Scott Peterson Sued by Laci's Parents for 25 Million Dollars

Full story: KNX-AM Los Angeles

MODESTO, CA -- The parents of murdered Laci Peterson want to make sure that their former son-in-law, Scott Peterson never cashes in on their daughter's death.
Comments
1 - 20 of 746 Comments Last updated Mar 27, 2011
First Prev
of 38
Next Last
Jane Turkowsky

AOL

#1 Mar 25, 2006
im sorry but all the money in the world can never make up for what that animal did to his wife and baby conner r everhe should rot in hell
Michael Donoven

Caldwell, OH

#2 Mar 25, 2006
What he supposedly did to his wife. There is no way your gonna tell me that he is guilty. And now lacy's parents are all "Give me money" and so is that little liar Amber Frey.
Ricky

Randolph, WI

#3 Mar 26, 2006
Let me guess, a part of the lawsuit is for financial support right? It's usually one of the things that is added in a wrongful death suit. Of course, they won't get that because she didn't financially support them.
$25 million? I don't think so. The might win a smaller amount, but what will happen if he get's a new trial and a judge declares there is no evidence to convict Peterson? Could he then turn around sue them back for the wrongful death suit?
Of course, the wrongful death suit might also help to exonerate Peterson and show he's innocent so it may back fire on the parents altogether. A lot more might come out of the trial than they are prepared to handle. Just my opinion of course.
Michael Donoven

Bellville, OH

#4 Mar 30, 2006
I sure hope so. I mean the whole proving he's inocent, I mean.
N Morrison

Surrey, Canada

#5 Mar 31, 2006
Michael Donoven wrote:
I sure hope so. I mean the whole proving he's inocent, I mean.
He is innocent. The grass clippings tell you all you need to know.
Rick Distaso: And we'll talk about the receipts in a minute. So after you found the dog and you checked his tags, what did you do next?
Karen Servas: I took his leash in my hand and I walked across my lawn and across to Scott and Laci's house and I tried to open the front gate.
Rick Distaso:Okay. So you went here across your lawn?
Karen Servas: Correct.
Rick Distaso:And when you had the dog, how were you holding him as you were walking him to the house or to the Peterson's house, how are you holding him, by his fur, by his collar, by the leash?
Karen Servas: By the leash.
Rick Distaso:Okay. So the leash was still attached?
Karen Servas: Correct.
Rick Distaso:Can you describe for the jury what the condition of the leash was?
Karen Servas: The leash had, it was dirty it had leaves and, like, grass clippings on it. It was moist.

Pin Kyo: I received a purse, a green and blue weave purse, and contained a jacket and a novel. And I am referring to my notes. Again, I examined for -- I take them out, take out the items. And I photographed it, and I examined each item. In the purse lining I observed off-white watery stains inside. And I tested it for blood. And it tested negative for blood. And I also observed inside the purse plant -- grass debris. I did not collect -- I did not collect them. And I examined the jacket. I observed a small reddish-brown stain in the front close to the zipper area. And it tested negative for blood also. And I also observed fibers, plant dirt debris on the shirt. And I did not collect them. And I examined the novel book that's inside the -- come from the purse. And I found a card, but no bloodstains observed on the book. So I didn't test any stains on the book.

-=-=-=-=-=
And no one connects the grass clippings on the leash to the grass in the purse, a purse which contains the very items a woman might take to walk her dog in the park?
Michael Donoven

Caldwell, OH

#6 Apr 1, 2006
Why aren't there more people on her who have brains?
N Morrison

Surrey, Canada

#9 Apr 6, 2006
KellBell wrote:
<quoted text>

Just so you know, the 25M Wrongful Death suit was not filed to PUT MONEY IN SHARONS'S POCKET. It was filed and will be won to PREVENT SCOTT FROM PUTTING MONEY IN HIS POCKET.
Nonsense. It's as easy as anything to get around these useless suits. Even I could do it, and I'm no lawyer. Besides, what happens if they lose the lawsuit because the jury decides Scott wasn't responsible?
N Morrison

Surrey, Canada

#10 Apr 6, 2006
KellBell wrote:
<quoted text>

What lies did Amber tell? Just curious.
Even the cops knew she was lying. They taped her making calls to Scott she didn't tell them about. And then there's the whole, "Who's your daddy?" thing.
N Morrison

