy to take attention off Iraq. Well maybe it is.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DZip
All part of a Bush conspiracy to take attention off Iraq. Well maybe it is.

SSShhhhh! :|


CkG

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
He is innocent in the eyes of the law. He is guilty as far as I'm concerned. The circumstances of the case scream guilty in my opinion. A jury will make the decission. He does not pass the Moonbeam duck test.

Alot of things would have you thinking he's guilty, like he went stugeon fishing while his wife was murders and thrown into the same water area he was "fishing" in. And wasn't there a 55 gallon drum he bought that he can't account for. It's things like that, that make him look guilty. The only puzzling thing is how could someone do something like that? I think that is all he's got going for him. That and no one seen him kill her.

KK

I haven't heard anything about her being found in a 55 gallon drum, so the accusation that he bought one wouldn't be relevant.

I know she wasn't found in one, but evidently he purchased one and didn't know what happened to it. Not saying that that proves anything, its all circumstancial evidence which is probably the only evidence they'll have against them unless someone seen him kill her.

KK

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
He is innocent in the eyes of the law. He is guilty as far as I'm concerned. The circumstances of the case scream guilty in my opinion. A jury will make the decission. He does not pass the Moonbeam duck test.

Plus, why did he dye his hair grow a moustache and go to San Diego, where you can walk across the border to Mexico?

Umm, maybe so the public wouldn't harass him? Do you think this guy was able to buy groceries without being harassed before slightly changing his apearance?

I think the guy is a slimeball, but being a slimeball doesn't necessarily make you a murderer. He will be found innocent in this trial - wether he really is guilty or not

CkG

He has to drive 9 hours to get groceries?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
He is innocent in the eyes of the law. He is guilty as far as I'm concerned. The circumstances of the case scream guilty in my opinion. A jury will make the decission. He does not pass the Moonbeam duck test.

Plus, why did he dye his hair grow a moustache and go to San Diego, where you can walk across the border to Mexico?

Umm, maybe so the public wouldn't harass him? Do you think this guy was able to buy groceries without being harassed before slightly changing his apearance?

I think the guy is a slimeball, but being a slimeball doesn't necessarily make you a murderer. He will be found innocent in this trial - wether he really is guilty or not

CkG

He has to drive 9 hours to get groceries?

No, he obviously moved to a place where people wouldn't recognize him - especially after dying his hair. Do you really think that he could have lived a peaceful(unharassed) life in Modesto after what the media has done with him?

Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't - but I think that he will be acquited because so far it looks like he's got some pretty good attorneys and also the prosecutors are tripping all overthemselves trying to keep a grip on everything.<--just an observation

CkG