Scott Peterson Death Sentence Overturned

1602114443522.png

Scott Peterson's death sentence in murder of pregnant wife overturned by California Supreme Court
Laci Peterson and their unborn son, Conner, were killed over 15 years ago



The California Supreme Court on Monday overturned the death penalty sentence for Scott Peterson, convicted in the Christmas Eve murder of his pregnant wife, Laci, and their unborn son, Conner.

The court's decision came more than 15 years after Laci, a Modesto, Calif., school teacher, was killed. Investigators said Peterson dumped his wife's body from his fishing boat into the San Francisco Bay in 2002. The bodies of Laci and Conner surfaced months later.

While the murder conviction against Peterson stayed in place, the court ordered a new penalty phase trial.


"Peterson contends his trial was flawed for multiple reasons, beginning with the unusual amount of pretrial publicity that surrounded the case," the court found. "We reject Peterson's claim that he received an unfair trial as to guilt and thus affirm his convictions for murder."

SCOTT PETERSON: 'I HAD NO IDEA' CONVICTION IN LACI PETERSON MURDER WAS COMING

However, the court ruled the trial judge in Peterson's case "made a series of clear and significant errors in jury selection that, under long-standing United States Supreme Court precedent, undermined Peterson's right to an impartial jury at the penalty phase."

The court also agreed that potential jurors improperly were dismissed from the jury pool after saying they personally disagreed with the death penalty but would be willing to impose it per California law.

Peterson, now 47, also claimed on appeal that he couldn't get a fair trial because of the massive publicity that surrounded his case, even though his trial was held nearly 90 miles away from his Central Valley home of Modesto to San Mateo County, south of San Francisco.


SCOTT PETERSON: 15 YEARS LATER, A LOOK BACK AT A CASE THAT GRIPPED A NATION

Stanislaus County District Attorney Birgit Fladager did not immediately say if she would seek the death penalty again.

Peterson has been housed on San Quentin State Prison's death row since he was sentenced to death by lethal injection in 2005.

Peterson's case grabbed national headlines and intense pressure was put on investigators to find her killer. They chased nearly 10,000 tips and considered parolees and convicted sex offenders as possible suspects.

On Dec. 24, 2002, Peterson called his mother-in-law, Sharon Rocha, in the early evening to ask if Laci was with her. He told Rocha he had returned from a day of fishing and when he got home, Laci's car was in the driveway and their dog was in the backyard with his leash on.


The call to Rocha around 5:15 p.m. would set off a chain of events that would move an entire community, which jumped into action to find the missing mom to be. As the days and weeks went on, the search for Laci, who was 8 1/2 months pregnant when she disappeared, became more desperate.

Peterson claimed she was home the morning he left for his fishing trip in the San Francisco Bay and that was the last time he saw her.



Laci's family went on television, pleading for her safe return and for any information to help find her.

"Please bring my daughter home," Rocha asked the public in one news conference.

Attention soon turned to Peterson who has maintained he had nothing to do with Laci's disappearance.

One month after Laci's disappearance, police revealed her husband was living a double life, having an affair with a massage therapist who was living in Fresno by the name of Amber Frey.

SCOTT PETERSON MISTRESS AMBER FREY SUED OVER 'MEMOIRS OF A SEX ADDICT,' 'MYTHS OF THE FLESH'

Frey, a single mother, went to police once she became aware that the man she thought was her boyfriend was quickly becoming a prime suspect in a nationally televised case.

She eventually would go on to wear a wire and helped police record her conversations with Peterson, which would play a key role in the trial.


On April 13, 2003, the body of a baby boy was discovered along the shore of San Francisco Bay. The next day, the body of an adult female wearing maternity clothes was found nearby. The bodies were positively identified as those of Laci and her unborn son Conner.

Peterson was arrested in San Diego just days after the bodies were discovered.


He had dyed his hair blonde, grown a goatee and had many items in his car which led investigators to believe he may have been ready to run.

The double murder trial would take more than a year to begin, but at the end Scott Peterson was found guilty of first-degree murder for killing his wife, and second-degree murder for killing Conner.

Peterson, who pleaded not guilty, has always maintained his innocence.


He had dyed his hair blonde, grown a goatee and had many items in his car which led investigators to believe he may have been ready to run.

The double murder trial would take more than a year to begin, but at the end Scott Peterson was found guilty of first-degree murder for killing his wife, and second-degree murder for killing Conner.

