Jump to content

Nancy Grace (HLN)


  • Please log in to reply

4450 replies to this topic

#31

flirtycatherine

flirtycatherine

Posted Aug 15, 2004 @ 9:41 PM

OpenMind, but if we do find that that conversation happened, then you admit it's fishy? (And I admit that a lot of my expectation of his guilt is based on that, so if it didn't happen, I have a lot more 'open mind' on the matter.) And if he is innocent, I nominate myself to comfort him when he starts his new life, complete with book deal, movie, etc.

If he didn't do it, it could be an ex-girlfriend or one night stand (or knowing SP, a fifteen-minute stand) getting back at him for dumping her. I agree that IF he did not do it, someone is framing him. And he is too stupid to really counteract the framing with intelligence (something maybe the framer realized).

I can also imagine a scenario where they got into an argument, he killed her, but by accident, and having no moral code whatsoever, he covered it up rather than do the right thing.

But for me by far the most likely scenario is that he is in fact guilty. There's a difference between lying to get a woman to have an affair with you and just telling odd lies that really make no sense at all. Weird lies lend credence to the supposition that he is a psychopath.

Edited by flirtycatherine, Aug 15, 2004 @ 9:47 PM.

  • 0

#32

drivr8

drivr8

    Video Archivist

Posted Aug 15, 2004 @ 9:45 PM

The only possible explanation is that they were planted there deliberately to incriminate Scott Peterson.


When do you speculate that happened? It would be pretty difficult to pull off, considering the police were there searching practically every day.
  • 0

#33

katymo

katymo

    Fanatic

Posted Aug 15, 2004 @ 10:31 PM

Peterson is a psychopath. I don't believe for one second that having an affair or lying habitually makes a person a murderer. But put in the context of what was happening at the time, its more than I need. Having a conversation with your mistress about her daughter and chatting it up about the future together when you're on your way to your missing wife's vigil (missing barely a week!) is not something an innocent man would do. Amber knew about him at that point, but he didn't know she knew and he didn't tell her until he was forced to. He is an expert liar and I hate it when people make Amber out to be some kind of moron for falling for it. She may be or not, but Laci married him and I don't think she was a moron.

Telling people he "lost" his wife doesn't make him a murderer, but there an awful lot of coincidences in this case. He has to be the most unlucky person in the universe and I'm not buying that. Stating to people that he was hoping for infertility and telling Amber he didn't want any kids with her is pretty damn suspicious. Not to mention where the body's surfaced and his lies about where he was the day Laci was first reported missing. Why all the evasiveness in the phone calls? He says he never cheated on Amber? WTF? He never tells anyone the truth until cornered and then he tells a little of the truth to make the rest seem true too.

There is also much more evidence not yet presented by both parties, so even though I already feel he is guilty, there's more to come (i.e. the hair in the pliers and the GPS info). I can't forget this trial is barely half over. I have a very strong feeling something else is going on here in Scott and Laci's relationship that we're not all aware of yet, but I feel he is guilty whatever that may be. He doesn't even acknowledge that Conner is his baby. Gah.

Edited by katymo, Aug 15, 2004 @ 10:33 PM.

  • 0

#34

Open Mind

Open Mind

    Just Tuned In

Posted Aug 16, 2004 @ 2:14 AM

When do you speculate that happened? It would be pretty difficult to pull off, considering the police were there searching practically every day.


The police stopped searching the Bay weeks before the bodies were found.

Peterson is a psychopath.


How can you make a blanket statement like that? I have seen opinions from people who understand how to analyze personality based on the standard DSM model who say that Peterson's personality does NOT fit the profile of a sociopath.

Edited by LTG, Aug 16, 2004 @ 9:30 AM.

  • 0

#35

jerry

jerry

    Fanatic

Posted Aug 16, 2004 @ 2:41 AM

In my view, there is zero chance that someone planted the bodies in the bay to frame Peterson. If you're framing Scott, it would be pretty incompetent to weigh down the body, since you can't frame him unless the body is found. Nah... whoever put Laci in the bay, intended for her to disappear forever.

