Defense says Scott Peterson had 7 affairs during his marriage
Patty
Sources say that Scott cheated on Laci seven times during their
marriage. The first time came shortly after the two were married back
in 1997. Laci was living in Prunedale, working as a wine distributor
and Scott was staying with a roommate in San Luis Obispo. Sources say
Laci found out about the affair after making a surprise visit. That
night Laci ignored Scott during a dinner date with another couple.
Laci never told anyone about Scott's infidelity and it was never
mentioned again.
So when Laci disappeared and this single mother from Fresno came
forward..it looked like police had found their motive. Even Amber's
father recalls the haunting words Scott shared with his daughter days
before Laci vanished..
He had implied that he lost her a year ago. He didn't say how he lost
her a year ago but Amber took it that she had passed away.
But Peterson camp may try to water down those stinging comments by
saying Scott told three other woman that he had lost his wife. It was
his standard line. Amber was just another fling.
But this D.A. in a neighboring county believes it certainly may weaken
the
prosecution's motive, but it could also hurt the defendant. If I'm
the defense I have to think long and hard before I put on that oh hey
it's no big deal, he had affairs all the time. In meantime your
average class juror sitting on the jury is his going to go..and
they're not going to like him.
stargazer
"Patty" <eartha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0e77308.03091...@posting.google.com...
I think it was on Dan Abrams or Catherine Criers show the other day where
mention was made about scott's drug use the last year before laci was
murdered. Haven't seen anything from Robert StJ lately, but I thought he
and I had a bet going about scotty boy being a 'player' into recreational
drugs and women.
sg
Caroline Eves
Kenji
> I think it was on Dan Abrams or Catherine Criers show the other day where
> mention was made about scott's drug use the last year before laci was
> murdered. Haven't seen anything from Robert StJ lately, but I thought he
> and I had a bet going about scotty boy being a 'player' into recreational
> drugs and women.
What drug(s) did Peterson use?
stargazer
"Kenji" <kenji...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6d3eb390.03091...@posting.google.com...
They didn't say, they just said something about 'scott petersons drug use
during the year prior to Laci going missing.' I can't remember if I got
busy around here and didn't see the follow-up or if that's all that was
mentioned. It was at the beginning of the hour when they outline what
they'll be discussing. Could be one of my kids came over and I didn't see
the rest of the show. My ears perked up when I heard the phrase "scott
petersons drug useage in the year prior.' I think they also showed the new
Globe. Something about scott giving a blow job to another inmate in the
jail.
sg
Bo Raxo
> news:f0e77308.03091...@posting.google.com...
> > From KOVR Channel 13 Sacramento, Gloria Gomez reporting:
> >
> > Sources say that Scott cheated on Laci seven times during their
> > marriage.
Ladies, please keep in mind:
"Cheated on his wife seven times" is NOT the same as "had seven
affairs".
Getting a hummer in the car outside a bar with some chick he just met
isn't exactly on par with dating some gal and picking her kid up from
school.
The salient point is how many of these Laci knew about, and how recent
they were. If she knew about other adulterous actions, and they were
either numerous or recent (or both), then it plays to the defense. If
she hadn't been aware of him cheating in some time, and she suddenly
finds out about the "massage therapist" (cough cough), then I think it
plays in to the prosecution.
If I were the defense, I'd start looking for some evidence that she
cheated, took drugs, kicked a kitten, something to dirty up the
victim. Somehow I don't think the "she was alive for weeks after
disappearing" strategy is enough on its own.
stargazer
"Bo Raxo" <Cheneys...@deathsdoor.com> wrote in message
news:81bfcfe1.03091...@posting.google.com...
Team Peterson refers to it as having had at least 7 affairs, that's all I
can tell ya bo.
sg
Michael Snyder
You don't know what you're talking about (big surprise, eh?)