Surrey, Canada

#12 Apr 6, 2006
KellBell wrote:
<quoted text>

Oh really....then what happened with the suit against OJ and Blake? How were they found responsible in a civil case when they were both found not guilty in the criminal case? Too bad you weren't there to get them off the hook. And as long as you mentioned "useless law suits" how about the one Jackie filed to recover $35,000. for expenses she says she paid in regards to Scott's house? The Peterson's recovered some of the money from the sale of the house so why didn't she just take her $35,000. out of that? And if she put out only $35,000. why is she trying to recover it all from Laci's estate? And why has she waited all this time? IMO she's just retaliating because Sharon has the civil suit pending against Scott.
In a civil case you just have to prove that it was more likely than not that the tort occurred. In the OJ case I believe the jury were correct. I don't believe they were in the Blake case - I am sure it is on appeal. That standard is much lower than the criminal standard.

As for Jackie, she is entitled to any money she put towards maintenance - in fact this is a legal requirement, even in a crooked city like Methdesto: "Steps should be taken initially to minimise the loss."
N Morrison

Surrey, Canada

#14 Apr 6, 2006
KellBell wrote:
<quoted text>You "believe" the jury was correct in the OJ case? You don't "believe" the jury was correct in the Blake case? Those comments are DEFINATELY YOUR OPINION.
And marked as such.
KellBell wrote:
<quoted text>Now I could call them "worthless", "nonsense", "stupid", etc., etc., but I don't, I'm adult enough to realize and accept that they are your opinions and you have a right to express them. I don't recall anything being reported that Blake is appealing the verdict in the civil case against him. Is this also just "your opinion"?
Educated guess.
KellBell wrote:
<quoted text>
As I stated previously, Jackie got money from the proceeds from the sale of Scott's house.
I suspect it was placed in escrow, due to the legal situation.
KellBell wrote:
<quoted text>Also, why sue Laci's estate for the WHOLE amount? Is she going to sue Scott for all the money that was/is being spent on his defense? Wouldn't that also pertain to "minimizing the loss"?
That is a separate matter. They could sue the Rochas for murdering Scott's wife and child and for loss of consortium. Why did Brent buy a gun one week after the abduction with the intent (he stated) to murder Scott? At the same time as the Rochas were stating that they had full confidence in his innocence?
N Morrison

Surrey, Canada

#16 Apr 6, 2006
KellBell wrote:
<quoted text>

The proceeds from the sale of the house was, IIRC, split between Sharon as Administrator of Laci's estate and the Petersons. So, Jackie should have taken the $35,000. out of the portion of money the Petersons received. You failed to respond to my question as to why she was suing Laci's estate for the full $35,000.? If she wants to be "fair and not profit" why not sue for only half of the $35,000.?
Let the judge sort out who gets what. I learned that from Judge Wapner!
KellBell wrote:
<quoted text>

Brent admitted to buying the gun and admitted his first intent was to use it on Scott. Maybe publicly he was supporting Scott, but deep down he felt Scott was to blame for Laci's "disappearance".
Some have wondered if he was afraid for his family. He and Laci were supposed to inherit. Then there's his job with Indian gaming - some have said that is very corrupt.
KellBell wrote:
<quoted text>

You can't really say Laci was "abducted" because there is no evidence that that's what happened.
There's no evidence Scott murdered her. Abduction is a very high possibility. Someone took her away from her home. The burglars were there with a truck and a motive.
N Morrison

Surrey, Canada

#18 Apr 9, 2006
KellBell wrote:
<quoted text>

Jackie said she wanted to be "fair and not profit". If she is being fair and didn't expect to profit she should have sued for only half of the $35,000. she claimed she spent. Does she really think it's fair for Sharon to pay for Scott's half of the expenses? IMO this law suit is strictly retaliatory on Jackie's part.
Nope. The estate should pay all reasonable costs of protecting the value of the property. This is settled law.
KellBell wrote:
<quoted text>
Scott was never supposed to INHERIT anything. The inheritance was Laci's from her grandparents.
Right. So he had no financial motive - as was proven in court.
KellBell wrote:
<quoted text>
They've also said being a fertilizer salesman he may have been involved in some kind of drug activity. Just another attempt to take the blame off Scott. Fertilizer is also used to make bombs so why not throw in the possibility that someone was trying to get even with him for selling them some bad fertilizer!!!!
I have never said that. It was the burglars. 35 to life is all the motive you need. People kill themselves and others to get out of a traffic ticket. What would they do to avoid prison?
N Morrison