I've watched enough true crime shows to have learned that when a killer goes to great lengths to hide a body or make identification difficult, it's usually someone close to the victim... someone who knows they will be a suspect if the victim is found/identified. Stranger, scorned lover, drug addict, homeless person, cult member, serial killer... none of these would tote Laci 90 miles from where she was abducted and hide her body. But who would? Someone close to Laci who wanted to make her vanish.

That leaves Scott or a friend or relative as the killer. Presumably, her relatives have alibis for their whereabouts during the crucial morning hours, since whoever did kill her would be out of the area for what? 4 hours minimum? while dumping the body.

Try starting from the assumption that he is innocent, and see how different your interpretation is.

I have asked myself whether there is any chance Scott Peterson could be innocent and this is the thing (but not the only thing) that hangs me up...

Initially, he couldn't decide whether he went golfing or fishing on Dec. 24. An innocent man would know where he'd been. An innocent man wouldn't have hesitated when asked what he was fishing for, or what type of bait he was using. Why on earth would he give conflicting accounts of his whereabouts unless he just didn't have his story straight yet? An innocent person wouldn't trip over his alibi like that.

And of course since IMO a frame-up is out of the question, an innocent man wouldn't be fishing in the same place his wife's body will eventually turn up, unless he was responsible for it.

Edited by jerry, Aug 16, 2004 @ 2:49 AM.

  • 0

#36

Open Mind

Open Mind

    Just Tuned In

Posted Aug 16, 2004 @ 2:51 AM

OpenMind, but if we do find that that conversation happened, then you admit it's fishy? (And I admit that a lot of my expectation of his guilt is based on that, so if it didn't happen, I have a lot more 'open mind' on the matter.)


I don't think it happened, because it was not known that Laci was dead until her body was found, which was a long time after Amber stopped secretly taping Scott and was introduced to the public. So if Scott had said to Amber: "I didn't do it, but I know who did", it implies he knew she was dead before her body was found, and this would be evidence the prosecution would have been making a big deal about. They have not.

Initially, he couldn't decide whether he went golfing or fishing on Dec. 24. An innocent man would know where he'd been. An innocent man wouldn't have hesitated when asked what he was fishing for, or what type of bait he was using. Why on earth would he give conflicting accounts of his whereabouts unless he just didn't have his story straight yet? An innocent person wouldn't trip over his alibi like that.


I think if you check the facts you will find that Scott gave the golfing story to his family, but told the police he had been fishing as soon as he was asked about his whereabouts. A perfectly innocent explanation for that is that he and Laci had planned all along for the boat to be a surprise gift for Ron Grantski (Laci's mom's boyfriend). So they were just using the golfing story as a cover up within the family, to keep the boat a secret. Only when asked by the police did he feel the need to tell the truth. So he did not actually "change his alibi", as some people think.

If you're framing Scott, it would be pretty incompetent to weigh down the body, since you can't frame him unless the body is found.


No weights were actually found, apart from the one anchor in Scott's boat. That Scott made other cement anchors to weigh down the body is a police "theory" only.

Edited by LTG, Aug 16, 2004 @ 9:32 AM.

  • 0

#37

VesselofWrath

VesselofWrath

    Couch Potato

Posted Aug 16, 2004 @ 4:26 AM

How is it possible that someone 'planted' the bodies of Laci and Connor, given that there is forensic evidence of Laci's body having been underwater for quite some time? Not to be overly graphic, but do you actually believe someone put her in a watery grave and then dredged her up again months later? I'm sorry, it seems like a preposterous theory to me.
  • 0

#38

jerry

jerry

    Fanatic

Posted Aug 16, 2004 @ 5:39 AM

That Scott made other cement anchors to weigh down the body is a police "theory" only.

Whether Scott used cement anchors, or something else doesn't concern me. Something kept the body down. If you're thinking she was just floating around the bay, but didn't wash ashore for months, I believe that question has been addressed on the show, where someone familiar with the bay discounted that possibility.