Here's the original post:
From KOVR Channel 13 Sacramento, Gloria Gomez reporting:
Sources say that Scott CHEATED ON LACI seven times during their
marriage.
stargazer
I didn't get the impression they were referring to bangs in the parking lot,
as these were women scotty had a line for, so I'm guessin these were repeat
customers, who know's how many bangs in the parking lot he had.
sg
>
>
Child
news:81bfcfe1.03091...@posting.google.com:
> "stargazer" <tinyd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<wK%7b.796$XO....@bignews2.bellsouth.net>...
>> "Patty" <eartha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:f0e77308.03091...@posting.google.com...
>> > From KOVR Channel 13 Sacramento, Gloria Gomez reporting:
>> >
>> > Sources say that Scott cheated on Laci seven times during their
>> > marriage.
>
>
> Ladies, please keep in mind:
>
> "Cheated on his wife seven times" is NOT the same as "had seven
> affairs".
>
> Getting a hummer in the car outside a bar with some chick he just met
> isn't exactly on par with dating some gal and picking her kid up from
> school.
I am guessing they aren't counting each sexual encounter as one cheat,
because I would assume he had sex with amber several times.
What do they mean? Cheated with seven women?
--
BethF, Anchorage, AK
It's YOUR God.
They are YOUR rules.
YOU burn in hell.
stargazer
"Child" <be...@NOT-SO-bad-dawgs-in-ak.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93F3A93A050Abe...@216.168.3.44...
What I heard was, the defense team is saying 'Amber wasn't special, scotty
wouldn't kill Laci to be with Amber, as she was only one of at least seven
women he's had affairs with since his marriage.' I liked the 'at least'
part, just in case any more come forward they can account for 'em by saying
'we didn't say there *were* only seven, we said 'at least' seven.
sg
JLplsSS
>the
>prosecution's motive, but it could also hurt the defendant.
I think his motive was he didn't want the responsibility of a child for the
next 18 years. Scott is a selfish bastard and wants to be the one with all the
expensive toys. Scott wouldn't be the first guy to kill his wife/GF and child
for this very reason (Rae Carruth is a famous recent example).
Donna
My opinions might have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
stargazer
"JLplsSS" <jlp...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20030912005444...@mb-m18.aol.com...
> >But this D.A. in a neighboring county believes it certainly may weaken
> >the
> >prosecution's motive, but it could also hurt the defendant.
>
> I think his motive was he didn't want the responsibility of a child for
the
> next 18 years. Scott is a selfish bastard and wants to be the one with
all the
> expensive toys. Scott wouldn't be the first guy to kill his wife/GF and
child
> for this very reason (Rae Carruth is a famous recent example).
>
And I think we'll hear witness testimony to that fact. There have been a
few statements flying around, friends of scott who said he'd told them 'he
didn't want a baby'.
sg
Frosty
>
>>But this D.A. in a neighboring county believes it certainly may weaken
>>the prosecution's motive, but it could also hurt the defendant.
>
>I think his motive was he didn't want the responsibility of a child for the
>next 18 years. Scott is a selfish bastard and wants to be the one with all the
>expensive toys. Scott wouldn't be the first guy to kill his wife/GF and child
>for this very reason (Rae Carruth is a famous recent example).
That's what I've been saying all along, because there was a legal means of
getting away from Laci: divorce. But that would've cost money.
I really don't see how Scott admitting to more affairs helps him. I think it
will just create even more sympathy for Laci, and make Scott look even worse.
Team Peterson will almost have to try to smear Laci a little bit now ("she drove
him to adultery with her constant . . . um . . . um . . . beauty"), which would
most likely spell disaster for Scott. And while continuously cheating on his
wife doesn't automatically make him a murderer (obviously), I think it's safe to
say that an unfaithful husband is more capable of killing his wife than a
faithful one. Especially when a husband is as continuously unfaithful as Scott
has apparently been. We're not talking about one drunken "slip up" while he was
thousands of miles away on a business trip. We're talking about a guy with at
least one girl on the side within driving distance. He was in her life to the
point of picking up her kid at school. I see a big difference between that and
a one shot, no pun intended, "sucky-sucky" in the parking lot of a strip club,
or at a bachelor party.
Frosty
TdN
> "stargazer" <tinyd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<wK%7b.796$XO....@bignews2.bellsouth.net>...
