Mitchell versus Sleaze Bars

 
Terrorizing Independent Witnesses
                                           
Where is the real evidencethat Scott didn' t kill his wife? - terrorizing independent witnesses

Author Comment
Redlandzboy
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 10:12:09 am)
Reply
Where is the real evidence that Scott didn' t kill his wife?
Well that what Mark Geragos, AND other atty says They have EVIDENCE that WILL CLEAR SCOTT..


Where is it?
Where is it?
Where is it?
Where is it?

If they have REAL evidence that clears scott 100% they can go to DA and show it to them, and the DA would be glad to drop charges.. Do ya think? Mark G doesn't want an innocent man sitting in jail.

THIS crap WILL BACKFIRE ON THE defense at the trial, especially with Mark.. When he said, he will find the real killer he better SHOW THE REAL KILLER...

Every Tuesday night I will come online and say WHERE IS THE REAL KILLER AND EVIDENCE TO clear Scott.




curiousGeorge2
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 10:15:34 am)
Reply
Courtesy of Debbie Stewart -not Martha
Scott Peterson was spotted at the Marina WITHOUT LACI, when Laci was spotted walking her dog, and some quacks are now suggesting that he coached his dog to return home without a leash, to fool the police. Is anybody really that Duh-h'm.

Hey, how about the Modersto Police Department?

Vivian Mitchell, 78, says she and her husband, Bill, were the last people to see Laci Peterson, but she says Modesto police haven't talked to her about their Christmas Eve sighting.

"I called and told them that I'd seen whom I thought was her and it would be pretty difficult to have an identical twin and identical dog," Mitchell told ABCNEWS affiliate KGO in San Francisco. "I did think that it was strange they didn't call. I just thought they had some information that over-rode what I had seen and I just thought it was strange that nobody ever followed up," she said.

Mitchell says it took her a week to call the police, because she assumed others in the neighborhood had also seen Peterson walking her dog.

Mitchell says she remembers seeing Peterson, who was eight months pregnant at the time, between 10 a.m. and 10:15 a.m. on Dec. 24. That's about 45 minutes after Scott Peterson told police he said goodbye to his wife and went fishing.

Mitchell has a very clear and deliberate understanding about the fact that December the 24th is Christmas Eve, and unlike the demagoguery of Dan Abrams and others, there is absolutely NO CONFUSION about the date.

If it was another pregnant woman, and not Laci, in Longview Washington, as Candace DeLong suggests, did she rescue her from her kidnapper?



Overhill
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 10:18:57 am)
Reply
Apparently the 78 yo fella was also watching football
on Xmas eve as well.


No football games played Xmas eve....none...not college...not pro.

He's remembering a different day. No biggy...just an older person with memory lapses

Redlandzboy
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 10:34:47 am)
Reply
THIS WIILL BE DISPROVEN EASY.......................
................. HER HUSBAND SAID HE WAS WATCHING A FOOTBALLL GAME ON THAT DAY WELLL THERE IS NO FOOTBALL GAMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NICE TRY

curiousGeorge2
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 10:36:31 am)
Reply
That's what Dan Abrams said, what a joker
I think somebody told him that he's smart, it's not his job to discredit the Mitchels for the Modesto Police Department.

Redlandzboy
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 10:39:09 am)
Reply
\OH PLEAZXZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
YOU KNOW I M RIGHT AND MOST OF US ARE CORRRRRECT

DAN IS GREAT TALKSHOW HOST OR WHATEVER HE IS
HE WAS SUPPORTING THE FACTS ABOUT THE FOOTBALL GAMES

curiousGeorge2
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 10:41:39 am)
Reply
Dan is a joke
He has this smirk like he thinks he knows it all. I think he said that Hunakah is on December 24, I just think the fool is too confused to take seriously.

He should know that it's not his job to discredit the Mitchells for the Modesto Police Department, what a CRACKPOT

No wonder Scott's lawyer calls journalists slimeballs -check out the grease in his hair

Redlandzboy
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 10:43:50 am)
Reply
I don't like to argue
State the facts of this case for me:


Starting number 1 fact

Scott lied



curiousGeorge2
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 10:46:25 am)
Reply
Fact #1
Mrs. Mitchell knows that December 24 is Christmas eve, even if you and all the other desperate quacks are hysterically seeking to create the impression that it ain't so.