A perfectly innocent explanation for that is that he and Laci had planned all along for the boat to be a surprise gift for Ron Grantski... So they were just using the golfing story as a cover up within the family, to keep the boat a secret.

Says who? Scott? And if it was a gift, what was he doing buying a fishing license and going out on the bay in somebody else's Christmas present?! Just making sure it was seaworthy, I suppose.

Seriously, even though his pregnant wife had disappeared into thin air, he was still so concerned about keeping a Christmas gift secret that he lied to his family about his whereabouts? That is hard to believe.
  • 0

#39

LTG

LTG

    Network Executive

Posted Aug 16, 2004 @ 9:36 AM

The purpose of this thread should be to talk about Nancy Grace's show covering the trial, not the underlying facts of the case. TWoP is a television site, not a place to argue notorious crimes. Obviously, discussing the coverage is going to lead to some discussion of the case, but the last page or so has been completely over the line and off topic.

#40

flirtycatherine

flirtycatherine

Posted Aug 16, 2004 @ 9:37 AM

Yes, I'm afraid the jury's in. You can spin stuff however you want, but SP's guilt is transparently obvious unless there is stuff we don't know, that hasn't been submitted yet at evidence. But if there was something huge that would absolve SP, then the defense would have trumpeted it at some point already. Nope, SP is guilty. As guilty as OJS.
  • 0

#41

jerry

jerry

    Fanatic

Posted Aug 17, 2004 @ 1:09 AM

I agree with Nancy's guest (don't remember which one) who thinks these tapes have outlived their usefulness. If the jury is like me, I'm losing interest hearing Amber and Scott say the same things over and over.
  • 0

#42

flirtycatherine

flirtycatherine

Posted Aug 17, 2004 @ 11:46 AM

What I find intriguing is how Amber lied to the police and called Scott sometimes without their surveillance. You never know, maybe she told him to be careful, that the police were using her. I doubt it, but you never know. What I found interesting about the tapes is that both SP and AF sound like they are 16 years old with their high-pitched voices.

I believe that Nancy Grace is on the side of right usually but she really needs to be smarter and not come off as so obnoxious. She interrupts, she calls people 'friend,' which strikes me as fake the way she says it...and I think she is such a good person from the looks of it that it's a shame that she makes these silly mistakes that turn people against her.

Also, it appears that OpenMind was right. I heard the part of the conversation where AF asked SP if he knew anything about Laci's disappearance and he did NOT say anything about not doing it, but knowing who did. Maybe he said it somewhere else, but that would seem to be the logical place, and he definitely didn't say it. If the Modesto police say he did, then they should be accountable for that lie (although I still think he did it!)
  • 0

#43

jerry

jerry

    Fanatic

Posted Aug 19, 2004 @ 5:22 AM

I believe that Nancy Grace is on the side of right usually but she really needs to be smarter and not come off as so obnoxious. She interrupts, she calls people 'friend,' which strikes me as fake the way she says it...

Well put. Hee. The "friend" thing sounds odd to me too.

She's been cracking me up this week, particularly last night when she covered her face, then peeked through her fingers, indicating how she would watch Geragos' presentation (I think that's what she was talking about). Anyway, she looked so funny, I re-wound the tape and watched it about 5 times. (Yes, I taped it, shut up.)

I'm tired of that fame-hungry Gloria Allred. She goes on this show (and any other show that will have her) but can't answer a lot of questions, and her opinion is so colored by the "Amber is a hero" spin, that it just rubs me wrong.

She had a lot of guests tonight, and one of them was a defense attorney I haven't seen before. Don't know his name but he had white hair. He had a good sense of humor and seemed to be enjoying Nancy. They had such good chemistry, I was wondering if he might take a page from Scott Peterson's book and romance her with champagne and strawberries.
  • 0

#44

Mowgli

Mowgli

Posted Aug 19, 2004 @ 10:08 AM

Interesting discussion.

