Long Bio of Scott Peterson
Maggie
A PORTRAIT OF THE ACCUSED
In a rare interview, the family of Scott Peterson sheds light on the life and
times of the 'perfect' son
Kelly St. John, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, March 7, 2004
The fading photographs in the family albums paint a picture of a childhood that
was almost stereotypically suburban: full of Cub Scout outings, Little League,
golf weekends and family fishing trips.
And Scott Peterson wasn't just the kind of kid who stayed out of trouble, say
those who knew him back then. He was a standout achiever. By age 14, he was
besting his father on the golf course. By the end of high school, he was one of
the top junior golfers in San Diego.
"We'd tell him, 'You're a lucky man.' He never got in a scrape," Lee Peterson,
Scott's father, said in a rare sit-down interview at the family home in Solana
Beach, near San Diego. "He was like Mr. Perfect."
Before his vivacious wife, Laci, disappeared just before Christmas 2002, no
one outside a small circle of family and friends knew who Scott Peterson was.
And the man dear to their hearts stands in stark contrast to the screaming
tabloid headlines that call him a monster.
"In my mind," David Thoennes, Scott Peterson's onetime golf coach, said
flatly, "I cannot fathom Scott doing this."
Perhaps in part because his mother had such an unhappy childhood -- Jackie
Peterson's father was murdered when she was a toddler, and she was mostly
raised by Catholic nuns -- Scott Peterson's parents worked hard to create a
sunny life for their five children. And that was doubly true for their youngest
son, the only child Lee and Jackie Peterson had together.
"Scott was a good person. He came from a good family. That's why this is all a
big shocker," said Brian Tasto, a San Diego dentist who played high school golf
with Peterson. "He was more of a leader, a strong-minded person, confident in
what he was doing."
A lot has been said about the 31-year-old Modesto man who strides confidently
into court each day. Television broadcasters call him the slick fertilizer
salesman who betrayed his pregnant wife and chased other women. He lied. He
didn't act like a grieving husband. Police say they have the goods to prove he
is a heartless killer.
Today, he sits in a Redwood City jail, awaiting a capital trial for the
premeditated murder of his wife and the fetus she was carrying. The process of
selecting a jury to hear his case began Thursday.
But comparatively little is known about Scott Peterson's life before he became
the central figure in one of the most sensationalized murders in recent memory
-- a case his mother likens to that of Sam Sheppard's, the doctor who was
convicted of bludgeoning his pregnant wife to death in 1954. After the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled that he didn't get a fair trial because of pervasive and
prejudicial publicity, Sheppard was retried and acquitted in 1966.
Lee and Jackie Peterson, who are certain their son is innocent, recently
agreed to talk about Scott's life before his wife disappeared. With Scott's
half-sister, Susan Caudillo, they told stories around their dining room table,
a stone's throw from a refrigerator plastered with photographs of their
children and grandchildren.
In the beginning
Scott Lee Peterson was born at San Diego's Sharp Hospital on Oct. 24, 1972.
He was the only child that Lee and Jackie Peterson -- who had married a year
earlier -- had together. The new baby became the youngest darling in a large
brood the Petersons lovingly describe as "like the Brady Bunch."
Scott Peterson's half-brother John, Jackie Peterson's son from a previous
relationship, was 6 when Scott was born and shared a bedroom with his younger
sibling in the family's two-bedroom apartment in La Jolla.
Lee Peterson also had three children from his first marriage -- Susan, 12,
Mark, 10, and Joe, 9 -- who lived with their mother in San Diego during the
week but spent most weekends with their father.
At the time, Lee Peterson was working for a trucking company. Jackie Peterson
bought a tiny dress shop in La Jolla called "The Put On." She brought Scott to
work with her, sewing halter tops and helping customers as her towheaded son
looked on from his crib.
It would soon become a family joke that the cherished baby's feet hardly
touched the ground, Jackie Peterson recalled with a smile.
"He didn't walk before he was 1," she said, "because someone was always
carrying him."
Today, Scott Peterson's mother is reticent about discussing her own life,
fearing how it might be twisted by the press. But whether it was acting as Cub
Scout troop leader or attending school functions, it seems that she worked hard
to give her kids the kind of normal childhood she was denied.
On Dec. 21, 1945, Jackie Peterson's father, 36-year-old John Latham, was
killed outside his tire shop and salvage yard on San Diego's Point Loma
Boulevard. At the time of his death, she was 2 1/2 years old, the third of four
children.
According to articles published at the time in the San Diego Union, Latham was
attacked as he left his shop after 9 p.m., and his skull was smashed by someone
wielding a rusty pipe. A former employee that Latham had fired, 26-year-old
Robert Sewell, was later convicted of the crime and sentenced to life in
prison.
Jackie Peterson's widowed mother had trouble caring for her children, and when
Jackie was 5, she was sent to a Catholic home for children that she describes
today as "basically an orphanage."
For a time, the nuns who ran the school permitted just weekly visits with her
mother, Helen Latham. Gradually, the restrictions were eased -- but Jackie
Peterson was only 18 when her mother died.
Scott Peterson, however, enjoyed a close relationship with both his parents as
he grew up, family members say.
Suburban life
When Scott Peterson was about 4, his family bought a home in Scripps Ranch, a
friendly suburb ringed by eucalyptus trees in northeast San Diego. It was
around that time that his father started a shipping and packing business, and
he would bring Scott along as he made rounds picking up packages for delivery.
"It sounds funny, but he gave me confidence," Lee Peterson said. "I had
someone with me."
Lee Peterson -- believing that if his children learned to do the things he
liked, they would end up spending more time together -- taught all of his
children to golf, fish and hunt pheasant. Family photos show Scott, as a blond
toddler, holding up a fish he caught at San Diego's Miramar Reservoir and
grinning in a room of blue shag carpet holding a golf club and a ball.
By the time he was 5, Scott was tagging along when the family went to the
driving range. Lee Peterson sawed off the top of a handle of a wooden driver so
it would be short enough for little Scott to swing -- and he started to carry
it around with him at home, too.
"We called it his slugger," sister Susan Caudillo said.
He was 7 when his parents started bringing him along on family golf outings at
the Stardust County Club in San Diego.
But the family always brought Scott's fishing pole along, too, Lee Peterson
said, since their youngest son would get bored at some point during the 18
holes. Then he would wander off to fish the San Diego River, which meanders
through the course.
Joan Pernicano, whose youngest son, Andrew, was in the Cub Scout troop led by
Scott Peterson's mother, remembers the youngster as a homebody who was "close
to both parents equally."
"He was a little bit reticent, stoic maybe. My son bounced off the walls, but
Scott wasn't that way. He was quiet and polite," Pernicano said. "He's a
smiler, and when he smiles, his whole face lights up."
When Scott Peterson was a fifth-grader, the family moved to a new home in
Poway that had a swimming pool and a yard that bordered a creek. He attended
Painted Rock Middle School.
There, Jackie Peterson recalled, Scott was picked by teachers to work before
and after school as a school crossing guard, wearing a bright orange vest and
carrying a stop sign and whistle to usher younger students across the street.
