|
Post by onelastpost on Oct 23, 2005 19:02:29 GMT -5
Anja~ this is only my opnion. when i was with my daughters father.... who i loved very much... he cheated, a few times. I found out, i knew, etc... did i think he was gonna kill me... nope. And we hardly ever got along... the point is... guys cheat and so do females but where is their heart. I knew my ex was cheating but i also knew and still know that im the only person that hes ever gonna love, ever. he could go out an do 100 chicks in one weekend but i knew that it was me that he loved. everyone elses was ass. thats it. Ok so what, scott cheated.... doesnt mean that he didnt love Laci. if he didnt love her, he wouldnt have married her and been with her for what.... almost 10 years... thats a long time to be with someone if they dont have ur heart wouldnt ya think. scotts heart was with Laci, even if jr wasnt. Sorry, in my book if I love someone I do not cheat on them.... But that is just my opinion... I do not say he killed her... even if he did not love her anymore... that does not mean he killed her...
|
|
|
Post by yummihunnibunni on Oct 23, 2005 23:41:21 GMT -5
Anja~ ur right, cheaters are not usually murders.... but everyone makes mistakes and if u say that u have never made one in ur life then id bet a chewed piece of gum to a dollar ur lying/
Kisses Johnna
|
|
|
Post by onelastpost on Oct 24, 2005 9:39:12 GMT -5
Anja~ ur right, cheaters are not usually murders.... but everyone makes mistakes and if u say that u have never made one in ur life then id bet a chewed piece of gum to a dollar ur lying/ Kisses Johnna I made mistakes in my life but I never cheated on one that I love... Thing is also, it was not only a ONS... but an affair... So I don't buy it now when Scott says he loved his wife... About the insurance, one thing that i thought of was that it could also be part of his defense to now give up the money... seriously, he says he is innocent and did not kill her for the money(I am not arguing about this fact at all here..) but wouldn't it look funny if he still fought for the money now.... Just a thought...
|
|
|
Post by pamela15 on Oct 24, 2005 12:38:52 GMT -5
I made mistakes in my life but I never cheated on one that I love... Thing is also, it was not only a ONS... but an affair... So I don't buy it now when Scott says he loved his wife... About the insurance, one thing that i thought of was that it could also be part of his defense to now give up the money... seriously, he says he is innocent and did not kill her for the money(I am not arguing about this fact at all here..) but wouldn't it look funny if he still fought for the money now.... Just a thought... [/quote]
Scott's claim to Laci's life insurance was not an attempt to "get rich" the man is sitting on Death Row for a crime that, not just in my opinion, but an ridiculous lack of evidence proves, he did not commit. As Scott was unable to receive a fair trail the first time around, the appeal process should reverse this unjust conviction. The insurance money would have greatly helped this process and again as most of us know, Scott was Laci's husband and not responsible for her death, he was entitled to the funds.
|
|
|
Post by yummihunnibunni on Oct 24, 2005 13:29:11 GMT -5
Besides the fact that now a days... 250,000 isnt really all that much, not enough to make u rich atleast. It hardly buy u a house and it isnt enough money to quit ur job and roll around it... there are people who have had more money then that and live broke. I do think that the money should had been awarded to scott or held until the appeal process was over, because if he does get released... then that money should go to him. The policy wasnt even bought around the time of her death but two years earlier. So if he was killin someone for the money, he sure did spend a lot of time plotting this crime and yet he is still in jail. guess it wasnt a really good plan huh. i dont think hes giving it up because he wants people to think hes guilty, he just doesnt want to profit from her death, unlike amber. i think thats respectable and honestly... if i were to go to jail for killin Hannah's dad, which would more likely to have happen then Scott killin Laci, an i didnt do it, ur damn right, id fight for the money. he isnt.... people are lookin too deep into it. he loves laci.... thats the bottom line.
|
|
|
Post by judywaits4u on Oct 24, 2005 18:42:53 GMT -5
It is 250,000 reasons why it was good for Laci's mother to ensure Scott got convicted of the murder. That Frey woman had good reason to ensure he was convicted also, she was never going to make much money unless he was found guilty.
It might not be nice to say those things: However it is no worse than people saying that Scott killed for the money.