I thought the part last night about him offerinf a relative Connor's baby furniture (before the bodies were found) was very telling--just like selling the car...Lacy's jewelry...and putting their house on the market was.

Having a missing wife and expected child (already named) would be emotionally devastating for an innocent man--the sadness and anxiety, wondering and worrying what could have happened to them. Imagining the worst.

But Scott clearly didn't care. He didn't care at all about what awful thing could have happened to either his wife or his baby. An innocent man would have mentioned his fears during the phone call. Scott said nothing at all.

Too bad that the evidence and his obviously guilty behaviors won't, most likely, be enough to convict him. I'm guessing that, at best, it will be a hung jury and that a new prosecution team will get to try again, hopefully getting a conviction next time.

Edited by Mowgli, Aug 19, 2004 @ 10:11 AM.

  • 0

#45

osowolf

osowolf

    Couch Potato

Posted Aug 19, 2004 @ 10:37 AM

My biggest fear is that FOX will get rid of Greta Van Sustren and replace her with Nancy Grace. I hope Greta has not burned her bridge with CNN...........

Nancy could learn ALOT from Greta (and quite frankly most of the anchors at FOX could learn a thing or two from Greata also).
  • 0

#46

stlouischili

stlouischili

    Fanatic

Posted Aug 19, 2004 @ 10:51 AM

I don't think FOX will replace Greta with Nancy. Greta's show, On the Record, is very popular. Nancy seems to have more CNN ties than Greta Van Susteren these days, and she seems to have no connection to FOX, so probably nothing to worry about.

Nancy made me chuckle a little last night when she was going over the inventory of things Scott had tried ot discard after Laci went missing.

"Jewelry...Gone. Baby furniture...Gone. Car...Gone." She really spells things out well. Too bad she's not the real prosecutor on this case.
  • 0

#47

flirtycatherine

flirtycatherine

Posted Aug 19, 2004 @ 1:58 PM

Nancy is awesome. And if you have ever seen her on Larry King Live, you KNOW that while she can't stand Chris Pixley, he wants her. Badly. He is one of those men who liked ruder women. He's gorgeous but quite stupid; I'm sure she can do better. What I would like to see is some gorgeous, buxom woman managing to be by Scott's jail cell and asking him questions. You know he'd fall for it, and be totally interested in talking to her. And then this woman, a reporter for real, could have a real scoop.
  • 0

#48

katymo

katymo

    Fanatic

Posted Aug 19, 2004 @ 2:50 PM

I really liked Nancy's comments on Scott getting rid of Laci and Conner's stuff. I would really like to read the transcript of the conversation between Scott and his mother talking about how they have to keep the baby's furniture for "appearance's sake". How can someone even say that?

When Nancy was reading off part of Sharon's call with Scott, my jaw was on the floor. Sharon knew way back on Jan. 9th or whatever day that conversation was that Scott had done it. A movie script couldn't have been more dramatic. She was really giving it to him and I noticed he called her mom, laying it on thick. In this conversation was the only time I've heard him actually say our baby, about Conner. What a coincidence that its when he's talking to his mother in law who's about to rip him a new asshole.

I like Gloria Allred in theory, but she adds nothing to Nancy's show really. She can't say anything about the case that she does know and just says the same thing every day.
  • 0

#49

Celina

Celina

    Fanatic

Posted Aug 26, 2004 @ 1:51 PM

Anyone know why Court TV suddenly isn't running this show in the evening anymore?
  • 0

#50

jerry

jerry

    Fanatic

Posted Aug 26, 2004 @ 10:51 PM

Celina, there may be more to it, but one reason is... Nancy's on vacation.
  • 0

#51

flirtycatherine

flirtycatherine

Posted Aug 27, 2004 @ 3:05 AM

Ah, that explains why Larry King has been reduced to doing Fear Factor specials, etc. I miss Nancy! And I miss everyone ganging up on her, and her besting them.
  • 0