"He was very serious about his responsibility," she laughed, describing how
one driver got frustrated when Scott kept children from crossing when a car was
still a block away. "I remember this mother said, 'Oh, come on, he never lets
anyone go.' "
"It was so much fun to sit and watch him," added Lee Peterson, who sometimes
detoured on his rounds to stop and observe Scott from a distance. "There's my
little kid directing traffic."
By the time he was a teenager, Scott Peterson was working part time at a
country club in Rancho Santa Fe, picking up golf balls and filling carts with
gas in exchange for lessons and time on the course. He attended the University
of San Diego High School, a Catholic college preparatory school with a good
golf team.
Lee Peterson told Scott he would buy him a Ferrari if he shot par. By the time
he was 14, Scott was consistently hitting the ball better than his father.
"He set his mind to it. He really believed his dad was going to get him a
Ferrari," Jackie Peterson said.
And shooting par by 16 did win him car keys. But for safety's sake -- not to
mention financial considerations -- his parents gave him a used Peugeot sedan.
He was a good student and tutored the homeless all through high school.
High school golfer
He also played on his school's varsity golf team from 1987 to 1990. He earned
the team's most valuable player award twice and was named to the San Diego
Union-Tribune's All-Academic Team three of his four years in high school.
Former teammate Tasto said a few of Scott's peers considered him arrogant. But
Tasto simply remembers Scott as a nice guy who wore white polo shirts and a red
and gold varsity letterman's jacket, and didn't have a steady girlfriend. Scott
Peterson, Tasto said, gave him rides home from practice and helped lead his
team to an undefeated season during his senior year.
David Thoennes, who coached varsity golf at the high school for 33 years
before retiring in June, said that Scott Peterson was not just a consistently
good golfer.
"He was very respectful. I don't think I ever heard Scott use foul language,"
Thoennes said. "Some kids will hit a bad shot and go into all kinds of antics.
Scott would hit a bad shot and go to the next one. I don't think I ever saw him
get out of control."
His teammates believed that Scott Peterson, who graduated at age 17 in 1990,
had a golf scholarship to Arizona State University, which had won the NCAA golf
championship that year. Phil Mickelson, a former high school teammate of
Scott's and now a top player on the PGA tour, attended Arizona State, too.
But Lee Peterson said nothing was locked in: Scott Peterson had spoken with
the coach, who had invited him to try out for the team as a walk-on and said if
he was good enough, scholarship money might be available.
Doug Tammaro, ASU's associate sports information director, said Scott Peterson
"was never on a roster."
"We can't find anything here that says he was on our golf team," Tammaro said.
"It was probably a mistake sending him there because it was such a big golf
school," said Lee Peterson.
Scott Peterson left ASU after just one semester and moved in with his parents,
who were by that time living in what they thought would be their retirement
home, a cottage in Morro Bay on the central coast.
From the spring of 1992 to the spring of 1993, Scott Peterson attended Cuesta
College in San Luis Obispo. He played on the golf team for two years, said Pete
Schuler, Cuesta's sports information director. The 1992-93 yearbook mentions
that Scott Peterson had "an outstanding season" his sophomore year and just
missed qualifying for the state meet, Schuler said.
That year, Jackie Peterson said, her 20-year-old son abruptly announced he was
going to move out of the house and support himself, telling them, "I've had the
greatest parents. You don't owe me anything."
"I said, 'Give it a go.' I used to tell him old war stories, about how I left
home at 17 and joined the Navy," Lee Peterson said.
"That's the way we were brought up. You take responsibility for yourself, "
Susan Caudillo said. "That was Scott's mentality then. He could have taken the
free ride, but he didn't."
Golfers' bachelor pad
Scott Peterson moved into an apartment his father compares now to "Animal
House," a bachelor pad he shared with friends from the golf team. The garage
had a flat roof that the roommates covered with green artificial grass, and
they would stand up top and drive golf balls into a nearby cow pasture.
He also juggled three jobs -- one as a waiter and two at local golf courses,
his parents said.
In the spring of 1994, Scott Peterson transferred to California Polytechnic
State University at San Luis Obispo. Originally, he planned to major in
international business, but changed his major to agricultural business.
"He said, 'Instead of driving a beamer and drinking martinis, I'll be driving
a pickup and drinking beers,' " Lee Peterson said.
Professors who taught Scott Peterson describe him as a model student.
"He seemed more mature than most. He was pleasant to deal with," recalled Jim
Ahern, a Cal Poly agribusiness professor. "I wouldn't mind having a class full
of Scott Petersons."
Peterson was working as a waiter in the Pacific Cafe in San Luis Obispo when a
young woman who came in for a meal caught his attention -- Laci Rocha, a fellow
Cal Poly student who was majoring in ornamental horticulture. Family members
said Scott Peterson was promptly smitten with the petite, outspoken brunette.
Within months, Susan Caudillo said, Scott Peterson had introduced Laci Rocha
to his siblings, saying "something to the effect of, 'I hope this is the future
Mrs. Peterson.' "
Virginia Walter, a Cal Poly horticulture professor and Laci Rocha's adviser,
said, "Laci and Scott spent basically her senior year together."
Scott, Walter remembered, "was gaga over Laci."
The young couple moved in together. In 1997, after Laci Rocha's graduation,
they had an elegant wedding -- with an abundance of flowers -- at Sycamore
Mineral Springs Resort in San Luis Obispo County's Avila Valley. About 150
friends and family members came to celebrate the day with them.
While Scott Peterson finished his senior year, Laci Peterson took a job in
nearby Prunedale (Monterey County). Prosecutors allege that around this time,
Scott Peterson had the first of at least two extramarital affairs, though they
have not revealed a name or details of this earlier relationship.
Scott Peterson's parents declined to answer questions about their son's
alleged affairs, saying that such relationships are common -- even among people
who are happily married -- and that having an affair is a far cry from
committing murder.
His final semester, Scott Peterson wrote a 29-page senior project: "Attributes
that consumers desire in fresh-cut salad." The paper, kept on a microfiche file
at the university's library, looked into the $1 billion market of ready-to-eat
salads sold at grocery stores. His graduation requirements complete, he
received his bachelor's degree in June of 1998.
He didn't make use of his degree right away -- although he was invited to
apply for a job in Ohio as a food buyer for ADM, the Archer Daniels Midland
Co., that "started with really good money," his mother said.
The restaurant business
But "it wasn't going to be his lifestyle," Jackie Peterson said. Instead,
Scott and Laci Peterson decided to open a burger joint not far from the
sprawling college campus. Scott Peterson used what he learned about the
restaurant business during his time as a waiter to buy used kitchen equipment
and get discounted food.
When he was unable to find anyone in town who could install a vent required by
state law, Scott Peterson went to Los Angeles and took the needed certification
course to install it himself, his parents said.
For months, Scott and Laci Peterson worked behind windows covered with
newspapers to convert an old bakery in a strip mall into what would become "The
Shack," a casual hangout with a bucket of peanuts on every table. Laci Peterson
handled the decorating, incorporating signs painted on driftwood, a wine barrel
trash can and an old fishing tackle box affixed over the front door.
Family friend Pernicano said it did not surprise her that the couple would
start a new business despite being so young. Scott Peterson, like his older
siblings, had always worked at his parents' business during summer breaks and
after school.