Peterson, who pleaded not guilty, has always maintained his innocence.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

SheWhoMustNotBeNamed

Administrator
Staff member
Long but good read. I had forgot a lot and there are a few things I am not sure I even knew. What a loser.

Capital punishment and whether one could go for it was the key thing it sounds like with the appeal. Judge screwed up not asking a question. Not like his verdict of guilty was overturned. Not a big Wiki fan but still some interesting info in here. His wife AND future son missing and his concern is adding some porno channels. What a prince. I forgot about the satanic cult part... Pretty unlikely. The only one with a real motive for wanting that baby dead was Scotty boy. And what was this? His third affair? (Per him so I take the number there with a grain of salt)... Anyhow, an interesting read. Keep in mind it is Wiki.


Just FYI, Wikipedia is actually pretty dang good these days. Yes, anyone can edit pages. But things that are not verifiable will be deleted. (For example, I could go in and edit the page to say "Scott Peterson is a giant slime ball and likes to eat dung." And it would be edited and removed pretty quickly.)
All those tiny numbers you see are in-text citations, meaning they've been linked to other published information. Just click on a number and it will take you to a link with the original source. (Yes, it's the internet and yes, there are incorrect things published on the internet, but as far as internet things go, Wikipedia is pretty great.) JMO

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.
 

GrandmaBear

‘We Have Nothing to Fear Except Fear Itself'
Just FYI, Wikipedia is actually pretty dang good these days. Yes, anyone can edit pages. But things that are not verifiable will be deleted. (For example, I could go in and edit the page to say "Scott Peterson is a giant slime ball and likes to eat dung." And it would be edited and removed pretty quickly.)
All those tiny numbers you see are in-text citations, meaning they've been linked to other published information. Just click on a number and it will take you to a link with the original source. (Yes, it's the internet and yes, there are incorrect things published on the internet, but as far as internet things go, Wikipedia is pretty great.) JMO
Good to know! I do use them for a lot of basic info but I remember when anyone could add and one never knew at times. As I mentioned, there was info in there I am not even sure I knew and that's whyI shared it.
 

KareBear

Small victories... are huge.
Good decision by the court. I personally don't think there was sufficient evidence to even convict Peterson, let alone sentence him to death. The hinky things that took place with this jury during the guilt phase was atrocious.
A part of me agrees with you, simply because I can't agree that the death penalty is justified when there is not solid evidence.
 

Howell

Active member
A part of me agrees with you, simply because I can't agree that the death penalty is justified when there is not solid evidence.
Exactly. There was no direct evidence that Scott murdered Laci. None. And the circ evidence pointing to him was weak. Every conviction should be "beyond a reasonable doubt", particularly in a capital case, but I think the vast majority of jurors don't really understand what that means. If there was one thing I could correct in our system right now, it would be how our juries are chosen and instructed. Every juror should be counseled individually at the close of a trial and have the standard clearly explained to him. Unanswered questions are just that; jurors are not free to speculate on what the answer might be. Possibly/probably, may have/might have, uncertainty, hesitance, vacillation, etc. are all forms of doubt, and the benefit of the doubt falls in the favor of the defense. If a juror has such doubts, he should not vote 'guilty'.
 

KareBear

Small victories... are huge.
I need to go back a delve into the details surrounding his conviction. I have read all about the case and have watched the true crime documentaries on it. It's been a while, so correct me if some of my recollections are incorrect, but I wanted to give these thoughts while they were fresh on my brain.

There seems to be enough circumstantial evidence to convict him, however, IMO not enough solid evidence to convict him to death.

Things that don't look good for Scott are his mistress and him declaring to be a widower (quite fortuitous if you ask me). He also just so happened to take his boat out that day.. alone.. and his wife was later found in a body of water (talk about hinky).

Things going for Scott are the possible sightings of Lacy walking her dog in the neighborhood during (or after?) the time Scott would have been out on the boat already.

(I need to go back find the sources this is just off the top of my head, quick thoughts, so everyone feel free to correct or add to my thoughts).
 

Kimster

Let's Find Michael Bryson!
Staff member
Do I think Scott Peterson killed his wife? Absolutely. However, this is exactly why the death penalty doesn't work in California. Let's just get him sentenced with life without parole and be done with it. Why waste taxpayer's dollars? People aren't executed in California and everybody knows it.
 