#52

Celina

Celina

    Fanatic

Posted Nov 3, 2004 @ 11:52 AM

Where did this show go off to? I'd really like to get my Scott Peterson Trial fix at night and it's just not happening. [/freakout]
  • 0

#53

ShellsandCheese

ShellsandCheese

    Fanatic

Posted Nov 3, 2004 @ 12:58 PM

I still don't think the prosecution has proved the guy is a murderer. They proved he is sleazeball who frequently cheated on his wife. But they still haven't proved what he had to gain by killing her. And Amber Frey doesn't count because if he killed Lacey because he didn't want a kid, it would make no sense for him to do it to be with Frey who already had a kid.
  • 0

#54

Mowgli

Mowgli

Posted Nov 4, 2004 @ 11:01 AM

But they don't have to prove it. They only have to address the likelihood that he's the killer, i.e. beyond reasonable doubt.

I wish Distasso had followed Nancy's advice to remind jurors of all the things Scott had in the car, his changed appearance, the $10,000 cash + pesos, etc. as evidence he planned to flee to Mexico.

According to her, the law allows jurors to make the connection between evidence of flight as an acknowledgment of guilt.

I also think that Geragos has lost interest/passion for Scott's defense after Michael Cardosa grilled him (and Cardosa doesn't seem an advocate either, any more). They very likely now think that he's guilty, too.

(And the top forensic expert Geragos said he'd call, Dr. Cyril Wecht, said on Court TV on Tuesday that his testimony would have given more to the prosecution than to the defense--which is why Geragos called that not-very-knowledgable ob/gyn instead).

Clearly Scott's guilty (imo the fact he drove 80 miles away on the day of her "disappearance"--and that location just happened to be where her body was found--is way more than coincidental). Will the jury convict him (probably on 2nd degree murder)? I hope so, but I'm afraid it will be hung instead, with two of the men holding out for acquittal.
  • 0

#55

jerry

jerry

    Fanatic

Posted Nov 5, 2004 @ 2:07 AM

...haven't proved what he had to gain by killing her

Nancy, Beth (or one of the guest prosecuters) addresses this issue pretty frequently, saying that legally, the prosecution does not have to prove motive. However, someone usually makes the point that the jury always wants to know the "why", and the state's case is much stronger, if they can prove this element of the crime.

Edited by jerry, Nov 5, 2004 @ 2:18 AM.

  • 0

#56

lauren92

lauren92

    Loyal Viewer

Posted Nov 7, 2004 @ 12:00 AM

Hey celina-tape or tivo court tv during the noonish hour, they have been having these little 'jury watch' sessions with all of the usual suspects (Nancy, Beth, that young defense attorney guy, the old former san mateo prosecutor).
I think they were really hoping that the judge would be releasing more info, but from Beth it sounds like most of the notes to the judge have been sealed so far, so she hasn't had much to add.
  • 0

#57

Sarcastico

Sarcastico

    Fanatic

Posted Nov 8, 2004 @ 12:27 PM

Great moment on Friday night. A woman called in with two questions. I forget the first question, but the second question was, "And second, I'd like to know who died and made Nancy God."
  • 0

#58

lauren92

lauren92

    Loyal Viewer

Posted Nov 10, 2004 @ 2:38 AM

I heard that Sarcastico, and didn't Larry have an answer (it was someone I had never heard of).
  • 0

#59

msfurious1

msfurious1

    Couch Potato

Posted Nov 11, 2004 @ 11:17 AM

I've only had access to ctv a few years and have gotten used to Nancy Grace and her almighty rantings.
What I can't get used to, are her perpetually flared nostrils. She looks like she is constantly smelling something foul.
Also, her pronunciation of the word JUR-AHRS. Boy that bugs.
  • 0

#60

sticky

sticky

    Couch Potato

Posted Nov 12, 2004 @ 4:41 PM

Guilty. First degree murder. Nancy must be having multiple guiltgasms as we speak.
  • 0