> > "Patty" <eartha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:f0e77308.03091...@posting.google.com...
> > > From KOVR Channel 13 Sacramento, Gloria Gomez reporting:
> > >
> > > Sources say that Scott cheated on Laci seven times during their
> > > marriage.
>
>
> Ladies, please keep in mind:
>
> "Cheated on his wife seven times" is NOT the same as "had seven
> affairs".
>
> Getting a hummer in the car outside a bar with some chick he just met
> isn't exactly on par with dating some gal and picking her kid up from
> school.
Um, it would be to me if my husband did it.
And seven whatevers in five years seems pretty extreme!
T.
Karen O'Mara
> I think it's safe to
> say that an unfaithful husband is more capable of killing his wife than a
> faithful one.
Not necessarily. An unfaithful husband may have less reason to kill
his wife.
A guy who steps out of his marriage over and over again, who has sex
with other women, and is allowed to behave like this by his wife (Laci
knew about one affair, and the marriage continued), well, this sort of
man doesn't need to eliminate the wife from the equation.
Karen
Ashley
>with other women, and is allowed to behave like this by his wife (Laci
>knew about one affair, and the marriage continued), well, this sort of
>man doesn't need to eliminate the wife from the equation.
until a child enters the equation, perhaps.
Ashley
Remove the 'plete' from "complete" to e-mail me.
AKA
"Karen O'Mara" <kso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2b2a5dfd.03091...@posting.google.com...
Was a DNA done on the fetus against Scotts DNA as well as Lacis'?
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.516 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/03
Michael Snyder
> I really don't see how Scott admitting to more affairs helps him. I think it
> will just create even more sympathy for Laci, and make Scott look even worse.
This is true.
> Team Peterson will almost have to try to smear Laci a little bit now ("she drove
> him to adultery with her constant . . . um . . . um . . . beauty")
You laugh, but that argument is so common it's practically ubiquitous --
when the cheating spouse is the wife. It's always the man's fault that
she had to cheat, because he failed to "meet her needs".
Men, OTOH, are not entitled to have their needs met.
> which would
> most likely spell disaster for Scott. And while continuously cheating on his
> wife doesn't automatically make him a murderer (obviously), I think it's safe to
> say that an unfaithful husband is more capable of killing his wife than a
> faithful one.
Nonsense. Though sex may often be a motive for murder, capacity
for sex (even illicit or illegal sex) has zippo to do with capacity
to murder.
> Especially when a husband is as continuously unfaithful as Scott
> has apparently been.
No matter how often a man has sex, nor with how many women,
it does not correlate with a propensity for murder.
Michael Snyder
>>A guy who steps out of his marriage over and over again, who has sex
>>with other women, and is allowed to behave like this by his wife (Laci
>>knew about one affair, and the marriage continued), well, this sort of
>>man doesn't need to eliminate the wife from the equation.
>
>
> until a child enters the equation, perhaps.
Why? If he was perfectly happy leading the married life at home,
while screwing around at every opportunity outside of the home,
what possible difference would a child make? Just makes the
happily-married cover story all the more plausible.
Michael Snyder
I doubt that. Most women have a different level of response to
a single casual act of infidelity than to an ongoing "relationship".
The former is not a threat to the primary relationship -- the later
most certainly is.
Maggie
>news:2b2a5dfd.03091...@posting.google.com...
>> Frosty <Frosty...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:<bjrvj...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>> > I think it's safe to
>> > say that an unfaithful husband is more capable of killing his wife than
>a
>> > faithful one.
>>
>> Not necessarily. An unfaithful husband may have less reason to kill
>> his wife.
>>
>> A guy who steps out of his marriage over and over again, who has sex
>> with other women, and is allowed to behave like this by his wife (Laci
>> knew about one affair, and the marriage continued), well, this sort of
>> man doesn't need to eliminate the wife from the equation.
>>
***You know, I hate to put a damper on this little frenzy, but I assume that
all we're talking about here is an unconfirmed tabloid report. I have seen
nothing in the legitimate press about Scott having seven affairs, or seven
incidents of adultry or anything like that. Can anyone provide a source for
this story other than "I heard it on TV"?