Redlandzboy
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 10:52:51 am)
Reply
okie okie okie.........................................
Are you watching the same case as us? Well, you are wrong about Mr Mitchele.. He said he was watching a football game or about to watch one when Mrs M. supposed to saw laci.........
THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THERE WERE NO GAMES ON THE 24TH................

George512
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 10:54:46 am)
Reply
No, he said he was looking in the guide
No, he said he was looking in the guide for a football game, NOT the same as watching a football game. It's on a video so you will see it at trial.

lawyers4justice
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 10:58:43 am)
Reply
Absolutely right George !
Mrs. Mitchell is very definite. Mitchell says she remembers seeing Peterson, who was eight months pregnant at the time, between 10 a.m. and 10:15 a.m. on Dec. 24.

The dog returned with it's leash, without Laci, at around 10:30 am.

The other dogs of the other 2 pregnant ladies (chuckle, chuckle) did not return home alone.

Duh !

The football game is a stupid diversion. The undeniable fact that Laci was kidnapped and murdered is not subject to the cover up of sleazy fraud artists.

Palaw001
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 11:05:55 am)
Reply
See, you have it exactly backwards.
Well in this country Scott Petersen doesn't have to present a single iota of evidence that he didn't kill his wife or the baby she was carrying.

The state of california has to present evidence in a court of law that convinces a fair and impartial jury of his peers beyond a reasonable doubt that he did kill them.

See, you have it exactly backwards.

The real question is where is the evidence that scott did kill his wife and child to be?

????

And just as interesting: Where is the evidence that YOU didn't kill them?

A 'promise' made by Mark Gerragos that he will 'find the real killer' isn't binding or almost certainly admissible at trial--this out of court statement cannot be held to shift the burden from the government to the defense. It was IMHO grandstanding but obviously Mark had his reasons--I imagine to shift the public debate from the presumption of guilt that has accrued as a result of the media lynching to the possibility that Scott is actually innocent. But the promise means nothing to what happens in court. The government still bears the burden of proof, this has not become an affirmative defense.

If you insist on coming on this board every tuesday that is your right. But the question is still basically a silly one. Even sillier is the notion that the DA is going to 'gladly' drop charges.

They'll drop charges and admit they're wrong when pigs fly.

It isn't up to mark whether scott sits in jail or not. The DA is the one who has the power to charge him and to seek no bail, not mark.

If the DA concluded that they were wrong, they would have an ethical obligation to drop the charges. But somehow in real life even when there IS proof of innocence, the DA rarely does so--they usually disagree with the 'proof.' And that makes it a question for the jury.....

So when did you stop beating your wife redlandzboy? Oh yeah? PROVE IT!

lawyers4justice
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 11:08:35 am)
Reply
This is very simple really
Mrs. Mitchell knows when Christmas eve is and that is when Laci's dog returned home alone.

Her husband, Mr. Mitchell could have been watching a football game on the moon on Christmas Eve and he may be naive enough to be manipulated by a sleazy lawyer like Dan Abrams (ever Garagos was manipulated by Nancy Grace) and it would not make one bit of a difference.

CASE CLOSED

Pay me and go home, this is getting irritating !

Jersey Girl
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 11:14:01 am)
Reply
Abrams said MSNBC researhed it too
I don't think he or his wife are lying or out for their 15 minutes. I think they seem like a very nice old couple who are just mistaken what day they saw her.

lawyers4justice
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 11:16:30 am)
Reply
How nice !
Jersey Girl, your effort to create the impression that Mrs. Mitchell does not know when Christmas eve is, is nauseating.

I understand your frustration, Scott Peterson is 110% innocent, and you need to revise some facts, to claim that it isn't so.

Oh they are such a nice couple but it would be so much more convenient if they dropped dead because the facts are getting in the way of the INQUISITION.

Jersey Girl
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 11:26:02 am)
Reply
Why would you wish that the Mitchells drop dead?
You're sick and disgusting l4j!

lawyers4justice
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 11:27:46 am)
Reply
I suggested that is your wish
Delay the trial because their evidence is getting in the way of your effort to discredit them.

