Was Scott Peterson on his way to kill Amber Frey?

[Daliman]

Ok, my wife was watching Oprah yesterday, and I got sucked in to watching it too. Amber Frey was on, and it was pretty pathetic how stupid she was about the relatinship all along the way until she found out who he was.

Anyways, near the end of the show, Oprah said something to the effect of;
"Scott Peterson was found with a pocketknife,a hacksaw, duct tape, rope, a fillet knife, and directions to Amber's work that had JUST been dowloaded and printed that day"

Now, I'm paraphrasing here, so i'm sure i missed some of the actual things he had on him, but the jist was clear;he was on his way to kill Amber. Had this come out anywhere else? If not, I'm wondering if it is because it would eithere be considered prejudicial or inadmissable in court, or is Miss Frey just trying to drum up more sympathy and book sales.

If it's true, this removes any lingering thought of SP's innocence.

[namknils]

You have lingering thoughts that he may be innocent? Not me. But I had never heard anything about possibly going down to kill Amber, that's interesting.

[lu_hawk]

I read the excerpts of Frey's book in People and petersen is a crazy m'fer. I didn't realize it went down this way but Frey's friend had set them up on a blind date. Then Frey's friend found out Petersen was married and called him up and confronted him. Petersen put on an act and started to cry and say he had lost his wife not very long before. Right after that phone call is when he started doing things like buying a boat.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

IMO, the only remotely interesting thing about this case was that they did in fact end up charging him with two counts, implying the death of the unborn fetus was worthy of bringing a second charge. I'm surprised a much bigger deal wasn't made out of this and its chances of somehow being applied to the abortion debate. Am I way off here?

[namknils]

I'm happy that two counts were charged. I hope that it stays like that. (I am very against abortion) I was surprised that not a bigger deal was made about it by all the Pro-Abortion people.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

I too was rooting for 2 charges for this reason. Aside from that, I couldn't care less about the whole thing and I really don't understand what makes this case any different than any other. I guess because the people involved had money. I was hoping for 2 charges and that he'd be convicted on both (assuming he's guilty - I don't root for an innocent to be wrongly accused or convicted) so that it might carry more weight. The thing I worry about now is that it'll somehow get overturned on some ruling that the fetus doesn't warrant a second charge.

[Peca277]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm happy that two counts were charged. I hope that it stays like that. (I am very against abortion) I was surprised that not a bigger deal was made about it by all the Pro-Abortion people.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all we are pro-choice NOT pro-abortion. And it all depends on California state law. A lot of states are trending towards making it a separate crime to injure/kill a fetus while attacking the mother. If the law was already on the books, that's probably why we didn't hear more about it.

[J.R.]

yes. crimes are codified these days and this has been the case for over 30 years in california.


California Penal Code § 187(a) says, "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought." The words "or a fetus" were added by the legislature in 1970. The California Supreme Court later interpreted "fetus" to apply "beyond the embryonic stage of seven to eight weeks." (People v. Davis, 1994)

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm happy that two counts were charged. I hope that it stays like that. (I am very against abortion) I was surprised that not a bigger deal was made about it by all the Pro-Abortion people.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all we are pro-choice NOT pro-abortion. And it all depends on California state law. A lot of states are trending towards making it a separate crime to injure/kill a fetus while attacking the mother. If the law was already on the books, that's probably why we didn't hear more about it.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's all fine and good, but how can you argue that you can charge an attacker with the fetus' death but not the mother if she intentionally kills it? It just seems to me that this case should be pressing the issue.

[stabn]

I've never heard of amber frey. However, if he really fishes a lot of those items could have easily been carried in his vehicle at all times.

[namknils]

Please, I was being nice to you. I usually say Pro-Life and Pro-Murder, but I decided to use Pro-Abortion to be kind. You are in fact supporting abortion right? I mean if you think it's fine then why do you act like it's some kind of dirty word?

By the way, I will not get into an arguement on abortion because they just frustrate everyone involved.

[cnfuzzd]

whos scott peterson?


peace

john nickle

[J.R.]

[ QUOTE ]
That's all fine and good, but how can you argue that you can charge an attacker with the fetus' death but not the mother if she intentionally kills it? It just seems to me that this case should be pressing the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]


because the definition of murder is the unlawful killing of human being

[bwana devil]

... Pro-Murder, but I decided to use Pro-Abortion to be kind. You are in fact supporting abortion right? I mean if you think it's fine then why do you act like it's some kind of dirty word?

[/ QUOTE ]

why start throwing punches and then act so innocent?

EDIT: not that I'm requesting an abortion debate debate. I've heard plenty before.