Maggie
"When you're arguing with a fool, make sure he isn't doing the same thing." --
author unknown
stargazer
"Michael Snyder" <msn...@redhat.com> wrote in message
news:bjt44e$1bs$3...@stan.redhat.com...
Oh, you speak for 'most women' now
sg
>
stargazer
"Maggie" <maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC> wrote in message
news:20030912143150...@mb-m12.aol.com...
Well, it was reported as another leak from 'team peterson' as a plausable
defensive strategy. Team peterson leaked that 'they had at least 7 women
who could testify as to having had affairs with scott since his marriage.
sg
Karen O'Mara
> until a child enters the equation, perhaps.
Right. Not only is another person involved, but Laci may have well
been threatening that when their kid arrives, playtime for Daddy must
stop.
Karen
Cate
It's always the man's fault that
> she had to cheat, because he failed to "meet her needs".
In what country or society does this 'always' take place?
> Nonsense. Though sex may often be a motive for murder, capacity
> for sex (even illicit or illegal sex) has zippo to do with capacity
> to murder.
I agree with you wholeheartedly here.
Cate
Ashley
>Why? If he was perfectly happy leading the married life at home,
>while screwing around at every opportunity outside of the home,
>what possible difference would a child make? Just makes the
>happily-married cover story all the more plausible.
more responsibility, for one. you have a kid for the rest of your life and are
responsible for him until he is (at least) 18. doesn't necessarily fit well
with a 'player's lifestyle'. also as somebody said, perhaps laci said that
things had to change once conner was born.
Patty
reported it on that channel. She has been covering the case since it
happened. It was in their transcripts of their newscasts a few days
ago.
Patty
Maggie
>> news:<bjrvj...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>> >> > I think it's safe to
>> >> > say that an unfaithful husband is more capable of killing his wife
>than
>> a
>> >> > faithful one.
>> >>
>> >> Not necessarily. An unfaithful husband may have less reason to kill
>> >> his wife.
>> >>
>> >> A guy who steps out of his marriage over and over again, who has sex
>> >> with other women, and is allowed to behave like this by his wife (Laci
>> >> knew about one affair, and the marriage continued), well, this sort
>of
>> >> man doesn't need to eliminate the wife from the equation.
>> >>
>>
>> ***You know, I hate to put a damper on this little frenzy, but I assume
>that
>> all we're talking about here is an unconfirmed tabloid report. I have
>seen
>> nothing in the legitimate press about Scott having seven affairs, or seven
>> incidents of adultry or anything like that. Can anyone provide a source
>for
>> this story other than "I heard it on TV"?
>>
>> Maggie
>>
>Actually I reported it. Gloria Gomez, of KOVR Channel 13 Sacramento,
>reported it on that channel. She has been covering the case since it
>happened. It was in their transcripts of their newscasts a few days
>ago.
***I wonder why no other news source is reporting this. Did she report it as a
fact, or just an unsourced rumor?
TdN
> TdN wrote:
> > Cheneys...@deathsdoor.com (Bo Raxo) wrote in message news:<81bfcfe1.03091...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> >>
> >>isn't exactly on par with dating some gal and picking her kid up from
> >>school.
> >
> >
> > Um, it would be to me if my husband did it.
>
> I doubt that.
I think I can say, pretty definitively, that one of the areas of
knowledge in this in world about which I can quite confidently claim
to have more expertise than you, Mr. Snyder, is in the workings of my
own psyche.
> Most women
I would never dream of speaking for "most women," and as you see
above, I spoke only for myself.
You, however, apparently believe you know not only "most women" but
*my thoughts and emotions* better than I do.
Fascinating. I'm surprised you're not putting John Edwards out of
business with your amazing psychic abilities.
> have a different level of response to
> a single casual act of infidelity than to an ongoing "relationship".
> The former is not a threat to the primary relationship -- the later
> most certainly is.