If they drop dead, they will fulfill your fantasy.

Jersey Girl
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 11:30:10 am)
Reply
Re: I suggested that is your wish
Those disgusting words came from YOU! You should be ashamed of yourself. Why you would wish death on anyone is sick!




lawyers4justice
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 11:33:25 am)
Reply
Look in the mirror.
When you cover up for a murderer, you grant them the opportunity to terrorize the Mitchells.

Jersey Girl
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 11:36:08 am)
Reply
Re: Look in the mirror.
Terrorize the Mitchells? That's the least of their worries,

YOU want them dead! tsk tsk

For shame!

lawyers4justice
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 11:39:36 am)
Reply
I know you love Nancy Grace
You evidently belong to a cult that enoys persecuting innocent people. Nancy Grace still thinks that Richard Ricci murdered Elizabeth Smart. That's what you call sick and disgusting.

Richard Ricci would still be alive today if it was not for people who are sick and disgusting.

Jersey Girl
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 11:41:06 am)
Reply
Re: I know you love Nancy Grace
I can't stand Nancy Grace and don't try and shift the blame for what YOU said!

lawyers4justice
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 11:51:00 am)
Reply
Jersey Girl, you have WAY too much time to waste.
If you think that you can manipulate me, you have watched too much television.

Give it a rest, but it's so much fun watching you try to support and discredit the Mitchells at the same time.

You are what is known as a "SLEAZE BAR".

Too transparent, another Pepperdine, law school graduate?

Jersey Girl
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 11:52:37 am)
Reply
I'm not the one who wishes them dead.
YOU ARE and if that's not a sleaze bar, I don't know what is. The MIchells aren't the guilty ones here, You are for your disgusting comments.

curiousGeorge2
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 11:56:39 am)
Reply
Jersey, what on earth are you talking about?
You are the one who is begging for the Mitchells to drop dead. Mcallister said that any witness who challenges the theory of the prosecution is being terrorized and you are clearly in bed with the fools who are trying to frame Scott Peterson. DUH !

lorilee228
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 12:01:28 pm)
Reply
ricci died in jail.........
ricci died in jail, innocent of the charge that he kidnapped a child.

BlueHouse
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 12:03:38 pm)
Reply
He wasn't CHARGED with kidnapping.
He wasn't CHARGED with kidnapping.

lorilee228
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 12:06:00 pm)
Reply
very funny
oic, then if he was never even charged with kidnapping how is it that there were whole message boards here on the court tv forum about his guilt?

curiousGeorge2
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 12:07:37 pm)
Reply
That is absolutely correct lorilee.
You know, you and justice4lawyers have essentially exposed the problem of our entire justice system. Our justice system is a jostling match between lawyers and 'Sleaze Bars'.

Scott Peterson is defended by lawyers and attacked by 'Sleaze Bars'.

girlgoyle
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 12:10:13 pm)
Reply
ricci died in jail, innocent of the charge that he kidnapped
He was never charged with kidnapping... he was arrested for other crimes and died in jail.

In your logic my friends father died in Dec, innocent of the charge that he kidnapped a child. ('cause he was never charged with it either)

__________________
My mom hired Mark Geragos to defend me and all I got was this lousy t-shirt

curiousGeorge2
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 12:11:47 pm)
Reply
Duh
The claim that Ricci was not charged with kidnapping is a Sleaze Bar claim.

Ricci was not charged because the police are too stupid to prove anything. All they can do is harrass innocent people.

lorilee228
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 12:13:34 pm)
Reply
ricci was crucified
ricci was crucified on this message forum and on court tv and on the news and by all the media for the kidnapping which he did not commit.



curiousGeorge2
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 12:22:10 pm)
Reply
Right
And Scott is in custody because the police are too stupid to figure out who murdered his wife.

lorilee228
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 12:25:05 pm)
Reply
ricci was crucified in the media
ricci was crucified in the media, he and his family suffered tremendously for a crime he DID NOT COMMIT.

curiousGeorge2
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 12:28:52 pm)
Reply
not according to all the Sleaze Bars
According to the Sleaze Bars, Ricci got what he deserved.

Ricci was essentially tortured to death for cooperating with the police.