GrandmaBear

‘We Have Nothing to Fear Except Fear Itself'
The circumstantial won out, the prosecution did its job Scott was convicted. Geragos failed. When you have to explain away a ton of different pieces of circumstantial evidence or too many coincidences, it becomes a big pretty big problem. There was quite a bit and Amber Frey was his lynch pin.

The death penalty is one of those tough subjects. He was found guilty and it was of killing his wife and own unborn son. A very heinous crime.

There is no question in the overturn about his guilt or innocence, he is and will remain guilty as found, it was about errors by the judge like dismissing jurors who said they could impose the death penalty even if against it personally.

The state and family has the right to see it retried if they decide to. Nothing here is vacated for good nor has changed Scott's guilt.

All that I probably only repeated, we all have personal opinions on the death penalty in general. I personally wish it was used more and had the teeth it once did. However, I am unsure if I could impose it personally as a juror or pull the plug so to speak/flip the switch/inject. That is only because I am unsure if God gives us that right but I believe He does, just as he allows man's law.

If I convicted Scott and then sentenced death, it would be because all was proven to me in court for me to choose those end results and stick with them.

And I did watch the trial, the prosecution more than did their job and i would have voted for guilt and jurors there felt the same. As to the death penalty, I am not as sure but provided it fit the rules of law , I probably could have.

Circumstantial evidence can always be explained more than one way generally by pros and defense. That does not dismiss it. There has to be enough to tell the story and put it together to be satisfactory. There was more than enough here to bake the cake, ice it with Amber Frey and there you go. And fortunately the bodies were found or it would have been no bodies AND circumstantial but it wasn't...

I get the part of no direct evidence and the death penalty, it isn't the typical death penalty case I don't imagine. If there are a few though that fit it with little to no direct evidence, I feel this was one that should and deserved it. Clearly it did fit.

All in all, it will be up to the prosecutors and family and then I guess another jury. Either way his guilt stands, just a matter of where he spends his life and with what type of conditions.. I personally would prefer he stay on death row but it ain't up to me.

All jmo.
 

Whatsnext

Justice for Gannon 💙
I do get it that there wasn't enough evidence for a death penalty. But to convict him of the murder there was enough circumstantial evidence, and not only AF. The financial evidence was neglegted, he had a life insurance on her and the inheritance(jewels) from her grandma he set his eyes upon. And the house and his freedom. He was, in his greed, just too stupid to see that it would'nt be so easy to grab this money.
As far as I know, child killers don't have a good prognosis in Gen.pop.🤷‍♀️jmo
 

Kimster

Let's Find Michael Bryson!
Staff member
I do get it that there wasn't enough evidence for a death penalty. But to convict him of the murder there was enough circumstantial evidence, and not only AF. The financial evidence was neglegted, he had a life insurance on her and the inheritance(jewels) from her grandma he set his eyes upon. And the house and his freedom. He was, in his greed, just too stupid to see that it would'nt be so easy to grab this money.
As far as I know, child killers don't have a good prognosis in Gen.pop.🤷‍♀️jmo
And then there was his mistress! He killed his wife and there's no doubt.
 

Howell

Active member
I need to go back a delve into the details surrounding his conviction. I have read all about the case and have watched the true crime documentaries on it. It's been a while, so correct me if some of my recollections are incorrect, but I wanted to give these thoughts while they were fresh on my brain.

There seems to be enough circumstantial evidence to convict him, however, IMO not enough solid evidence to convict him to death.

Things that don't look good for Scott are his mistress and him declaring to be a widower (quite fortuitous if you ask me). He also just so happened to take his boat out that day.. alone.. and his wife was later found in a body of water (talk about hinky).

Things going for Scott are the possible sightings of Lacy walking her dog in the neighborhood during (or after?) the time Scott would have been out on the boat already.

(I need to go back find the sources this is just off the top of my head, quick thoughts, so everyone feel free to correct or add to my thoughts).
The bodies turning up in roughly the same area as Scott went fishing is certainly damning. At the same time, this was the ocean, and they were found some months later. We just can't say with any certainty when, how or who put those bodies in the Bay.

As for the Laci sightings, the defense talked about them, but never presented these witnesses.
 