Love and hugs, Judy
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Oct 25, 2005 7:54:43 GMT -5
Anja~ Im not really understanding ur post.... lets just say scott did kill laci ( which i feel horrible for even entertaining the thought which will prolly give me nightmares tonight ) what was the motive then? Why not bring Laci in it, shes the center of the case. The case should have never been about Scott, it should be about Laci and the people that kidnapped and killed her. If he is guilty... he didnt do it for the money... he doesnt want it. He didnt do it for Amber.... she was a piece of tush to him. He didnt do it to be free of Laci... they were happy together, they loved each other, even the people who dont believe in Scott say that they were.... So what exactly do u mean by ur post? He cheated on her, so in my book that does mean he did not love her as much as he might say now... I am not accusing him of being the killer... don't get e wrong, but if he loved her, there would not have been any Amber in first place.... Anja, I respectfully disagree. Many people who cheat love their spouses and would never leave them. Men and women. I don't condone it, but it's a fact. Also- I agree with Johanna that this case should have been about LACI and an honest search for the TRUTH of what happened to her, not about demonizing Scott because of his fling with amber. It wasn't. The 4.2 million dollar "investigation" didn't answer a single question about Laci's murder-- it only focused on Scott. That is wrong. I'll give you one example (there are many).... the mineralization on Laci's pants. They were never analyzed. WHY? A knife found at the Peterson home after Scott was convicted was analyzed (nothing of course) so why was something so important ignored? Those deposits could have given many clues as to where her body was. (or WASN'T) yet it was ignored. This case SHOULD have been the search for truth for Laci, but it wasn't. I don't think it's disrespectful in any way to bring her name up. I'm sorry if you do. I advocate justice for Laci, Conner and Scott. All victims, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Nov 18, 2005 11:49:47 GMT -5
Peterson life insurance order vacated
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By SUSAN HERENDEEN BEE STAFF WRITER
Scott Peterson will get a do-over.
A Stanislaus County Superior Court judge on Thursday vacated an order that said $250,000 from a life insurance policy on Laci Peterson should go to her mother, Sharon Rocha, the executor of her estate.
The new ruling came after attorneys for Scott Peterson complained that they were not given a chance to argue their case last month, when Judge Roger Beauchesne made his order.
The judge took umbrage at a suggestion, by attorney Matt Geragos, that Peterson had been denied due process. But he also agreed to reconsider the case and hear arguments from both sides on Dec. 16.
"This court never denied any request," Beauchesne said.
Geragos, who represents Peterson on several civil cases, said attorney Adam Stewart of Modesto, who represents Rocha, led astray the attorneys in Geragos' office.
Geragos said Stewart faxed a note to his office late the afternoon of Oct. 20, saying he would not appear at a hearing the following day.
Geragos said an associate with his firm decided not to come to Modesto, as planned, because he believed the hearing had been canceled.
"We always truly believed that we were going to have an oral hearing," said Geragos, the brother of defense attorney Mark Geragos, who represented Peterson in his headline-grabbing double-murder trial.
Stewart said the fax he sent to Geragos & Geragos of Los Angeles was a courtesy.
In civil cases, judges issue tentative rulings the afternoon before a hearing. Attorneys who want to argue the case must advise the court by 3 p.m. If neither side requests a hearing, the ruling becomes final.
No request for hearing
Stewart said he checked with the court, heard that Peterson's attorneys had not requested a hearing, then sent a memo about the tentative ruling, which said the life insurance money should go to Rocha.
He said it is not his job to explain the rules of court to opposing counsel.
"He can come in and make an argument in my absence," Stewart said. He also represents Rocha in a wrongful death lawsuit against Peterson. A trial is scheduled for April.
Beauchesne said no one called the court clerk's office by 3 p.m. to request a hearing, as required.
The judge also said he received an e-mail from a court reporter at 4:13 p.m., indicating that Peterson's attorneys had asked that a court reporter be present at the hearing.
Tough fight ahead
Stewart showed up in court the following morning. Beauchesne waited, then confirmed his tentative ruling because no one from the Peterson camp was there to argue against it.
The judge said he will blame no one for the misunderstanding, and Geragos said he is glad to get a chance to argue Peterson's case.
Geragos might have an uphill battle, because the judge already has ruled against Peterson and state law says murderers forfeit their rights as beneficiaries.
On Nov. 12, 2004, a jury in Redwood City found Peterson guilty of murdering his wife, Laci, and unborn son, Conner. A month later, the same jurors said Peterson should die by lethal injection.
He was sentenced March 16.
In legal papers, Peterson's attorneys argue that the money should not be distributed to Rocha while the murder case is on appeal.
All death penalty cases automatically are appealed to the California Supreme Court and can proceed to the federal court system if they are upheld in state court. The process can take decades.
Stewart said Rocha should not have to wait.