"He was surrounded by entrepreneurship. That's his parents," Pernicano said,
describing how Jackie Peterson took doughnuts door to door to businesses in an
effort to drum up new customers for the family's shipping company. "He's got
the genes and the example."
Still, even the family was skeptical that it was a good idea, Jackie Peterson
said, since most new restaurants fail. Lee Peterson said he did not give Scott
Peterson seed money.
"We were sure they were going to lose the money," Jackie Peterson said.
When Laci and Scott Peterson did open the doors -- serving draft beers,
burgers and what Laci's college adviser Walter remembers as "great beer-batter
onion rings" -- it was slow going at first. But soon, they were drawing crowds,
especially on weekends.
When the couple sold The Shack to a new owner in 2000, it was profitable, said
current co-owner Cody Scheel.
It was after he met Laci that Scott Peterson learned that he had two siblings
who had been given up for adoption before he was born -- a brother, born in
1963, and a sister, born in 1965.
Those siblings found each other first, and then had an emotional reunion with
their birth mother. Jackie Peterson then introduced them to her other children.
Unfazed, Scott Peterson quickly became close friends with his new sister, Anne
-- and Laci and Scott Peterson attended her wedding, wearing matching black and
orange outfits.
According to his parents, Scott and Laci Peterson considered buying a house in
San Luis Obispo, their scenic and relaxed town. They had close friends there,
and even dropped by frequently to do their laundry at Scott's parents' Morro
Bay home. But the couple could not afford the skyrocketing real estate prices
in the central coast.
The move to Modesto
Laci Peterson brought up the idea of moving to her hometown, the dusty Central
Valley city of Modesto, where her aunt worked in real estate and many of her
high school classmates still resided. Not only could they buy a home there, but
they could also raise a family close to her parents.
So Scott went job-hunting -- and with the help of a former professor, landed a
position with a Spanish-based agricultural supply company called Tradecorp, a
job that would allow him to live wherever he liked.
Lee Peterson said the company was trying to establish a customer base in the
United States, and hired Scott Peterson as their West Coast representative.
Working on salary plus commission, he sold irrigation systems along with
fertilizer and chemical nutrients and the units to disperse them. Most of his
customers were big farms and flower growers, primarily in California, Arizona
and New Mexico, Lee Peterson said.
"It's not an easy business to break into," Jackie Peterson said, noting that
her son seemed to enjoy the challenge. "Farmers aren't the kind of people that
change overnight."
In October 2000, the couple bought their bungalow house on Covena Avenue in
Modesto for $177,000.
Scott and Laci Peterson worked hard to fix up the home, painting and tiling
bathrooms inside and planting flowers and building a brick wall in the yard.
Laci quickly landed a part-time job as a substitute teacher, something that
Jackie Peterson said was "her niche." Scott eventually got a golf membership at
the local country club and became the youngest member of Modesto's Rotary Club.
The couple -- who shared a love of cooking -- hosted dinner parties and
borrowed money to build a swimming pool in their backyard.
By 2002, Laci Peterson was pregnant, and the couple began preparing for the
baby boy's birth. Laci Peterson enrolled in a prenatal yoga course, and
together they attended Lamaze classes.
They decorated a blue nursery with a nautical theme -- and Lee Peterson said
he began constructing a model boat to sit on a shelf. That boat now sits,
painted blue and white but still unfinished, in his Solana Beach study.
But according to authorities, Scott Peterson's picture-perfect life was a
facade: They say in November of 2002, when his wife was seven months' pregnant,
Scott was introduced by a friend to a Fresno masseuse named Amber Frey and
began a relationship with her. In later public statements, Frey said Scott
Peterson had told her he was not married.
Prosecutors allege that Scott Peterson's affair with Frey was the salesman's
motive for murdering his wife. He was arrested in April 2003, after Laci's body
and the fetus of their unborn son washed up on the shores of San Francisco Bay.
Though limited in their comments by a court's gag order, Lee and Jackie
Peterson maintain their son is innocent, the victim of an incompetent police
department so fixated on a theory that Scott Peterson was the suspect that they
ignored other leads and evidence in the case.
These days, they see their youngest son only in court hearings and during
short visits to the Redwood City jail.
Lee and Jackie Peterson said the last time they saw their son and
daughter-in-law together was a happy time -- the week before Christmas 2002,
the older couple met up with the younger pair for a three-day visit in Carmel.
"I remember thinking she has grown into such a nice young woman," Jackie
Peterson remembered.
While Lee and Scott Peterson golfed, Jackie and Laci Peterson shopped
together, talking about the baby and picking out the presents they hoped their
husbands would buy them for Christmas.
Four days later, Jackie Peterson said, she and Lee went to Christmas Eve
services in San Diego. Driving home, they looked at the moon and talked about
how things seemed to be going so well for their whole family.
"We said a little prayer of thanks, and we're not even heavy prayer people,"
she recalled. "All our kids are healthy, no divorces. I remember saying how
lucky we are, how blessed we are."
In their Solana Beach home, there is a recent photograph of Scott posted amid
the mosaic of snapshots on the refrigerator door.
He is smiling, handsome, dressed in a suit.
But this photo, unlike the others, was clipped from a newspaper. It shows
Scott sitting in court, next to his attorney.
E-mail Kelly St. John at kst...@sfchronicle.com.
Maggie
"Objects in your mirror may be closer than they appear." --John Edwards after
the WI primary
Mike Walton
David Sween ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
As I have repeatedly indicated, Scott did not dump his wife in the
Bay, her body was deliberately planted, to implicate Scott Peterson.
If Scott had in fact murdered Laci and dumped her in the Bay, sonar
searches would have located the body.
Indeed, a sonar search just recovered a man from Idaho, who was just
located at the bottom of Auke Bay.
Visibility is not a factor in Sonar searches because experts measure a
reflection of sound and not light. The only reason that Laci was not
located is because she was not there, and that is probably because she
was buried in a shallow grave.
Speculation aside, sonar searches failed to recover the body, and that
is because there was no body to recover. It was obviously planted to
implicate Scott Peterson, and that is clearly what sonar searches have
proved.
718 Date: 2004-03-06 05:08:47
Bruno Jasienski ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
Do not fear your enemies. The worst they can do is kill you. Do not
fear your friends. At worst, they may betray you. Fear those who do
not care; they neither kill nor betray, but betrayal and murder exist
because of their silent consent.
717 Date: 2004-03-03 21:27:13
David Sween ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
Why does Judge Delucchi contradict himself? In his own words, "I'm
persuaded the dog tracking in and around Modesto can't be
corroborated'' said Delucchi. "You can't cross-examine the dog."
Delucchi, however, ruled that prosecutors will be able to present a
separate piece of dog-tracking evidence that places Laci Peterson's
scent at the very pier where her husband said he left for an afternoon
of fishing on the day she went missing. The
jury will hear testimony from an expert dog handler whose Labrador
retriever Trimble followed Laci Peterson's scent from the parking lot
of the Berkeley Marina to the edge of the pier.