[ QUOTE ]

By the way, I will not get into an arguement on abortion because they just frustrate everyone involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's all fine and good, but how can you argue that you can charge an attacker with the fetus' death but not the mother if she intentionally kills it? It just seems to me that this case should be pressing the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]


because the definition of murder is the unlawful killing of human being

[/ QUOTE ]
You're arguing the wrong point. You're telling me that it's legal right now for a mother to kill her fetus. We all know that. I'm asking why it should be that way and how you could argue that. Actually, I'm not because I'm sick of this argument. This is one of those things where nobody's ever going to convince the opposition to change sides and you just end up chasing your tail for as long as you can stand to keep doing it. All I wanted to say is that I'm surprised that this seems to have been glossed over in this case when I think it is the only thing remotely interesting about it.

[J.R.]

[ QUOTE ]
but how can you argue that you can charge an attacker with the fetus' death but not the mother if she intentionally kills it

[/ QUOTE ]

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
Please, I was being nice to you. I usually say Pro-Life and Pro-Murder, but I decided to use Pro-Abortion to be kind. You are in fact supporting abortion right? I mean if you think it's fine then why do you act like it's some kind of dirty word?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a typical n00b argument. Pro-choice doesn't mean you LIKE abortion. It just means you don't think it should be illegal.

Except for me. I support abortion in 100% of pregnancies.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but how can you argue that you can charge an attacker with the fetus' death but not the mother if she intentionally kills it

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
[censored] a... why can you [censored] say it's bad for a man to come kill a fetus and then say that it's acceptable for a woman to kill a fetus living inside her? How can you argue that it should or should not be considered worthy of a murder charge depending on who kills it?

Quit dodging.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
when I think it is the only thing remotely interesting about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The other remotely interesting thing about it is trying to figure out whether Amber Frey is kind of hot or not at all.

[J.R.]

You asked why an attacker could be CHARGED with murder when a mother could not. I explained that the defintion of murder requires that the killing be unlawful.

You then claimed I was "arguing the wrong point".

Now you say "[censored] a... why can you [censored] say it's bad for a man to come kill a fetus and then say that it's acceptable for a woman to kill a fetus living inside her?" and accuse me of "dodging"?

I don't know what you're talking about as I haven't said anything in this thread about what is acceptable or not, I only explained the state of California law to you. Sorry if the weather has you down, go skiing and relax. Life's too short to run around picking silly arguments with people by assuming they have said things they have not.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but how can you argue that you can charge an attacker with the fetus' death but not the mother if she intentionally kills it

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
[censored] a... why can you [censored] say it's bad for a man to come kill a fetus and then say that it's acceptable for a woman to kill a fetus living inside her? How can you argue that it should or should not be considered worthy of a murder charge depending on who kills it?

Quit dodging.

[/ QUOTE ]

TY for hijacking my thread.

[Onaflag]

Okay....put this back on track and answer the original question. Yes, the hallucinations of the Modesto police about Petersen intending to kill Amber were well publicized. If someone followed the case even casually, you'd certainly remember this being brought up over and over on Larry King and Court TV.

This case was a lesson for all married men: Don't cheat on your wife. If she happens to get killed, you'll be blamed. You'll be convicted and sentenced to death. Why? Because you're a cad with no feelings. Not because actual evidence is required, no, this is America, the land where "proof" is the fact that you don't shed public tears.

Does his conviction prove he did it? You're an idiot if you think so. Do I think he did it? Not sure. There wasn't enough evidence. Did you see the jury on Larry King the night after? Did they seem truthful to you? Not to me. They were a disgrace to our justice system. All "Strawberry Shortcake" could say was that he didn't show remorse and didn't cry. THAT'S WHAT YOUR LAWYERS TELL YOU TO DO DUMB ASS!

Someone should fry for this crime. Whether that person is Scott or not, it seems to me our justice system should require what is known as EVIDENCE. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying he didn't do it. He may very well have. I'm saying I am embarrassed to be a citizen of the most powerful country in history whereby a lack of political correctness gets you sentenced to death. We have entered the dark ages of justice in the United States.

Bring it on.

Onaflag..........

[Daliman]

not worth it.

OJ is innocent too.

[cardcounter0]

That isn't even interesting. Killing the Fetus of a pregnant mother is chargable in many States already. I guess the only loop hole would be if you could prove the Mother was on her way to get an abortion.

[cardcounter0]

It isn't very hard to understand. Suppose I have a lawnmower in my driveway, and I am thinking about throwing it away. You come and take the lawnmower. That is theft, even though you have taken an object that I was thinking of throwing away.

A woman has the right to control her own body. She is not just not a "fetus container". So a woman has the right to determine if she will carry a fetus to term and raise a child. A stranger coming along and changing those plans is a completely different situation. If you can't see the difference between these two situations, arguing fine points of law is useless.