He told them what he had done because he cared about Elizabeth Smart and he wanted to assist the police in their investigation, and the police used his cooperation to create the false impression that he had murdered Elizabeth Smart.

The Sleaze Bars are trying to do the exact same thing with Scott Peterson.

Jersey Girl
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 12:30:36 pm)
Reply
He was in violation of his parole.
Should they have just forgotten about that? He was a career criminal and a drain on society his entire adult life. You don't have to be Perry mason to figure that out.

curiousGeorge2
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 12:33:00 pm)
Reply
The sleazebars are just confused
Ricci was in bed with his wife when Elizabeth Smart was kidnapped, you don't have to be Perry Mason to figure out the difference between sex and murder -DUH !

sounds like Jersey Girl and the Modesto Police Department have the same brain

Jersey Girl
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 12:34:29 pm)
Reply
Re: The sleazebars are just confused
Was he in bed with his wife when he committed all of those other crimes he was in jail for? Where was he when he violated his parole?

curiousGeorge2
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 12:39:03 pm)
Reply
Wow, a real sophisticated, Sleaze Bar !
Hey, you're smart enough to know that Scott Peterson was on his way to the marina, where witnesses spotted him in his boat, without Laci, when his poor, helpless wife was kidnapped while walking the very same dog that Mrs. Mitchell spotted, on Christmas eve.

It was the ONLY dog that returned home, without its pregnant master.

curiousGeorge2
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 12:43:34 pm)
Reply
OH GOOD, A GROUP CONSENSUS ! ! !
Modesto and Berkeley police went to a marina on San Francisco Bay to investigate Peterson's claim that he was fishing at the time his wife disappeared. No details were available about what detectives might have found out.

"At this point, he is not a suspect," Detective Doug Ridenour said. Police said they had no evidence of foul play in the disappearance.

Despite the fact that the police verified Scott Peterson's honesty because he was spotted at the Marina, they did not disclose the obvious and instead, they provided the opportunity for the media to demonoize Scott Peterson by repeatedly claiming that Scott Peterson was lying when he said that he went fishing.

This bias is too extreme and too hostile to justify, and the hypocricy it has uncovered has absolutely destroyed police credibility. The current suggestion that Scott Peterson is guilty of murdering his wife because he is telling the truth about what he did no December 24 is too bizarre to take seriously. Scott Peterson was spotted on his boat, struggling to familiarize himself with the gadgets of his new toy. He was not hauling his dead wife's body over his shoulder, and try as they may, to discredit Ms. Mitchell, who spotted Laci walking her dog a full 45 minutes after Scott left to go fishing, the fact that the police did not even bother to contact Ms. Mitchell speaks volumes about the validity of the police campaign to demonize Scott Peterson.

To be fair, if the police wish to use Scott Peterson's alibi against him, they should have accepted it in the first place. Police Hypocricy reflects Police State Tactics and they will NEVER prevail.

Free27
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 12:57:32 pm)
Reply
Re: OH GOOD, A GROUP CONSENSUS ! ! !
There are also rumors SP paid the Mitchells and I would not put it past him.....

justicewell
Unregistered User
(8/13/03 7:53 pm)
Reply
Re: OH GOOD, A GROUP CONSENSUS ! ! !
Are politics impeding the opportunity to solve murder? Is the slaughter of Martha Moxley a recently solved murder? I think not. Every competent investigator who is not a politically motivated hack clearly understands the simple fact that Ken Littletom murdered Martha, and if he was never convicted, it is merely a simple matter of the fact that hindesight is 20/20.

To be sure, an army of Ken Littleton apologists are protecting the person who is responsible for the murder of Martha Moxley, but their extreme tactics that are obviously politically motivated in a rather perverse way, are ultimately betrayed by the force of the nonsense they promote. For example, consider the absolute frivolity of the arguments/nonsense that Ken Littleton's apologists routinely promote. In particular, they invariably and routinely promote nonsense like:

"The Sutton Report gives clear, repeated and profoundly compelling reasons why Ken Littleton did not kill Martha Moxley and why, in my opinion, Michael Skakel did. No one has sever explained to me, with any creedence, what motive Ken Littleton had in killing a person he did't know, never met, on his first night in a strange neighborhood, and with his whole future ahead of him. I'm sorry, but "looking for a home to park his penis' doesn't cut it for me."