Court precedent requires corroboration of any dog-tracking evidence,
Delucchi said, and called the marina evidence admissible because Scott
Peterson admitted going to the marina, and Laci Peterson and her fetus
washed ashore 2 1/2 miles from the marina four months later. What does
that have to do with the need to follow Laci's scent?
Where is the corroboration? Did anybody see Laci at the Marina? Is
Judge Delucci going to cross-examine the dog? This judge does not make
any sense. First and foremost, the crap that Delucci has chosen to
call evidence is straight out of the National Enquirer, and this is
the direct quote: "And Trimble, another Lab tracking dog, produced the
most compelling evidence against Scott. He showed that Scott left his
warehouse in his truck, headed for the Berkeley Marina, and the dog
picked up Laci's scent – at the marina!"
Is Judge Delucchi going to cross-examine the dog?
Moreover, Delucchi has selectively excluded dog tracking evidence
because Modesto police detective Al Brocchini called off a search even
though a bloodhound named Merlin appeared to be following Laci
Peterson's scent, and that is not justifiable.
Where is the corroboration? Who saw Laci at the marina? Eyewitnesses
corroborated the fact that Scott was at the marina, alone. This is
extremely bizarre and presumptuous corroboration -like denying Merlin
the tracking dog, the opportunity to follow Laci Peterson's scent.
Delucchi's peculiar obsession to dismiss the fact that nobody saw Laci
at the marina, not to mention the fact that she was witnessed walking
her dog on December 24th, clearly indicates that the so called,
"corroborated" dog-tracking evidence is nothing more than the bizarre
theory that the National Enquirer publicized. That is not even what
you call evidence, let alone, corroborated evidence.
716 Date: 2004-03-03 03:35:51
Mike ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
Judge rules that the "evidence" published in the National Enquirer on
January 6, is admissable ! LOL
Dogs tracked Laci's scent to a boat she had never been on. Fascinating
! Sounds like dogs don't know the difference between Scott and Laci's
property, since Scott had handled it. For those who don't know the
diff, that's called contaminated evidence --but what else do you
expect from the National Enquirer? You would think that a judge would
know better.
715 Date: 2004-03-01 21:45:35
John Ashcroft's Justice Department is involved? ( no email / no
homepage) wrote:
"They have report after report after report of investigations that
were taking place in December," Geragos said. "These items are
negative for my client. I've got pages upon pages of hair comparisons
that exclude my client at every single point."
Prosecutor David Harris said they were working with the Department of
Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigations to turn over the
reports.
"We're doing the best we can," Harris told Delucchi. "We're going up
the chain and saying you need to get this done."
714 Date: 2004-03-01 16:14:28
Joe Sneider ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
Oh Fred, you are so gentle with your leading questions, don't beat
around the bush ! These idiots are trying to suggest that Scott
Peterson made cement anchors, used them to sink Laci, and he just left
one behind so that the geniuses can trace it back to Scott. These
MORONS are so stupid, it will be a huge shock if the entire jury does
not die laughing before this is over.
713 Date: 2004-03-01 15:38:19
Fred Sanfilippo ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
The bodies of Laci Peterson and the baby were simultaneously recovered
in April along the shores of San Francisco Bay, not far from where
Scott Peterson was reported fishing on the day his wife vanished -
Christmas Eve, 2002.
Who is gullible enough to believe that Scott Peterson directed the
opportunity to frame himself?
712 Date: 2004-02-29 18:08:15
David Sween ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
The case against Scott Peterson has been aired in the National
Enquirer and it does not belong in any court room where Kangaroo
Justice does not prevail.
Mark Geragos does not need a defense to make it clear that it is not
plausible to legitimately convict a man who has been cleared by 24/7
scrutiny. The slanderous and spurious allegations which are now called
"the evidence" have been published in detail, in the National Enquirer
and if this disinformation is to be pawned off to an unsuspecting
jury, they need to be informed. And so, if the trial against Scott
Peterson is to be fair, the judge must instruct the jury accordingly;
"Members of the jury, I am supplying you with 10 issues of the
National Enquirer. The theories of nine of the issues have been
rejected by the prosecution because they made you all laugh. The
January 6, 2004 issue is indisputable because the National Enquirer
published a picture of Merlin the tracking dog, and THAT is what you
call INDISPUTABLE evidence. If, in your infinite wisdom, you determine
that the National Enquirer is a credible source, you must find guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt. If you think that the National Enquirer is
not credible, then Investigators like David Sween gets the last word."
This case is clearly over as far as the guilt or the innocence of
Scott Peterson is concerned.
The judge in the Laci Peterson murder trial was supposed to be Richard
Arnason, a retired Contra Costa County judge who was choseny by
California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George. Arnason is a
well known, criminal law expert with extensive death penalty case
experience and having served on the Superior Court of Contra Costa
County for 31 years, he would never tolerate the tactics of
prosecutors who are pretending to have a case against Scott Peterson.
Needless to say, the prosecutors had to shop around, to find a judge
who was willing to listen to a case that would have been thrown out a
long time ago, if a reasonable judge like Arnoson was not replaced.
Clearly, any Judge who determines that the National Enquirer had
showed probable cause that Scott Peterson had killed 27-year-old Laci,
who was nine months pregnant, and dumped her body in San Francisco
Bay, needs his head examined.
I know what I am talking about. In my experience, reasonable and fair
Judges are irresponsibly replaced when prosecutors understands the
weakness of their case.
Michael Cardoza, a criminal defense attorney in the San Francisco Bay
area, thought that both the prosecution and the defense would approve
of Arnason and every legal expert was shocked to hear he had been
replaced.
"He does what's right and he controls his courtroom," said Cardoza,
who tried a case before Arnason in 1998.
If the prosecution had a case, they would have accepted Arnason.
Instead, they made sure he was disqualified because they [try not to
laugh] claimed that an experienced and distinguished judge was biased
against them.
Mark Geragos is understandably frustrated and angered by the kangaroo
court that the prosecutors are seeking to construct for the sake of
lynching Scott Peterson. The prosecution selected judge is even
refusing to sequester the jury, and in this case, a jury that is not
sequestered is subject to the manipulation that the Skakel jury was
subjected to, when demagogues like Dominick Dunne dined within earshot
of the jurors that lynched Michael Skakel. Needless to say, this
prosecution is seeking an equally creative way to manipulate the
Peterson jury; is that why they opposed the request to sequester the
jury?
Judge Alfred A. Delucchi said jurors will be allowed to go home each
night with an admonishment not to discuss the case, "and we'll see
what happens." We'll see what happens, if this selected fool who is
supposed to be a judge, continues to preside over a kangaroo court.
I repeat; The case against Scott Peterson is OVER, because Scott
Peterson, the most investigated man in America, has been absolutely
cleared by 24/7 scrutiny. In the alternative, you can promote the so
called credibility of the January 6, 2004 issue of the National
Enquirer, because every other issue has prompted widespread laughter
--and now, it's just a matter of time... before the media rejects the
latest fraud.
711 Date: 2004-02-29 15:44:47
Jake Stewart ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
By Kim Curtis
ASSOCIATED PRESS
12:22 a.m. February 26, 2004
REDWOOD CITY – Laci Peterson's trail ended at the water's edge.
It began as a scent path picked up by police dogs, leading from Scott
and Laci Peterson's Modesto home down the road to nowhere.