As I say, I can only speak for myself, not for the 3 billion other
women in the world. As far as I'm concerned, I would be just as angry
about a one-time encounter because, although fleeting, it would be so
tawdry that it would make me question my husband's ethics and values.
An outside emotional relationship, though more of a threat to our
marriage, would at least be not quite so tacky and sordid as the
"parking-lot hummer" of Bo's example. So the "threat" and the "ick"
factors would balance out, in my mind.
I am married, and though my husband has never cheated on me, my
previous fiance did, so my opinion about my own potential reactions is
based on the extrapolation of some past experiences into my current
situation.
T.
Child
You doubt that TdN knows how she would feel if her husband got a hummer from
a barfly?
I think MOST WOMEN do not have a different level of response to a single
casual act of infidelity. Surely, some do! But i believe they are in the
minority.
stargazer
"Child" <be...@NOT-SO-bad-dawgs-in-ak.com> wrote in message
Mikey thinks he can speak for 'most women'. What a joke!
sg
katy...@sbcglobal.net
>Actually I reported it. Gloria Gomez, of KOVR Channel 13 Sacramento,
>reported it on that channel. She has been covering the case since it
>happened. It was in their transcripts of their newscasts a few days
>ago.
***I wonder why no other news source is reporting this. Did she report it
as a
fact, or just an unsourced rumor?
Maggie
I heard it reported by Dan Elliot, of KXTV Channel 10 a few mornings ago.
So it is being reported by more than one news station in the area. Can't
remember where they got the info from but I think it was leaked by the
defense team.
Katie
stargazer
<katy...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:8dw8b.93$yQ.10...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> patty said:
> >Actually I reported it. Gloria Gomez, of KOVR Channel 13 Sacramento,
> >reported it on that channel. She has been covering the case since it
> >happened. It was in their transcripts of their newscasts a few days
> >ago.
>
> ***I wonder why no other news source is reporting this. Did she report it
> as a
> fact, or just an unsourced rumor?
>
>
> Maggie
When I heard her the other night, she implied she'd gotten it from her
defense sources. She said the defense was going to say that scott didn't
have any special feelings for amber, that they could produce at least 7
women who would all say they had affairs with scott, some of whom said he
had also told them he'd 'lost his wife a year ago.'
sg
Sarah Monroe
>> all we're talking about here is an unconfirmed tabloid report. I have seen
>> nothing in the legitimate press about Scott having seven affairs, or seven
>> incidents of adultry or anything like that. Can anyone provide a source
>for
>> this story other than "I heard it on TV"?
>>
>> Maggie
>>
>Actually I reported it. Gloria Gomez, of KOVR Channel 13 Sacramento,
>reported it on that channel. She has been covering the case since it
>happened. It was in their transcripts of their newscasts a few days
>ago.
>
>Patty
>
>
>
>
>
>
Since there is a gag order on all concerned, how would any of them confirm
this?
Gms
http://www.gmspider.com/GGHome.htm
Had to add this since Nan misses the GirlGang
Mjkenoyer
To answer your question, AKA, yes. The baby was determined to be "the
biological offspring of both Scott and Laci Peterson" when
confirmation came that the bodies found in SF Bay were those of Laci
and Conner.
Mjkenoyer
> [The] Peterson camp may try to water down those stinging comments by
> saying Scott told three other woman that he had lost his wife. It was
> his standard line. Amber was just another fling.
>
> But this D.A. in a neighboring county believes it certainly may weaken
> the defense I have to think long and hard before I put on that oh hey
> it's no big deal, he had affairs all the time. In meantime your
> average class juror sitting on the jury is his going to go...and
> they're not going to like him.
Not only that, but the fact that Scott was so, em, prolific in his
affairs/cheats/whatever might actually benefit the prosecution as
well. The affairs (and Amber) might not have meant much to Scotty-boy,
but the fact that he _had_ numerous affairs while still married is a
good indication that Laci (and her life) didn't mean much to Scott
either...
stargazer
"Mjkenoyer" <mandjk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:676b15de.03091...@posting.google.com...