Principal Life Insurance of Des Moines, Iowa, deposited $256,429 — the value of the policy plus interest — with the court more than a year ago.
|
|
|
Post by eemc20072007 on Dec 10, 2005 22:00:20 GMT -5
yummihunnibunni-- You need to grow up and get a back bone. Being with someone that cheats on you once is a mistake. Being with someone that cheats on you numerous times is just your stupidity.
I do think Scott loved Laci to an extent. Or, he cared for her. But if you TRULY love someone, you are not going to cheat on them. If you are in love with someone, there is just NO WAY you could cheat and hurt them like that.
Again, Yummihunnibunni, your statement about what your husband did just makes me cringe. Not really because he cheated on you, but because you put up with it time and time again and he is going to keep doing it because he knows you will let him.
Bottom line is Scott cheated, got convicted of being a murderer because of his cheating, and now is not going to get any money from his wife. I think it should have been held at least until there was an appeal. But everything happens for a reason. Maybe this money going to Laci's family will help catch the real killer. Ya never know.
The bottom line on you, Yummihunnibunni--is someone needs to knock some sense into you. Maybe if you let your husband hit you once, he will know he can get away with that too, and can keep pounding some sense into your brain.
|
|
|
Post by judywaits4u on Dec 11, 2005 3:43:13 GMT -5
yummihunnibunni-- You need to grow up and get a back bone. Being with someone that cheats on you once is a mistake. Being with someone that cheats on you numerous times is just your stupidity. The bottom line on you, Yummihunnibunni--is someone needs to knock some sense into you. Maybe if you let your husband hit you once, he will know he can get away with that too, and can keep pounding some sense into your brain. It would help if you learned to read, she was talking about her EX-Partner. Besides that many partners do cheat, how do you know that your is not doing exactly the same thing. To go on and compare that with a person who assaults their partner is beneath contempt.
|
|
|
Post by eemc20072007 on Dec 11, 2005 9:59:42 GMT -5
Ex partner or not--she made it very clear she stuck around long enough during several cheating incidences.
I never said that any partner who cheats is also going to beat their wives/husbands/whatevers. I said considering she took so much cheating from him, maybe she should let him knock some sense into her too.
Also, I know mine isin't doing the same thing because I know. We both love each other and have mutual respect for one another. It is not just a one way street here.We, most of the time, are usually together and when we aren't, I am the one that is traveling, not him. (Most affairs, etc. occur when one is traveling)
|
|
|
Post by judywaits4u on Dec 11, 2005 11:34:23 GMT -5
Ex partner or not--she made it very clear she stuck around long enough during several cheating incidences. I never said that any partner who cheats is also going to beat their wives/husbands/whatevers. I said considering she took so much cheating from him, maybe she should let him knock some sense into her too. Also, I know mine isin't doing the same thing because I know. We both love each other and have mutual respect for one another. It is not just a one way street here.We, most of the time, are usually together and when we aren't, I am the one that is traveling, not him. (Most affairs, etc. occur when one is traveling) Lot of people stay married despite their spouse having several affairs. People are much more forgiving than you might expect. People are also always willing to believe that this is the last time, as often is the case in spousal abuse. I cannot say that out of all the people I know who have had affairs, that any of them were people who travelled due to their work. Love and hugs, Judy
|
|
|
Post by eemc20072007 on Dec 11, 2005 11:58:16 GMT -5
Read an article on it from The New York Times as well as somewhere else, and they said that..I think it was about 73 percent of affairs involved traveling with the career. I will look it up online and see if it maybe online and post the link to it. As far as people staying with their cheating spouse--I can see one time forgiving someone (I know I couldn't do this though) if they cheated, but anything after that, in my opinion, is just weak and stupid. I understand that the victim of the cheating may love the person very much and feel they "could not live without them" however, if the cheating spouse really loved that person, (definision of love is "having a deep emotional attachment to") then, there would be no way that person could do something to the person they "loved so much." Anyways, I guess Yummihunnibunni either got smart or her husband left her, etc. Now, I love my boyfriend very much. We have been together for three years, own horses together, and while I travel alot with the racehorses, there is no way I could cheat on him, because simply put, I love him. I wouldn't want to put him through that. But if he did cheat on me, I wouldn't think for a second what to do. I would just leave-but that is me. Anyways, we are way off topic and maybe we should get back to it
|
|
|
Post by joevitalee on Dec 13, 2005 13:37:10 GMT -5
wow, I just found this messageboard because I was trying to find out if my life insurance policy will pay out if I get the death penalty.. but all I learned is how stupid the general public is.
|
|
|
Post by eemc20072007 on Dec 15, 2005 21:50:02 GMT -5
Plan on killing someone Joe? lol
|
|