According to testimony this week by the dogs' handlers, Laci
Peterson's scent was again picked up at a nearby warehouse that Scott
Peterson rented and on a boat he had stored inside – the same boat
prosecutors say he used to ferry his wife's body out into the San
Francisco Bay.
_______________________________
Wow, Associated Press read the January 6, 2004 issue of the National
Enquirer, and it publishes it as "the news" for February 26, 2004. LOL
710 Date: 2004-02-28 14:04:07
Mike ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
When did the National Enquirer become the medium for who goes to jail
and who does not?
Does the judge in the Scott Peterson case read the National Enquirer?
For those with a low IQ, this is not a trick question !
Mike Walton
failed to frame Scott.
PScan16416
> In a rare interview, the family of Scott Peterson sheds light on the life
>and
>times of the 'perfect' son
This may sound crass, but I hope Ann Rule gets to write the book.
OzzieAnnie
"Maggie" <maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC> wrote in message
news:20040307090059...@mb-m19.aol.com...
****Does this strike anyone else as an unfortunate remark?
****Who are the homeless who require tutoring? What does this mean,
I really don't understand what this means?
****Sounds like there was a bit of a fib to classmates at h.s. Lee
is probably right that sending Scott there set him up for
disappointment. Was probably somewhat of a shock for Scott who it
appears was used to "achieving" or whatever.
> From the spring of 1992 to the spring of 1993, Scott Peterson
attended Cuesta
> College in San Luis Obispo. He played on the golf team for two
years, said Pete
> Schuler, Cuesta's sports information director. The 1992-93
yearbook mentions
> that Scott Peterson had "an outstanding season" his sophomore year
and just
> missed qualifying for the state meet, Schuler said.
>
> That year, Jackie Peterson said, her 20-year-old son abruptly
announced he was
> going to move out of the house and support himself, telling them,
"I've had the
> greatest parents. You don't owe me anything."
>
> "I said, 'Give it a go.' I used to tell him old war stories,
about how I left
> home at 17 and joined the Navy," Lee Peterson said.
>
> "That's the way we were brought up. You take responsibility for
yourself, "
> Susan Caudillo said. "That was Scott's mentality then. He could
have taken the
> free ride, but he didn't."
****Listen, he moved out so he could party a lot, like lots of young
collegians, as is clear by the paragraphs below. Putting a heroic
spin on it is a bit much, tho of course it's understandable Sis
wants to help with the spin.
****And of course they are right.
****First time I've realized they both loved cooking. In my
experience, two cooks in the kitchen can nearly come to blows just
over dinner preparations! Should have deduced they both liked the
kitchen I suppose, from the restaurant history and from the story of
how Scott took charge Xmas Day.
****Hang on. What was she before?
> While Lee and Scott Peterson golfed, Jackie and Laci Peterson
shopped
> together, talking about the baby and picking out the presents they
hoped their
> husbands would buy them for Christmas.
>
> Four days later, Jackie Peterson said, she and Lee went to
Christmas Eve
> services in San Diego. Driving home, they looked at the moon and
talked about
> how things seemed to be going so well for their whole family.
>
> "We said a little prayer of thanks, and we're not even heavy
prayer people,"
> she recalled. "All our kids are healthy, no divorces. I remember
saying how
> lucky we are, how blessed we are."
****No divorces? That made them feel lucky? That wouldn't have
occurred to me to be thankful for, truly. It just would not have
occurred to me. Perhaps because both Lee and she had been divorced,
they were overly concerned with that danger. Wonder how much
pressure they put on their children not to put themselves in
situations where they might wind up divorced? Wonder if they
stressed what a terrible thing divorce would be while Scott was
growing up?
> In their Solana Beach home, there is a recent photograph of Scott
posted amid
> the mosaic of snapshots on the refrigerator door.
>
> He is smiling, handsome, dressed in a suit.
>
> But this photo, unlike the others, was clipped from a newspaper.
It shows
> Scott sitting in court, next to his attorney.
>
> E-mail Kelly St. John at kst...@sfchronicle.com.
>
>
> Maggie
>
> "Objects in your mirror may be closer than they appear." --John
Edwards after
> the WI primary
I feel so awfully sad for his parents. Particularly Lee's affection
comes thru loud and clear in this article, not that Jackie's
doesn't, but the author says she is more reticent to speak, and her
past must haunt her. She had a very hard life. It is very hard to
understand how a man like Scott evolved out of this family. I wish I
didn't believe in his guilt.
OAnnie
Maggie
>I feel so awfully sad for his parents. Particularly Lee's affection
>comes thru loud and clear in this article, not that Jackie's
>doesn't, but the author says she is more reticent to speak, and her
>past must haunt her. She had a very hard life. It is very hard to
>understand how a man like Scott evolved out of this family. I wish I
>didn't believe in his guilt.
>
>OAnnie
***Well, Annie, you and I are apparently the only ones who sympathize with
Scott's parents. It seems to be an article of faith among some that Jackie
Peterson is the devil incarnate and was instrumental in producing a monster of
a son. I think it's a comfort to some people to believe that they couldn't
raise a Scott Peterson.
Maggie < admitting she posted the story in part to humanize poor Jackie--not
that those to whom it's directed will pay attention
Calla
> I think it's a comfort to some people to believe that they couldn't
> raise a Scott Peterson.
>
It is a scary thought that sociopaths are born, not made. Has any
research been done on this?
Maggie
news:<20040307181736...@mb-m19.aol.com>...
>> I think it's a comfort to some people to believe that they couldn't
>> raise a Scott Peterson.
>>
>It is a scary thought that sociopaths are born, not made. Has any
>research been done on this?
***Twin studies appear to support the "born" theory. As you would expect,
however, there's a lot of resistance to that idea. I suspect, like most
things, these tendencies exist on a continuum: Some children will become
sociopaths no matter how they are raised and some children couldn't possibly
become sociopaths no matter how bad their parents are. Most sociopaths
probably become that way due to a combination of nature and nurture. My
personal opinion is that nature is the dominant influence.
Frosty
>
>***Well, Annie, you and I are apparently the only ones who sympathize with
>Scott's parents. It seems to be an article of faith among some that Jackie
>Peterson is the devil incarnate and was instrumental in producing a monster of
>a son. I think it's a comfort to some people to believe that they couldn't
>raise a Scott Peterson.
>
>Maggie < admitting she posted the story in part to humanize poor Jackie--not
>that those to whom it's directed will pay attention
Most people have a limited amount of sympathy to give, and I think most people
have thrown most of theirs Sharon's way. You've expressed more sympathy for
Jackie than Sharon, and you've been more critical of Sharon than Jackie, and
that, to me, is downright wacky.
Time for a new sig, by the way.
Frosty
Karen O'Mara
> ***Twin studies appear to support the "born" theory. As you would expect,
> however, there's a lot of resistance to that idea. I suspect, like most
> things, these tendencies exist on a continuum: Some children will become
> sociopaths no matter how they are raised and some children couldn't possibly
> become sociopaths no matter how bad their parents are. Most sociopaths
> probably become that way due to a combination of nature and nurture. My
> personal opinion is that nature is the dominant influence.