[cardcounter0]

"Scott Peterson was found with a pocketknife,a hacksaw, duct tape, rope, a fillet knife, and directions to Amber's work that had JUST been dowloaded and printed that day"

Let's see. If the police search me, and my car, and my garage, and my boat, and go thru my house -- they will find
a pocket knife (whooooo!), a fillet knife (probably with fish scales still on it!), hacksaw (and a lot of blades), duct tape (keep in truck for emergency repairs and abductions), and rope.

I must have killed Amber Frey. Wait a minute, I don't have the downloaded directions. Whew!!! But I do download directions to a lot of people's houses. I sure hope they don't turn up dead -- because I must have done it!

[MelchyBeau]

Can't you look at the big picture? El Diablo sees what the most meaningful question is, Is Amber hot or not?

I say she is, but you know that chick has so much baggage it ain't even funny. She still wonders if Scott thinks about her.

Melch

btw, this pro-life, pro-choice arguement should go to the politics forum. It is the place for all arguments that people continue, even though each side is too stubborn to change thier opinion.

Melch

[Daliman]

Oh, also 15k in cash, his passport, an had chaged his appearance.

Do YOU usually have all that kinda stuff on you while on yer way to mexico while being investigated for murder?

[cardcounter0]

"Oh, also 15k in cash, his passport, an had chaged his appearance."

IF I was being investigated for murder, yeah, I would probably have all those things, except -- I would have a lot more cash.

So what was the supposed plan? Kill Amber on his way out of the country?

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
So what was the supposed plan? Kill Amber on his way out of the country?


[/ QUOTE ]

DING DING DING DING DING!

WE HAVE A WINNER!

Remember Occam's razor, my boy. For a card counter, you sure don't seem to think very literally.

[cardcounter0]

Are you sure you are only an sometime viewer of Oprah?

You seem to have confused Scott's actions over being accused with killing his wife, the police investigation, and a little publicity hunting by Amber and Oprah.

Being a cardcounter, I usually try to look beyond the obvious and determine people's motivations. What was Scott motivation to kill Amber if he was going to disappear and leave the country? Think the police might have had any motivations to find 'evidence' that made him look bad, or was it all fairly presented? Is Amber trying to sell books? Oprah interested in ratings?

Gee, sometimes when the dealer is showing a Ten Up, it doesn't mean they have 20.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you sure you are only an sometime viewer of Oprah?

You seem to have confused Scott's actions over being accused with killing his wife, the police investigation, and a little publicity hunting by Amber and Oprah.

Being a cardcounter, I usually try to look beyond the obvious and determine people's motivations. What was Scott motivation to kill Amber if he was going to disappear and leave the country? Think the police might have had any motivations to find 'evidence' that made him look bad, or was it all fairly presented? Is Amber trying to sell books? Oprah interested in ratings?

Gee, sometimes when the dealer is showing a Ten Up, it doesn't mean they have 20.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being a cardcounter, I usually try to look beyond the obvious

That makes ZERO sense. Counters use all available information, and make the decision based on that, period, or they have made a mistake. By YOUR explanation, looking beyond the obvious should tell you that he is acting VERY strangely for someone whose wife and son are dead,(don;t give me the tired "People react differently to different things" ruse) I doubt you are a father, cuz I have a wife and 1 year old son , and if MY 8 months pregnant wife was missing at Xmas, I'm not sleeping until I find her, whether I'm philandering or not.

Gee, sometimes when the dealer is showing a Ten Up, it doesn't mean they have 20.

Ok, tell me an instance where you, as a card counter, play a hand as if he DOESN'T have a ten under? The cops played it like a ten was under, and were right.


You obviously aren't interested in anyone being guilty unless he is caught on video doing it.

[cardcounter0]

Pull your head out for a minute. Are we talking about if Scott Peterson killed his wife? Or are we talking about if days later he intended to kill Amber, while under investigation for murder? You seem to have these two seperate events confused.

Oh, you have a wife and son? There is some Oprah logic for you. All your jumping to conclusions and faulty logic must be correct!

So since you have a wife and kid, why would Scott want to go kill Amber if he planned on leaving the country and disappearing? He was under Police Investigation, wasn't he? Do you think he might have been watched? Did he think no one would connect these two murders to him? Why kill Amber if he was going to escape? If he didn't escape, why have the second murder making his innocent victim defense look worse?

That was the question and topic. Not what he did or how he acted with wife and kid missing, or if he did do it or not, or if I need video tape evidence, or whatever other side topic we can dredge up.

He had common everday items on him, just as I do. He had her directions to her house (they were in a relationship, how unusual). So what evidence other than wild OPRAH logic do you have that he intended to kill Amber?


"Ok, tell me an instance where you, as a card counter, play a hand as if he DOESN'T have a ten under? The cops played it like a ten was under, and were right."

Well, if I am dealt a 6 and 4, the dealer shows a Ten up, I DOUBLE DOWN if the count is +4 or more. Now the obvious is just hit, that is BASIC STRATEGY.