And having a kid around might really put a damper on his extra-curricular
activities. Apparently some of scott's friends are prepared to testify that
he told them 'he didn't want a kid.'
sg
Kris Baker
The theory that "She was just one of many....why would Scott
kill Laci for Amber?" doesn't hold a bit of water, unless Scott
was contacting those other women *after* Laci disappeared,
like he did Amber.
Kris
Maggie
>"Mjkenoyer" <mandjk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:676b15de.03091...@posting.google.com...
>> <...>
>> > [The] Peterson camp may try to water down those stinging comments by
>> > saying Scott told three other woman that he had lost his wife. It was
>> > his standard line. Amber was just another fling.
>> >
>> > But this D.A. in a neighboring county believes it certainly may weaken
>> > the prosecution's motive, but it could also hurt the defendant. If
>I'm
>> > the defense I have to think long and hard before I put on that oh hey
>> > it's no big deal, he had affairs all the time. In meantime your
>> > average class juror sitting on the jury is his going to go...and
>> > they're not going to like him.
>>
>> Not only that, but the fact that Scott was so, em, prolific in his
>> affairs/cheats/whatever might actually benefit the prosecution as
>> well. The affairs (and Amber) might not have meant much to Scotty-boy,
>> but the fact that he _had_ numerous affairs while still married is a
>> good indication that Laci (and her life) didn't mean much to Scott
>> either...
>
> The theory that "She was just one of many....why would Scott
> kill Laci for Amber?" doesn't hold a bit of water, unless Scott
> was contacting those other women *after* Laci disappeared,
> like he did Amber.
***I'm not buying the story that a boatload of girlfriends takes away Scott's
motive. If it's true that Scott has had a number of affairs, I think the
reason the defense is releasing it is not because it speaks to Scott's
innocence--it makes him look too bad for that, IMO. I think Geragos is just
trying to get a jump on the prosecution--get the news out there before they do.
I bet the prosecution was hoping to spring this on the jury ("look what a
lowlife Scott is--he's been lying to Laci ever since they got married') just to
have the jury hate him. Now that the jury pool knows (I assume this is getting
big play around Modesto), by trial it's old news. It hurts him a lot less this
way than if it was trotted out to the jury just a few weeks before they have to
deliberate.
Cricket
"TdN" <triann...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:314a4ba6.03091...@posting.google.com...
What she said. Also, germs (AIDS virus or whatever) don't give a rat's ass
about the emotional level of a cheating relationship. The last guy who
cheated on me was single within two minutes. He was flabbergasted, ( I
learned later that the idea had been to make me jealous...) I don't know
why - I told him if he ever cheated on me I'd walk, and I did. In a large
part because I have no use for cheaters, but the germ factor is very
relevant, and the type of "cheat" doesn't effect that that much (except
maybe *higher* risk with "parking lot" encounters.)
>
> T.
stargazer
"Cricket" <cc...@quixnet.net> wrote in message
news:bk0kb7$gnf$1...@sun-news.laserlink.net...
Michael snyder, the great 'speaker' of the masses of women. ;)
sg
>
>
Mametsuki
>cheated on me was single within two minutes. He was flabbergasted
YOU GO GIRL!!!!!!! A strong woman who takes no shit is always a good role
model for all of us less than strong types!!!!
Mametsuki
Michael Snyder
It's a free country, you're entitled to your false beliefs.
Sexual infidelity is less of a threat to women than it is to men.
If a man's mate is sexually unfaithful, he risks bringing up the
child of another man. If a woman's mate is sexually unfaithful,
the biggest risk she faces is that she loses her mate. Therefore
an ongoing relationship is far more threatening to a woman than
a casual encounter.
Mjkenoyer
Child
> > I think MOST WOMEN do not have a different level of response to a single
> > casual act of infidelity. Surely, some do! But i believe they are in
the
> > minority.
>
> It's a free country, you're entitled to your false beliefs.
> Sexual infidelity is less of a threat to women than it is to men.
> If a man's mate is sexually unfaithful, he risks bringing up the
> child of another man. If a woman's mate is sexually unfaithful,
> the biggest risk she faces is that she loses her mate. Therefore
> an ongoing relationship is far more threatening to a woman than
> a casual encounter.