Have you seen the movie, "The Bad Seed?"
Karen
Pigeon Hohl
Frosty <Frosty...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> Most people have a limited amount of sympathy to give, and I think most people
> have thrown most of theirs Sharon's way. You've expressed more sympathy for
> Jackie than Sharon, and you've been more critical of Sharon than Jackie, and
> that, to me, is downright wacky.
It is very interesting to say the least...
Pigeon
Maggie
***Nope. Sounds like I'd like it, though.
Scorpi...@attnospam.net
wrote:
I can imagine it would be tough on any parent to have your child
accused of murder. If that were all this was about she might have the
sympathy you seem to believe she deserves. I dislike Jackie for her
behavior towards the Rocha's after the murder. Where was Jackies
sympathy for Sharon as she was dialing the police?
I'm happy that you posted this article though. I'm much more clear on
the two children Jackie abandoned when she was younger. Perhaps Scott
had the same "disposable child" gene that Jackie does.
--
Like a game of pick up stick played by fucking lunatics
Maggie
>wrote:
>
>>snipping just because the whole thing is so unwieldy:
>>
>>>I feel so awfully sad for his parents. Particularly Lee's affection
>>>comes thru loud and clear in this article, not that Jackie's
>>>doesn't, but the author says she is more reticent to speak, and her
>>>past must haunt her. She had a very hard life. It is very hard to
>>>understand how a man like Scott evolved out of this family. I wish I
>>>didn't believe in his guilt.
>>>
>>>OAnnie
>>
>>***Well, Annie, you and I are apparently the only ones who sympathize
>with
>>Scott's parents. It seems to be an article of faith among some that
>Jackie
>>Peterson is the devil incarnate and was instrumental in producing a
>monster of
>>a son. I think it's a comfort to some people to believe that they
>couldn't
>>raise a Scott Peterson.
>>
>>Maggie < admitting she posted the story in part to humanize poor
>Jackie--not
>>that those to whom it's directed will pay attention
>>
>>
>>Maggie
>>
>I can imagine it would be tough on any parent to have your child
>accused of murder. If that were all this was about she might have the
>sympathy you seem to believe she deserves. I dislike Jackie for her
>behavior towards the Rocha's after the murder. Where was Jackies
>sympathy for Sharon as she was dialing the police?
***I don't know what you're talking about. What did she do to the Rochas
(before they'd done something to her)?
>
>I'm happy that you posted this article though. I'm much more clear on
>the two children Jackie abandoned when she was younger. Perhaps Scott
>had the same "disposable child" gene that Jackie does.
***Well, aren't you the judgemental gal?
This is the first time I've heard of children who had been given up for
adoption spoken of as "abandoned." I thought birth mothers were to be
applauded for offering their children a chance at a better life.
Patty
> >maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC (Maggie) wrote in message
> >> ***Twin studies appear to support the "born" theory. As you would expect,
> >> however, there's a lot of resistance to that idea. I suspect, like most
> >> things, these tendencies exist on a continuum: Some children will become
> >> sociopaths no matter how they are raised and some children couldn't possibly
> >> become sociopaths no matter how bad their parents are. Most sociopaths
> >> probably become that way due to a combination of nature and nurture.
> >My
> >> personal opinion is that nature is the dominant influence.
> >
> >
> >Karen
>
> ***Nope. Sounds like I'd like it, though.
>
> Maggie
Make sure you rent the original movie with Patty McCormack who also
played "sweet" Rhoda ("A basket full of kisses for a basket full of
hugs") in the stage version. The ending for the 1956 movie was
actually changed from the stage version, and would have made a more
satisfying movie but they didn't think the audience would go for it.
tinydancer
<Scorpi...@attNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:f4op40dqouf8tqc91...@4ax.com...
snipped> >
>
> I can imagine it would be tough on any parent to have your child
> accused of murder. If that were all this was about she might have the
> sympathy you seem to believe she deserves. I dislike Jackie for her
> behavior towards the Rocha's after the murder. Where was Jackies
> sympathy for Sharon as she was dialing the police?
>
> I'm happy that you posted this article though. I'm much more clear on
> the two children Jackie abandoned when she was younger. Perhaps Scott
> had the same "disposable child" gene that Jackie does.
You know, that's exactly what struck me as I read this bio too.
td
Scorpi...@attnospam.net
wrote:
Not allowing them in their daughters house to retrieve her things
would be one.
>>
>>I'm happy that you posted this article though. I'm much more clear
on
>>the two children Jackie abandoned when she was younger. Perhaps
Scott
>>had the same "disposable child" gene that Jackie does.
>
>***Well, aren't you the judgemental gal?
I think you have me mistaken for someone else.
>
>This is the first time I've heard of children who had been given up
for
>adoption spoken of as "abandoned." I thought birth mothers were to
be
>applauded for offering their children a chance at a better life.
>
>Maggie
They are, but before they go on populating the earth with more
offspring, maybe they should look up the ones the left for others to
care for.
>
>"Objects in your mirror may be closer than they appear." --John
Edwards after
>the WI primary
--
Patty
> From the SF Chronicle:
>
> A PORTRAIT OF THE ACCUSED
> In a rare interview, the family of Scott Peterson sheds light on the life and
> times of the 'perfect' son
> Kelly St. John, Chronicle Staff Writer
> Sunday, March 7, 2004
>
> The fading photographs in the family albums paint a picture of a childhood that
> was almost stereotypically suburban: full of Cub Scout outings, Little League,
> golf weekends and family fishing trips.
>
here's the photo essay that goes with the story.
Nitamargarita
"Patty" <eartha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0e77308.04030...@posting.google.com...
Man, I'll bet that would have been one cute baby. Too sad.
Nita
Maggie
>>***I don't know what you're talking about. What did she do to the
>Rochas
>>(before they'd done something to her)?
>
>Not allowing them in their daughters house to retrieve her things
>would be one.
***...but that was after the Rochas had accused Scott of murder. I doubt you'd
have let them in either if he were your son. I would have called that one even
until Sharon burglarized the house--then she became the bad guy.
>
>>>
>>>I'm happy that you posted this article though. I'm much more clear
>on
>>>the two children Jackie abandoned when she was younger. Perhaps
>Scott
>>>had the same "disposable child" gene that Jackie does.
>>
>>***Well, aren't you the judgemental gal?
>
>I think you have me mistaken for someone else.
>
>>
>>This is the first time I've heard of children who had been given up
>for
>>adoption spoken of as "abandoned." I thought birth mothers were to
>be
>>applauded for offering their children a chance at a better life.
>>
>>Maggie
>
scorp said:
>They are, but before they go on populating the earth with more
>offspring, maybe they should look up the ones the left for others to
>care for.
>
***Women who have given up children for adoption should go looking for their
adopted children before having more? Who the hell made up *that* rule? (You
do know, don't you, that the demand for children like the ones Jackie Peterson
gave up far, far exceeds the supply?)
Maggie
RJRSJ1
>>They are, but before they go on populating the earth with more
>>offspring, maybe they should look up the ones the left for others to
>>care for.