How about if I have 16 with the dealer's Ten up? Almost half the time, I STAND although the obvious BASIC STRATEGY is to hit, I mean 20 beats 16 every time, right? But in positive counts, it is better to Stand on 16.

Don't worry about it, go watch some more Oprah.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Daliman]

Wow, you have NO clue.

#1 Me having a kid gives me better insight into the mind of a father-to-be.
#2 I think SP is guilty for all the evidence I have seen, for the motive he had, and his behavior during and after. Many men have been rightfully convicted with WAY less, and some have even walked with WAY more.
#3 THe directions were to Amber's work. He had been missing. I never said he WAS on his way to kill her; as a matter of fact, I WAS ASKING PEOPLE'S opinions of it. You gave yours, and I disagree, and we engage in semi-intelligent discourse.
#4 I don't see Oprah's show more than 3x a year. Dr. Phil, however, is a staple with the wife, so I see that tons. Watching either doesn;t make me, or anyone, less of a man, or less able to think rationally.
#5 The things he had on him when he was found,(i can't seem to pull up the actual list) are HARDLY "common everyday" items. I'd be willing to bet you have never had the complete list on YOU ever in your life at one time.
#6 [ QUOTE ]
"Ok, tell me an instance where you, as a card counter, play a hand as if he DOESN'T have a ten under? The cops played it like a ten was under, and were right."

Well, if I am dealt a 6 and 4, the dealer shows a Ten up, I DOUBLE DOWN if the count is +4 or more. Now the obvious is just hit, that is BASIC STRATEGY.

How about if I have 16 with the dealer's Ten up? Almost half the time, I STAND although the obvious BASIC STRATEGY is to hit, I mean 20 beats 16 every time, right? But in positive counts, it is better to Stand on 16.



[/ QUOTE ]
Are you actualy telling me you are playing these hands as if he DOESN'T have a ten under? Because that's not the case. I'd venture you are a better counter than me, but I DO know my stuff, and you are grasping at straws here.

Whatever, man. Agree to disagree. Like talking to my brother, sheesh.

[cardcounter0]

"Are you actualy telling me you are playing these hands as if he DOESN'T have a ten under? Because that's not the case."

Explain why 50% of the time I would stand on 16 against a dealer's 10 up, if I was playing it like he had a 10 in the hole, because 20 beats 16 every time.

Use all the fatherly intuition you want. Explain that, and I will believe your explanation of why Scott would have wanted to kill Amber.

>>>>>>
Sidenote: He actually probably did want to kill Amber. The guy was a PSYCHO, and the mental conditions and 'reasons' for killing his wife could have made him want to kill Amber also.

However, none of the 'evidence' you state really prove or disprove this theory one way or the other.

Yes, I also carry a pocket knife, they are useful. Yes, I fish and have a boat, so a filet knife and rope are pretty common items for any fisherman/boat owner. I have a tool box in the trunk of my car with a hacksaw in it. I carry duct tape in my car, you can wrap hoses, or whatever, with it.

If I was in a relationship, and was planning on skipping the country, Yes, I could see having directions for a last contact. If I was leaving the country, then yes, I would have passport and cash. If I was under murder investigation, and leaving the country, then altering my appearance would probably be done also. However, this has nothing to do with 'am I going to kill someone else'.

So like I said, I must have killed Amber. If the evidence you present is enough --- then I am guilty too.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you actualy telling me you are playing these hands as if he DOESN'T have a ten under? Because that's not the case."

Explain why 50% of the time I would stand on 16 against a dealer's 10 up, if I was playing it like he had a 10 in the hole, because 20 beats 16 every time.

Use all the fatherly intuition you want. Explain that, and I will believe your explanation of why Scott would have wanted to kill Amber.



[/ QUOTE ]
Because, in a shoe game, 16 V T is worth -54% on average if you stand, and -.535 if you hit. The combined extra effect of extra tens in the deck of
A. Reducing your chances of hitting and NOT busting.
and
B. Increasing the chance that even if you DO hit safely, often it will not be good enough,

Make it proper to stand when the count is positive. Has nothing to do with whether or not he ACTUALLY has a Ten under; you are playing the percentages. No BJ literature will state you are standing on 16 vs T because a positive count means more chance he DOESN'T have a Ten,(which would be asinine). Matter of fact, it won't say anything similar.
methinks your grasp of counting may not be what I though at first...

As far as your sidenote, again, I wasn't sure of it myself, and never said I was; I just said it looked incriminating, and was new info to me. I never said it was "Evidence", although it is. Evidence, however, does not always mean it points directly in one direction, obviously. If I was fat,(and I'm getting there..), an Angel food cake in my house could be evidence, but it would have nothing to do with me,; I hate angel food cake.