Howell

Active member
I do get it that there wasn't enough evidence for a death penalty. But to convict him of the murder there was enough circumstantial evidence, and not only AF. The financial evidence was neglegted, he had a life insurance on her and the inheritance(jewels) from her grandma he set his eyes upon. And the house and his freedom. He was, in his greed, just too stupid to see that it would'nt be so easy to grab this money.
As far as I know, child killers don't have a good prognosis in Gen.pop.🤷‍♀️jmo
Scott arranged life insurance policies (a year before Laci's disappearance) for both himself and Laci in the amounts of $250,000 and $100,000, respectively. At LACI'S insistence, he increased the amount on her policy to equal the amount on his policy. This was testified to by the insurance agent.

Scott would've inherited nothing from Laci's family in the event of her death. In fact, if we consider the inheritance, Scott stood to gain financially far better with Laci alive. There was no financial motive for Scott to kill Laci.
 

SheWhoMustNotBeNamed

Administrator
Staff member

Prosecutors to once again seek death penalty for Scott Peterson in 2002 murders of wife, unborn son​

Scott Peterson, wearing a mask and a prison buzz cut, appeared via video Friday as Stanislaus County prosecutors announced in court that they intend to once again seek the death penalty for Peterson in the 2002 murders of his pregnant wife, Laci Peterson, and their unborn son.

Assistant District Attorney Dave Harris, representing the state, told the judge that prosecutors intend to retry the penalty phase of Peterson’s 2004 murder trial.

Scott Peterson’s next court date is Nov. 6.
 

GrandmaBear

‘We Have Nothing to Fear Except Fear Itself'
Scott arranged life insurance policies (a year before Laci's disappearance) for both himself and Laci in the amounts of $250,000 and $100,000, respectively. At LACI'S insistence, he increased the amount on her policy to equal the amount on his policy. This was testified to by the insurance agent.

Scott would've inherited nothing from Laci's family in the event of her death. In fact, if we consider the inheritance, Scott stood to gain financially far better with Laci alive. There was no financial motive for Scott to kill Laci.
There is a financial motive if he wants to be free and there would be 18 years of a child to support and ties. There is also the fact of Amber and her child. And they were young, benefiting from any inheritance of Laci's could be years away and if California is the same as the states I know of, any inheritance Laci received one day down the road would be hers anyhow if she so chose, it is not a marital asset.

Also, "he" increased the amount at Laci's insistence? If so, then he was well aware of the amount just for starters...

There are plenty of cases like this. Life insurance if believed innocent and his story was bought would be fairly instant money. Inheritance would not. People that are into self gratification don't like to wait. I doubt it was the first time but say Amber was the first, he could not get through nine months of pregnancy without messing around.

Imo.
 

Howell

Active member
There is a financial motive if he wants to be free and there would be 18 years of a child to support and ties. There is also the fact of Amber and her child. And they were young, benefiting from any inheritance of Laci's could be years away and if California is the same as the states I know of, any inheritance Laci received one day down the road would be hers anyhow if she so chose, it is not a marital asset.

Also, "he" increased the amount at Laci's insistence? If so, then he was well aware of the amount just for starters...

There are plenty of cases like this. Life insurance if believed innocent and his story was bought would be fairly instant money. Inheritance would not. People that are into self gratification don't like to wait. I doubt it was the first time but say Amber was the first, he could not get through nine months of pregnancy without messing around.

Imo.
I was responding to whatsnext, who suggested Scott had his eyes upon Laci's inheritance. With Laci dead, he would've received nothing from her inheritance, so that can't serve as a motive.

You raise a fair point about avoiding child support and having freedom, but there's no evidence that this was Scott's intent. Had he taken out the insurance policy a couple months before Laci disappeared, that would be suspicious, but he hadn't. Instead, he had done what most normal married men do. They had purchased a house and he bought a relatively small amount of life insurance at the same time, months before Laci was pregnant, and a full year and a half before she went missing.

The evidence shows that Scott was very involved in the pregnancy and excited about his impending fatherhood. There's also no indication he wanted out of his marriage. These supposed motives are just not supported by any facts.
 

Howell

Active member

Prosecutors to once again seek death penalty for Scott Peterson in 2002 murders of wife, unborn son​

Scott Peterson, wearing a mask and a prison buzz cut, appeared via video Friday as Stanislaus County prosecutors announced in court that they intend to once again seek the death penalty for Peterson in the 2002 murders of his pregnant wife, Laci Peterson, and their unborn son.

Assistant District Attorney Dave Harris, representing the state, told the judge that prosecutors intend to retry the penalty phase of Peterson’s 2004 murder trial.