Surrey, Canada

#20 Apr 13, 2006
KellBell wrote:
<quoted text>

What does mortgage payments and insurance premiums have to do with protecting the VALUE of the property? The value of the property doesn't decrease because these payments aren't made.
If the bank seized it it would cause complications. I bought a house like that at a bargain price.
KellBell wrote:
<quoted text>

I was claifying your point that "Scott and Laci were to inherit...". The inheritence was Laci's NOT Scott's.
But Scott would have benefitted.
KellBell wrote:
<quoted text>

Never said you did. Was just adding a few more FOOLISH REASONS as to why someone murdered Laci to get even with Scott. Got any documentation that someone has committed suicide/murder to get out of a traffic ticket? That sounds a little far fetched even from you.
How much did the killer of Nancy Grace's boyfriend get for his crime?$35 is what she claims.

And if you have never heard of a cop being killed at a traffic stop you sure haven't been paying attention.
N Morrison

Surrey, Canada

#22 Apr 14, 2006
KellBell wrote:
<quoted text>

Are you sure about that?

<quoted text>

We weren't talking about people killing someone during a robbery. You said people had killed to get out of a traffic ticket.

<quoted text>

Certainly I've heard of cops getting shot during a traffic stop, but I doubt the cop was shot just to avoid getting a ticket.
Two girls took off today to avoid a traffic ticket in LA. They could have easily killed themselves or someone else. Your argument is bunkum.
N Morrison

Surrey, Canada

#24 Apr 15, 2006
KellBell wrote:
<quoted text>

It's clear you can't back up your statement that "people HAVE killed to get out of a traffic ticket". The girls TOOK OFF, they DIDN'T KILL anyone. "COULD HAVE" doesn't cut it. Now who's living in "fantasy land"? What happened to the person that backs up all his/her statements with facts?
Next time a cop is killed at a traffic stop you go tell his family it didn't really happen since you clearly don't care.
myracanada

Sydney, Canada

#26 Apr 17, 2006
guilty 1 first degree death
guilty 1 first degree death
get out of denial jackie

god bless you all
Kelownagirl

Vancouver, Canada

#27 Apr 17, 2006
What is the general consensus in Modesto, guilty or innocent? From a distant prospective most people I speak to about it think he is innocent. And going by the court documents and evidence I really don't understand how he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Its hard to find any updated info, does anyone know what course of action is happening now? Is there any chance the verdict could be overturned?
N Morrison

Surrey, Canada

#28 Apr 17, 2006
Kelownagirl wrote:
What is the general consensus in Modesto, guilty or innocent? From a distant prospective most people I speak to about it think he is innocent. And going by the court documents and evidence I really don't understand how he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Its hard to find any updated info, does anyone know what course of action is happening now? Is there any chance the verdict could be overturned?
You can read the whole trial transcript and the other court documents on SII : http://www.scottisinnocent.com/

There is almost no chance that this verdict will stand. The violations of the rules of evidence was extreme and I expect Delucchi to come in for severe criticism over his rulings.
What Ever

Spokane, WA

#30 Apr 17, 2006
N Morrison wrote:
<quoted text>

You can read the whole trial transcript and the other court documents on SII : http://www.scottisinnocent.com/
You've used the word "vile" and "disgusting" to others here. That site is vile and disgusting.
Cheryl

Chicago, IL

#31 Apr 17, 2006
Marlene Strikes again!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 38
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Scott Peterson Trial Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
David Temple 48 Hours Mystery (Dec '08) Aug 25 showme1 96
Laci's mom outraged over Scott Peterson's blog (Jul '08) Aug 3 Stedenko 3,069
Sandusky Trial: TV Legal Analyst Beth Karas Say... (Jun '12) Jul '14 dutfan 2
Scott Peterson's email address in prison (Oct '07) Jul '14 A Guy 95
will scott peterson actually walk free someday ... (Aug '09) Jun '14 Linda 90
Scott Peterson Applauds Sharon Rocha Over Her N... (Mar '08) Aug '13 mike 34
Jodi Arias (Jun '13) Jul '13 Alliance 3
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Scott Peterson Trial People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••