Cite?
Its a theory put forth by some scientist, is it tested?
Cate
> If a man's mate is sexually unfaithful, he risks bringing up the
> child of another man.
If a man doesn't know he's raising another man's child, then how is it a
risk?
If a woman's mate is sexually unfaithful,
> the biggest risk she faces is that she loses her mate.
How can you assign relative values to raising someone else's child and
losing a mate? It's apples and oranges.
Therefore
> an ongoing relationship is far more threatening to a woman than
> a casual encounter.
There's no legitimate 'therefore' here. You have proved anything. Your
opinion might be accurate, but your argument is baseless.
Cate
Michele317
>> a single casual act of infidelity than to an ongoing "relationship".
>> The former is not a threat to the primary relationship -- the later
>> most certainly is.
>
>As I say, I can only speak for myself, not for the 3 billion other
>women in the world. As far as I'm concerned, I would be just as angry
>about a one-time encounter because, although fleeting, it would be so
>tawdry that it would make me question my husband's ethics and values.
> An outside emotional relationship, though more of a threat to our
>marriage, would at least be not quite so tacky and sordid as the
>"parking-lot hummer" of Bo's example. So the "threat" and the "ick"
>factors would balance out, in my mind.
another woman speaking only for herself here... i'd be more upset about a
parking lot fling than a long-term affair as well. at least with the affair,
there's the possibility that he had feelings for the other woman. a quick fling
would be more disrespectful to me and our marriage and women in general, and
i'd be inclined to think that by the time i found out, he probably would've
done this before. i'd most likely dump his sorry ass either way, though.
Salwar Kameez
> while screwing around at every opportunity outside of the home,
> what possible difference would a child make? Just makes the
> happily-married cover story all the more plausible.
I personally know 2 cases where the multi-philandering husband "gave"
the long-suffering wife a baby as a "guilt payment" or however you
want to put it, for putting up with his multiple affairs. In each
case the wife seemed, if not happy, at least resigned to the deal. The
wife knew she had the social position and maybe in a crazy way, the
partnership-thing, and now the baby. It was the mistress who was
miserable. By "gave" the wife a baby, I mean went through in vitro
fertilization in both cases. The in vitro process in both cases was
ongoing and completed while the husband was fooling around and not
making a secret of it. In fact, in once case, the husband kept
telling his weeping, bouncing-off-the-walls mistress, that he loved
and "got along with" his wife and that he would never leave her.
Therefore, it is not true that in *every* instance, a baby means the
husband has to stop fooling around.
Jen Crowley
> Frosty <Frosty...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<bjrvj...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> > I think it's safe to
> > say that an unfaithful husband is more capable of killing his wife than a
> > faithful one.
> Not necessarily. An unfaithful husband may have less reason to kill
> his wife.
> A guy who steps out of his marriage over and over again, who has sex
> with other women, and is allowed to behave like this by his wife (Laci
> knew about one affair, and the marriage continued), well, this sort of
> man doesn't need to eliminate the wife from the equation.
I think what the person meant by "an unfaithful husband is more capable of killing his wife than a faithful one", the person wrote this with the assumption that an unfaithful husband cares less for his spouse than does a faithful husband, and therefore killing her wouldn't bother him all that much considering he didn't care all that much about her in the first place.
In my opinion, Scott didn't like the inevitable direction his life was headed in (i.e. fatherhood) and believed that the easiest way out, for himself, was to eliminate his pregnant wife. I think he would have planned this regardless if Amber had been in the picture or not. He pictured a different life for himself and this "new life" did NOT include a wife and child.
Jen Crowley
> >>A guy who steps out of his marriage over and over again, who has sex
> >>with other women, and is allowed to behave like this by his wife (Laci
> >>knew about one affair, and the marriage continued), well, this sort of
> >>man doesn't need to eliminate the wife from the equation.
> >
> >
> while screwing around at every opportunity outside of the home,
> what possible difference would a child make? Just makes the
> happily-married cover story all the more plausible.