>>
>***Women who have given up children for adoption should go looking for their
>adopted children before having more? Who the hell made up *that* rule? (You
>do know, don't you, that the demand for children like the ones Jackie
>Peterson
>gave up far, far exceeds the supply?)
If you gave up a child earlier in your life and then later on, decided to
actually have one - you wouldn't want to find the one you previously gave up?
There would be no question about it - I would do it in a heartbeat. I guess
it's a maternal thing.
tinydancer
"RJRSJ1" <rjr...@aol.comzyxqyzx> wrote in message
news:20040308215757...@mb-m28.aol.com...
I might make the mistake one time, of having a child I wasn't prepared to
care for, but I know I wouldn't make that mistake twice. That's just my
opinion. It's sort of on the same scale of having to have an abortion once,
but taking care that it wouldn't happen to me again.
td
>
>
>
RJRSJ1
I meant having a child at a very young age, giving it up for adoption. Then
years down the road, you decide to have one when it's the right time.
tinydancer
"RJRSJ1" <rjr...@aol.comzyxqyzx> wrote in message
I was referring to Jackie Peterson giving birth to and giving up two of her
children prior to scott's birth.
td
Maggie
>>>They are, but before they go on populating the earth with more
>>>offspring, maybe they should look up the ones the left for others to
>>>care for.
>>>
>>***Women who have given up children for adoption should go looking for
>their
>>adopted children before having more? Who the hell made up *that* rule?
> (You
>>do know, don't you, that the demand for children like the ones Jackie
>>Peterson
>>gave up far, far exceeds the supply?)
>
>If you gave up a child earlier in your life and then later on, decided to
>actually have one - you wouldn't want to find the one you previously gave
>up?
>There would be no question about it - I would do it in a heartbeat. I guess
>it's a maternal thing.
***Well, however maternal you think it is, I've never heard of a young woman
searching out the child she had given up for adoption before having more
children. However, I personally know several people who did this *after* they
had their own families. Are you saying these women weren't maternal because
they didn't look for the children they'd given up for adoption before having
other children?
Maggie
>news:20040308215757...@mb-m28.aol.com...
>> >scorp said:
>> >>They are, but before they go on populating the earth with more
>> >>offspring, maybe they should look up the ones the left for others to
>> >>care for.
>> >>
>> >***Women who have given up children for adoption should go looking for
>their
>> >adopted children before having more? Who the hell made up *that* rule?
>(You
>> >do know, don't you, that the demand for children like the ones Jackie
>> >Peterson
>> >gave up far, far exceeds the supply?)
>>
>> If you gave up a child earlier in your life and then later on, decided
>to
>> actually have one - you wouldn't want to find the one you previously gave
>up?
>> There would be no question about it - I would do it in a heartbeat. I
>guess
>> it's a maternal thing.
>
>I might make the mistake one time, of having a child I wasn't prepared to
>care for, but I know I wouldn't make that mistake twice. That's just my
>opinion. It's sort of on the same scale of having to have an abortion once,
>but taking care that it wouldn't happen to me again.
***How would you do that?
tinydancer
"Maggie" <maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC> wrote in message
I'd use proper birth control methods each and every time I had sex. Hell,
it worked just fine in spacing out the children I do have and then not
having anymore afterwards. When ever I stopped using birth control, I got
pregnant the first cycle, so it's not as if I had a problem with fertility.
I'm saying if I did make a mistake once, had an unplanned and unwanted
pregnancy, I sure as hell wouldn't make that same mistake a second time.
Especially if the end result was that I had to give up my child for
adoption.
td
Sarah Monroe
>
>Karen
>
>
>
Saw it. Liked it. That's an old movie unless they have remade it. I think it
starred Patty Duke as the kid. Long time ago, I could be wrong. Too lazy to
look it up.
Gms
"Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as gods. Cats have never
forgotten this.
http://gmspider.com/GGHome.htm
Sarah Monroe
>played "sweet" Rhoda ("A basket full of kisses for a basket full of
>hugs") in the stage version. The ending for the 1956 movie was
>actually changed from the stage version, and would have made a more
>satisfying movie but they didn't think the audience would go for it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Oops, I stand corrected. Looks like another Patty, not Patty Duke.
Sarah Monroe
>>I might make the mistake one time, of having a child I wasn't prepared to
>>care for, but I know I wouldn't make that mistake twice. That's just my
>>opinion. It's sort of on the same scale of having to have an abortion once,
>>but taking care that it wouldn't happen to me again.
>
>***How would you do that?
>
>Maggie
>
One might try not screwing around again until you are married.
Maggie
td said:
>I'd use proper birth control methods each and every time I had sex. Hell,
>it worked just fine in spacing out the children I do have and then not
>having anymore afterwards. When ever I stopped using birth control, I got
>pregnant the first cycle, so it's not as if I had a problem with fertility.
>I'm saying if I did make a mistake once, had an unplanned and unwanted
>pregnancy, I sure as hell wouldn't make that same mistake a second time.
>Especially if the end result was that I had to give up my child for
>adoption.
***I imagine you know that approximately half the pregnancies in the US are
unplanned--birth control methods are notoriously unreliable, particularly so
40+ years ago. I think I'll reserve my indignation for women who have abortion
after abortion. Any woman who carried her unplanned pregnancies through to
term, then gave the babies up for adoption is a hero in my book--she enriched
the lives her her family and the families who adopted her babies. I'm sure we
both realize that the only reason we're talking about this at all is because
it's Jackie Peterson we're discussing and so many are prepared to dig deep to
get in their jabs at her.
Maggie
Maggie
>>>I might make the mistake one time, of having a child I wasn't prepared
>to
>>>care for, but I know I wouldn't make that mistake twice. That's just
>my
>>>opinion. It's sort of on the same scale of having to have an abortion
>once,
>>>but taking care that it wouldn't happen to me again.
>>
>>***How would you do that?
>>
>>Maggie
>>
>One might try not screwing around again until you are married.
***You're right that that's the only sure method to stop those unplanned
pregnancies. But I can't imagine anyone here criticizing any other 60+ (70+?)
woman who had given up two babies for adoption. I applaud her for it.
RJRSJ1
RJRSJ1
I guess I didn't explain it correctly. If I was pregnant with another child or
had already had the child, I would have to find out about the previous child I
had given up for adoption.
RJRSJ1
>>
>>Karen
>>
>>
>>
>
>Saw it. Liked it. That's an old movie unless they have remade it. I think
>it
>starred Patty Duke as the kid. Long time ago, I could be wrong. Too lazy to
>look it up.
Didn't they remake it with MacCauley Culkin as the child?
tinydancer
"Maggie" <maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC> wrote in message
snipped> >> td said:
It's not so much birth control methods are unreliable, it's the people who
use birth control are unreliable. I remember years ago, after the birth of
my last daughter, my OB/GYN responding those words to me when I told him I
wanted a diaphram. He said "you'll get pregnant" and I said "why, doesn't
it work well?" And he said "you won't use it every time, and you must use
it correctly and every time." To which I replied, "I'm not some highschool
girl having sex in the backseat of a car." "I'm a married woman with three
kids, believe me, I will use it EVERYTIME."
particularly so
> 40+ years ago.