If Ken Lettleton did not have a legion of well funded apologists who routinely promote the same, silly barrage of nonsense, the campaign to create the false impression that a murderer like Ken Littleton is a victim, would not exist. The truth has finally caught up with Ken Littleton. In the first place, Ken Littleton is a bipolar disorder sufferer, and the fact that he was an undiagnosed, bipolar sufferer on the night that he murderer Martha Moxley does not negate the fact that crazy people like Ken Littleton do not need a motive to murder. In the second place, the Sutton Associates report clerly indicates that Ken Littleton asked Michael Skakel about Martha Moxley and the suggestion that he did not know her reflects the obsession to manufacture a much needed alibi that does not exist. In the third place, the fact that Ken Littleton spent his first night on the job in a strange neighborhood is the sort of environment that bipolar sufferers have difficulty adjusting to, and that is why it took somebody like Ken Littleton, who was unable to cope with his new surroundings, to unleash the brutal horrific, unexpected assault that lead to the murder of Martha Moxley. In the fourth place, the obsession to discredit a world renowned, competent investigator like David Sween, for stating the obvious, is too bizarre to take seriously. Ken Littleton was a young jock who expected sex from his female acquaintances, and Martha Moxley was a friendly flirt who was invariably positioned to confuse a bipolar sufferer like Ken Litleton. To be sure, when David Sween said that Ken Littleton was "looking for a home to park his penis" it was not the best choice of words, but Littleton wasted an entire life doing no more and no less. It is an act of desperation to challenge Sween's compelling assertion that Ken Littleton murdered Martha Moxley, simply because seasoned investigators like David Sween have not attended the finest schools. Indeed, David Sween has accurately portrayed Ken Littleton, a career criminal who has wasted his entire, and it is the suggestion that Ken Littleton had his whole future ahead of him which is absolutely preposterous, because Ken Littleton wasted his "entire future".

In the final analysis, investigator, David Sween has clearly proved that Ken Littleton is a murderer, by proving that all the alternative "excuses" that they use to defend Littleton are absolutely preposterous. By the way sports fans, Mark Fuhrman, the crackpot Detective who routinely perverts justice was planning to write 'Murder in Modesto'. Anybody know what's taking so long? Has David Sween thwarted the conspiracy to frame Scott Peterson?

The people who murdered Laci Peterson thought that they could rely on a scapegoat like Amber Frey to frame Scott Peterson. Amber Frey is not a victim. She is a pawn of the conspiracy to frame Scott, by using a rag like the National Enquirer to make the case. http://nationalenquirer.alturl.com

[ Update | Search | Topics ]
On May 13, 2003 CuriousGeorge2 tried to post the following message but he discovered that he had been banned and denied access to Court TV message boards. "I have a question about the psychology of murderers. I have not been able to find any evidence that Scott fits the profile of a murderer, indeed as this webpage clearly suggests, the reverse is evidently true. Is this going to be a problem for the prosecution? Can somebody give me some indication about what it is about the psychology of Scott Peterson, which suggests that he is a murderer?
Needless to say, the posting privilleges of anybody who raises serious questions on Court TV message boards is revoked, to give the opportunity to slander Scott Peterson, unfettered access. This is not what freedom is all about.



 


Scott Peterson Trial: Timeline

1/30/03  DIVERTING BLAME
2/21/03 EARLY REPORTS
2/28/03 PRELIMINARY INQUIRY
3/16/03 SUSPICIOUS MINDS
3/21/03  AMBER FREY
4/04/03  MEDIA SPIN
4/10/03  SMOKING GUN?
5/07/03  TERRORIZING WITNESSES
5/29/03  MARK GERAGOS
9/23/03  JAILHOUSE SNITCHES
10/20/03  LARRY KING LIVE TAKEOVER
02/06/04  THE REAL SCOOP
02/16/04  WHO IS FRAMING SCOTT
10/22/04  JURY TAMPERING
CSI  FORENSIC SCIENCE

 

SHOP | Guests | Monica | Hemingway | Murder | Link to us | Hardball | Richard Nixon
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TRAVEL HERE