Laci Peterson Case

#1 Postby **bfez1** » Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:20 pm

If test prove that the bodies found are Laci Peterson and her baby, do you feel her husband played a part in her death???

I feel those bodies are Laci and her baby and I felt all along Scott Peterson played a part ( ok, murdered his wife and child). JMO

ColdFront77 · #2 Postby **ColdFront77** » Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:23 pm

If indeed the two deal victims are Laci Peterson and her son Connor. I think Scott may have something to do with it, not sure if we would go any further without knowing what we still need to know, the proof.

chadtm80 · #3 Postby **chadtm80** » Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:30 pm

Oh yes... Scott = Guilty imo

ColdFront77 · #4 Postby **ColdFront77** » Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:37 pm

Good chance he is. I said what was on my mind at the moment I typed my post.

JQ Public · #5 Postby **JQ Public** » Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:50 pm

I think the husband did it...there is no one to back his alibi!

mf_dolphin · #6 Postby **mf_dolphin** » Wed Apr 16, 2003 6:32 pm

He's innocent until proven guilty but if I were the executioner I would be warming up the electric chair! :-(

Miss Mary · #7 Postby **Miss Mary** » Wed Apr 16, 2003 7:00 pm

Yes, he is guilty I think. One of two things could have happened:

A. he wanted out of the marriage and they argued. She hit her head or something and accidentally died. His intent was murder, just divorce. Then he panics and dumps his wife's body.

B. he wanted her out of the way all along and did away with her.

Either way it sure seems like he didn't want marriage or parenthood. Or Laci.

Very, very sad. If he's not guilty I will be shocked.

Lindaloo · #8 Postby **Lindaloo** » Wed Apr 16, 2003 7:04 pm

I believe he is guilty too. Not to mention the fact that the bodies were found by the marina he was supposedly fishing at. Gosh, he carried out his plan well huh? Guess he didn't figure the bodies would EVER surface now did he?

Marshall.... CA uses the gas chamber. Maybe they should get their hoses checked for leaks and SOON!!

southerngale · #9 Postby **southerngale** » Thu Apr 17, 2003 12:08 am

If he is guilty, (and he looks that way right now imo) how on earth could he do that to his wife and his little baby? I just don't get it. I never will.

#10 Postby **streetsoldier** » Thu Apr 17, 2003 12:13 am

If (a) the female corpse is Lacy Peterson, then it is a murder; how, then, is it possible that the body washed ashore without its head and legs?

I can understand how the fetus could have disengaged, given the putrefaction over 4 months, but I've seen enough "floaters" to know that limbs do NOT separate without "help".

#11 Postby **vbhoutex** » Thu Apr 17, 2003 12:22 am

southerngale wrote:If he is guilty, (and he looks that way right now imo) how on earth could he do that to his wife and his little baby? I just don't get it. I never will.

AMEN!!!

I do believe in "nnocent until proven guilty", but why has he not proven himself innocent? That should be easy enough to do if he really didn't do it IMO.

ColdFront77 · #12 Postby **ColdFront77** » Thu Apr 17, 2003 12:22 am

Good point, Bill.

petal*pusher · #13 Postby **petal*pusher** » Thu Apr 17, 2003 1:56 pm

I have the feeling he is guilty also....very sad indeed.

There was an interview with a Forensic Scientist the other night who indicated that if her body had been tied down with weights at the neck and legs, the timeline of being in the water, and the fact that the area had been recently dredged could easily have made the head and legs seperate from the body. He also mentioned that the amount of decomposure was different in the baby and the mother.....this also was explained that this is possible because the baby had not been born......protected from water exposure by being in the mothers body.

Sure do hope there will be enough evidence left to get WHOEVER is responsible for this awful act.......too many things seem to lead right back to Lacy's husband.........p

#14 Postby **Stephanie** » Thu Apr 17, 2003 2:03 pm

petal*pusher wrote:I have the feeling he is guilty also....very sad indeed.

There was an interview with a Forensic Scientist the other night who indicated that if her body had been tied down with weights at the neck and legs, the timeline of being in the water, and the fact that the area had been recently dredged could easily have made the head and legs seperate from the body. He also mentioned that the amount of decomposure was different in the baby and the mother.....this also was explained that this is possible because the baby had not been born......protected from water exposure by being in the mothers body.

Sure do hope there will be enough evidence left to get WHOEVER is responsible for this awful act.......too many things seem to lead right back to Lacy's husband.........p

You know, I kept on thinking that the baby (assuming it is Laci and her child) had to have been born before this happened, but what you just posted Petal and Bill, that makes alot more sense to me now. I'm especially intrigued by the fact that the bodies washed up close to the marina where hubby has his boat.

#15 Postby **bfez1** » Thu Apr 17, 2003 2:44 pm

RICHMOND, Calif. — The county prosecutor in Modesto says he feels "pretty strongly" that the body of a woman that washed up on shore this week is the missing Laci Peterson."If I were a betting man, I'd put money on it," Stanislaus County District Attorney James Brazelton told the Modesto Bee for a story published Thursday

".

#16 Postby **Stephanie** » Thu Apr 17, 2003 3:10 pm

bfez1 wrote:RICHMOND, Calif. — The county prosecutor in Modesto says he feels "pretty strongly" that the body of a woman that washed up on shore this week is the missing Laci Peterson."If I were a betting man, I'd put money on it," Stanislaus County District Attorney James Brazelton told the Modesto Bee for a story published Thursday".

I would too...

Laci Peterson Case

Laci Peterson Case

Who is online