Scott Peterson’s next court date is Nov. 6.
From the article:

In last week’s order, the high court determined that Juror No. 7, Richelle Nice, “committed prejudicial misconduct by not disclosing her prior involvement with other legal proceedings, including but not limited to being the victim of a crime.”

In my opinion, that alone should be sufficient to warrant a new trial.
 

Guess Who

Well-known member
Do I think Scott Peterson killed his wife? Absolutely. However, this is exactly why the death penalty doesn't work in California. Let's just get him sentenced with life without parole and be done with it. Why waste taxpayer's dollars? People aren't executed in California and everybody knows it.
exactly!
 

GrandmaBear

‘We Have Nothing to Fear Except Fear Itself'
I was responding to whatsnext, who suggested Scott had his eyes upon Laci's inheritance. With Laci dead, he would've received nothing from her inheritance, so that can't serve as a motive.

You raise a fair point about avoiding child support and having freedom, but there's no evidence that this was Scott's intent. Had he taken out the insurance policy a couple months before Laci disappeared, that would be suspicious, but he hadn't. Instead, he had done what most normal married men do. They had purchased a house and he bought a relatively small amount of life insurance at the same time, months before Laci was pregnant, and a full year and a half before she went missing.

The evidence shows that Scott was very involved in the pregnancy and excited about his impending fatherhood. There's also no indication he wanted out of his marriage. These supposed motives are just not supported by any facts.
Yes, the child support factor, not wanting to support two families and not wanting to share assets and then one can add the life insurance. It is pretty common in cases sadly. Additionally, what he would look like to either family divorcing Laci when pregnant or even shortly thereafter.

I don't find it odd he acted involved in the pregnancy, excited about fatherhood, nor did the things to show her or either family he was into it, buying a home, etc. I don't find that strange at all with men leading double lives (or women in some cases) but it certainly does not mean he was into it. It also explains why initially her own family did not jump to the thought he did this... He put on the "face" in front of family. I truly wonder if it was that way at home, many women as well cover what their marriages are like and present a united front to their families.

But all was not like this by any means, he was not so into it that very pregnant, he did not leave Laci alone to attend a Christmas party and if I recall, other things as well, without him while he was taking Amber out and about and seeing her. That is just one example. He is also telling Amber he had a wife that tragically died the year before and he said this in December of the year just prior to when she did disappear. This was a very damning statement imo.

As for buying a home, that is just converting cash to an asset which is still worth cash after death when it would be his. Fortunately, that was not allowed to happen, in the long run anyhow, and the Rochas won the battle over the home. Of note, Scotts family was confronted by Laci's mother when removing items from the home just prior to sale. The Petersons and Scott mortgaged it to pay Scott's defense which disgusts me. Kill your wife and then use your home with her to pay for the defense for being charged with killing her. Well, I guess one thing he likely cannot complain of is an inadequate defense with private well known attorney Mark Geragos.

It was certainly a predominantly circumstantial case. In my opinion, it was his statements and more to Amber Frey and the location of the bodies in the bay that hung him. I also though entirely believe it was also his own actions and lack of concern which probably added icing on the cake.

Of course you don't have to agree, some don't, but most believe in his guilt I think. I see your point about the life insurance and about buying a house and acting like a good husband (for what we know) but it is far from unusual. I don't think of Scott as exactly dumb, increasing life insurance shortly before and his doing it should be known by any criminal with a brain to be something that would raise red flags with LE. Likewise, he hid his relationship and continued to after Laci's death. Clearly, he cleaned up or did well enough, they had a difficult time finding evidence and finding Laci and Connor although I don't put that down to brains so much as they could be anywhere and cleaning up is cleaning up. He must have been fairly good at fake to the outside world as I think Laci's family was shocked to find out about another woman and to watch his cavalier behavior after Laci's death.

Anyhow, I for one am not happy that they did find an issue in the case and things are now somewhat up in the air. I am happy to hear the prosecution is going to retry for the death penalty. It is the right decision imo. He belongs on death row. Imo.
 

