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.