Wrongful death suit against Scott Peterson dropped

Just for clarification:
I didn't mean to post the above post multiple times.
It didn't go through initially and suddenly it was there three time.
I requested to have all but one deleted.
My apologies for that error.

I think he should be exonerated just on the fact alone that it is obvious Connor's body had NOT been in the water for 4 months! I have been studying this case since the very beginning and in all these years, that is the one fact that cannot be argued. I have seen the pitures and there is not way what they are saying can be true !

Cari from Modesto wrote:

I think he should be exonerated just on the fact alone that it is obvious Connor's body had NOT been in the water for 4 months! I have been studying this case since the very beginning and in all these years, that is the one fact that cannot be argued. I have seen the pitures and there is not way what they are saying can be true !

@Cari from Modesto--What "pitures" did you see? TIA

Hey WAH!! After all this time, the same arguments that have been going on forever, "pitures" and all. Ole Snotty still in a nasty, tiny, dirty cell that gets super hot in the summer and cold in the winter. If he had only just divorced ...
It is fun seeing your name again, WAH!

Sun wrote:

Hey WAH!! After all this time, the same arguments that have been going on forever,...

And you still didn't find the time to read the actual case files
at http://www.pwc-sii.com/
or http://www.facebook.com/pages/Scott-Peterson-...
and still the likes of you have nothing to add to the discussion but nasty remarks and personal insults.

Scott Peterson have no money. So, it is a waste of money and time to sue him.

America Gentleman Samuel wrote:

Scott Peterson have no money. So, it is a waste of money and time to sue him.

The Rocha family probably wanted to sue him to prevent Scott from writing a book about this case himself and profiting from a book deal.
Anyway - the Rocha's dropped the case, maybe to prevent the overturning of the criminal conviction.
One can read the Peterson's family point of view here:
http://scottpetersonappeal.org/cblog/index.ph...

@Sun
Hi Sun, good to see you too. You are so right--all this time an nothing has changed. We will see what the DRISP's lawyers for his appeal have when they show their briefs.

Well, actually I am a Psychiatrist,

If you are a psychiatrist, then you've had enough schooling to know you don't capitalize the word.

and even though I have never conducted an interview with Mr. P. I am qualified to identify a classic sociopathic/killer personality.

If you are a psychiatrist, then you also must be aware that you are not qualified to make a diagnosis without interviewing a subject.

There was no editing on Court TV during that trial, that is a ridiculous statement.

For those interested, google Diane Sawyer's interview with Scott Peterson. You can watch it online. It was edited from 120 minutes to 12 minutes and the network used the 10 per cent of the interview that best served TV's need for profit---maximizing the statements that could be construed as guilt (drama) and minimizing the statements Peterson made that go to innocence. For example you cannot understand Peterson as he says he goes for walks with Laci and his dog in an effort to try to make contact with her spirit in some way. Immediately after this comment, which I had to listen to five times to understand, Sawyer gives a statement implying Peterson cried fake tears for the interview.
The Court of Public opinion is where we are now, and though Noob said nothing about editing trial coverage, the truth is that in THIS court, tv is where people got their info about the case, generally speaking, and tv left out a lot of facts, like the Aponte tip for one.

However, there are more worthy cases throughout the US and Europe and I suggest you spend your time a little more wisely.

Actually, this is a case familiar and unsettled in the public mind, as one can see from this thread. For that reason, and also for the reason it serves as a snapshot of our judicial system and the way it can sometimes work, it is an excellent topic.

You yourself are right here contributing.

People should talk about it. It happened on Christmas so people came to care about Laci's story and who she was, and some of us who have researched the case also care if an innocent person was convicted with the whole world watching.

Just because lynchings don't happen with a rope anymore doesn't mean they don't happen. The mobs at the courthouse are evidence of that. Some of us care that our judicial system, and our taxes, should not support trial outcomes that are wrong.

instead of a cell-he should do his time(tied up n buried) in a comfee neck deep hole-for life.

He should be bury neck deep on a ocean beach at low tide.

if no ocean nearby-suffocate the head with a used doggie bag-after 24 hours-gagged n covered with red ants.

GOP 2012 wrote:

if no ocean nearby-suffocate the head with a used doggie bag-after 24 hours-gagged n covered with red ants.

You are too kind but I like the way you think.

America Gentleman Samuel wrote:

Good Afternoon Everybody. How are you? All of us including Tippy and her fish are doing just great. Thanks for asking.

Have a nice day.

America Gentleman Samuel wrote:

<quoted text>
Have a nice day.

You also.

lie detector tests-lots n lots of em for those who think he is innocent

not on my dime tho-those who think he is innocent can use them new hi tech lie detectors-n make the results public as a lie machine cant be used in court

but if he hooked up twice a day-on different lie machines n testers-maybe there will be some doubt of guilt

and if 100% assured guilt-just cap tha scum off!

it showed i told the TRUTH!!!!( a home kit showed i didnt lie when i said I would gladly bury that scum tight to the neck-24 hours thus-then smothered with a used plastic doggie poop bag)

This dude did it! Anyone who says different is a joke on meth or something eles.

Factdamondo wrote:

This dude did it! Anyone who says different is a joke on meth or something eles.

Something else is correct. They're people who can think for themselves, something neither you nor anyone you know can do. That's why you let your TV tell you what to think - and the people who run that are no smarter than you.

MRS AVA wrote:

<quoted text>Excellent!

You call total rubbish 'excellent'?