Howell

Active member
I don't find it odd he acted involved in the pregnancy, excited about fatherhood, nor did the things to show her or either family he was into it, buying a home, etc. I don't find that strange at all with men leading double lives (or women in some cases) but it certainly does not mean he was into it. It also explains why initially her own family did not jump to the thought he did this... He put on the "face" in front of family. I truly wonder if it was that way at home, many women as well cover what their marriages are like and present a united front to their families.
But he wasn't leading a "double life". Even if you believe having a mistress equals leading a double life, all of those actions by Scott(the doctor visits, conversations with friends and family, the Lamaze classes, building out the nursery, etc.) took place before he met Amber.
But all was not like this by any means, he was not so into it that very pregnant, he did not leave Laci alone to attend a Christmas party and if I recall, other things as well, without him while he was taking Amber out and about and seeing her. That is just one example. He is also telling Amber he had a wife that tragically died the year before and he said this in December of the year just prior to when she did disappear. This was a very damning statement imo.
I don't see that as particularly damning, honestly. He obviously couldn't admit he was married. Claiming to be a widower makes him more sympathetic/attractive than being divorced. After weeks of his phone calls being surreptitiously recorded, Scott never made a single incriminating statement to Amber or anyone else.
It was certainly a predominantly circumstantial case. In my opinion, it was his statements and more to Amber Frey and the location of the bodies in the bay that hung him. I also though entirely believe it was also his own actions and lack of concern which probably added icing on the cake.
It was an entirely circumstantial case. No direct evidence tied Scott to their deaths. The bodies being found in the Bay is certainly damning at a glance, but it needs to be considered in perspective. They were found months later and miles away from where Scott proved he had been fishing.
Clearly, he cleaned up or did well enough, they had a difficult time finding evidence and finding Laci and Connor although I don't put that down to brains so much as they could be anywhere and cleaning up is cleaning up. He must have been fairly good at fake to the outside world as I think Laci's family was shocked to find out about another woman and to watch his cavalier behavior after Laci's death.
But we have to work with the facts, not speculation. LE(including the FBI) spent months examining the five different crime scenes in this case. They never found a single piece of incriminating physical evidence against Scott, and found zero evidence of clean-up. None. So we can't just dismiss that by saying 'Well, he must've done a good enough job cleaning up..." There's no evidence that he ever attempted to clean up anything.
 

GrandmaBear

‘We Have Nothing to Fear Except Fear Itself'
But he wasn't leading a "double life". Even if you believe having a mistress equals leading a double life, all of those actions by Scott(the doctor visits, conversations with friends and family, the Lamaze classes, building out the nursery, etc.) took place before he met Amber.
I disagree. He met Amber on 11/20/02. They slept together that very night and stayed the night in a hotel. I wonder how you get away with that with a pregnant wife. He was introduced to Amber by a colleague who, by the way, believed him to be unmarried. This is definitely a man talking out of both sides of his mouth and living a double life. Scott told Amber he was not married.

Laci's due date was Februrary 16th, he slept with Amber the 20th of November on the very first meeting which he sought. He was hardly faithful through the pregnancy and was definitely leading a double life (had of course she lived until delivery of the baby, he would have been for even longer but she died). Scott never went through any 9 months of pregnancy with Laci, not even close and by the last month of her life I doubt he was around a whole lot at all with Amber in the picture...

He likely sat at Thanksgiving dinner that year with family and Laci playing good son/son-in-law/future dad/husband while leading a double life, having met Amber 8 days earlier (or did he even attend?). It is interesting to note too that he met Amber on 11/20/02 and a pregnant Laci was gone on December 24, 2002, such a short time after meeting this new woman... And again, add in first he was not married and then stated his wife was dead and a short time later, she really was. Let's also not forget he blew off a Christmas party he was to attend with Laci to attend one with Amber.

So I respectfully disagree on the double life. He also told Amber he did not want children and was considering a vasectomy. I see your points but to me his doing what he was to do in front of their families means little when coupled with everything else.

I will respond to your other parts separately.
 

GrandmaBear

‘We Have Nothing to Fear Except Fear Itself'
Your quote:

"I don't see that as particularly damning, honestly. He obviously couldn't admit he was married. Claiming to be a widower makes him more sympathetic/attractive than being divorced. After weeks of his phone calls being surreptitiously recorded, Scott never made a single incriminating statement to Amber or anyone else."

Response: I agree he couldn't admit he was married. I don't know about the widower thing making him more sympathetic or attractive but again, it certainly could be. To me, this remark of yours fits with someone leading a double life, of course they have to lie and say they are not married so I can agree with that.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,569
Messages
56,328
Members
308
Latest member
Cindyvaughn71
Top