I tried probably every birth control method on the market years ago, and
still found if I used 'em properly, per the doctors instructions, they
worked for me. And when I wanted to get pregnant, stopped using what ever
method I was on, I got pregnant right away, so to me anyway, obviously they
were working. Of course there might be an accident now and then for some
people, but for the most part, birth control is fairly reliable, it's the
people who used it that weren't.
td
Scorpi...@attnospam.net
wrote:
The only ones who haven't accused Scott of murder are his parents.
It's to be expected. Sharon NEVER became tha bad guy unless your
sense of fairness and justice are seriously twisted.
It's obviously not a rule, just the way I feel. It's a hard choice
for a person to make and of course it's better to give them up for
adoption then abort (I am pro choice though).
>
>
>Maggie
>
>"Objects in your mirror may be closer than they appear." --John
Edwards after
>the WI primary
--
Scorpi...@attnospam.net
wrote:
Do we really have to do the birds and the bees this late in the game?
Scorpi...@attnospam.net
wrote:
>>>td said:
>>>>I might make the mistake one time, of having a child I wasn't
prepared
>>to
>>>>care for, but I know I wouldn't make that mistake twice. That's
just
>>my
>>>>opinion. It's sort of on the same scale of having to have an
abortion
>>once,
>>>>but taking care that it wouldn't happen to me again.
>>>
>>>***How would you do that?
>>>
>>>Maggie
>>>
>gms said:
>>One might try not screwing around again until you are married.
>
>***You're right that that's the only sure method to stop those
unplanned
>pregnancies. But I can't imagine anyone here criticizing any other
60+ (70+?)
>woman who had given up two babies for adoption. I applaud her for
it.
>
>Maggie
I think you are a little twisted. O.K., 1 child, sure, she made a
mistake, but did the right thing. Now 2 children? No, she's reckless
and irresponsible. Do you know for a fact that they went to good
homes?
Scorpi...@attnospam.net
wrote:
So I know 2 women who did seek out the children they'd govin prior to
having another child. None of this proves anything.
tinydancer
<Scorpi...@attNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:p2vr405053q3llt8b...@4ax.com...
snipped> >
> >***...but that was after the Rochas had accused Scott of murder.
The Rocha's have never accused scott of murder. They have been very careful
to not do that. They've continually said they'd 'let the justice system'
take care of itself. I have never heard them once mention scott's name.
Never. They've always avoided doing just that thing.
I
> doubt you'd
> >have let them in either if he were your son. I would have called
> that one even
> >until Sharon burglarized the house--then she became the bad guy.
>
> The only ones who haven't accused Scott of murder are his parents.
> It's to be expected. Sharon NEVER became tha bad guy unless your
> sense of fairness and justice are seriously twisted.
That's just not true, the Rocha's haven't accused scott of murder. They've
shown much more restraint than I ever could have. Sharon Rocha and Dennis
Rocha have suffered a devastating loss, one that most people never recover
from, yet they've shown nothing but class thoughout this whole ordeal IMHO.
td
Karen O'Mara
> That's just not true, the Rocha's haven't accused scott of murder. They've
> shown much more restraint than I ever could have. Sharon Rocha and Dennis
> Rocha have suffered a devastating loss, one that most people never recover
> from, yet they've shown nothing but class thoughout this whole ordeal IMHO.
Except when they posted where to send money. That was icky.
Karen
Mjkenoyer
I have to agree with Maggie on this one. Believe me, if anyone thinks
Snott is guilty in an as-sin way, I take the cake. I also believe
Darth Jackie (yes, I'm one of the guilty ones who analogizes the Dark
Side with Jackie and Lee) and her husband are a little whacked in
their vocally unequivocal and rather delusional IMO support of their
son, so my feelings toward Jackie aren't miraculously one-eightied as
a result of learning about her childhood hardships.
Granted, learning about her rough younger years adds a more human
dimension to what little I know about her, but IMO it doesn't excuse
her behavior today. I do have to admit that I don't find fault in her
getting pregnant twice and opting to give her babies up for
adoption--in fact, I think it's an admirable trait of anyone to (at
the risk of sounding like a Bible-beating Operation Rescue rallier)
choose life for her children rather than ending their potential lives
in abortion.
I guess just as the saying "Hate the sin but not the sinner" goes, you
can also honor a person's positive choices without overall liking the
person...
tinydancer
"Mjkenoyer" <mandjk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:676b15de.04030...@posting.google.com...
It's not like I'm making references to her giving the children up for
adoption so much as 'having the ability to do that *twice* in such a short
time span.' I wonder at her ability to bond or her natural maternal
instincts? I mean, I don't know that I could give up one child, no matter
what the circumstances. But to think of giving up a second, going through
that hell again? The couple people I know who've given up a child for
adoption, have been profoundly effected by that decision. It wasn't one
they went into lightly, and it wasn't one that they got over easily. I
guess what I'm saying is I'm not surprised by the fact that Jackie was able
to give up a couple kids and then go on to raise a spoiled, selfish kid.
I'm thankful that I've never been in the position where I had to make a
decision on keeping a pregnancy or keeping a child. Never having done it
myself, I can't fathom the idea of doing it twice in a lifetime. Hell, I
didn't want to give the baby back to the nurse in the hospital, once I got
my hands on her. Giving your own baby away two times?
td
Maggie
***It's the most unselfish thing I can ever imagine a woman doing. Anyone else
besides Jackie Peterson would be lauded for it.
Sarah Monroe
>else
>besides Jackie Peterson would be lauded for it.
>
>Maggie
>
>"Objects in your mirror may be closer than they appear." --John Edwards after
>the WI primary
>
>
>
>
>
>
Lauded for having 2 illegitimate children? By whom, pray tell? Besides you,
that is.
Maggie
>>else
>>besides Jackie Peterson would be lauded for it.
>>
>>Maggie
>>
>>"Objects in your mirror may be closer than they appear." --John Edwards
>after
>>the WI primary
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>Lauded for having 2 illegitimate children? By whom, pray tell? Besides
>you,
>that is.
>
>
>
>
>Gms
***...by society for not aborting her babies, by the adoptive parents for
giving them children. I've never even heard of otherwise normal adults
criticizing a young woman for giving up her illegitimate children for adoption.
Are you always so judgmental?
Scorpi...@attnospam.net
OK, I'll give ya that one, but I barely recall what that was all
about.
Glenn and Betsy
"RJRSJ1" <rjr...@aol.comzyxqyzx> wrote in message
1956 starring Patty McCormack. It was a good movie, but a corny ending that
makes my daughter and me laugh every time.
Betsy
Glenn and Betsy
<Scorpi...@attNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:rgvr40l32t4h68dns...@4ax.com...
I agree. She already had children, right? Then she had two more, out of
wedlock. She knew where babies come from. After the first "mistake", you
would think she would wise up. Of course, abortion was illegal then, and
there was no welfare so she had little choice but to give them up for
adoption. And, because abortion was illegal then, I hardly think white
newborns were as much the rarity then as they are now. I have to wonder if
her pregnancies were some sort of "man-trap" that just didn't work out.
As far as "applauds", I save mine for women who keep their knickers on until
they are prepared to properly keep the babies they make.
Betsy
Patty
>
> <Scorpi...@attNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
> news:rgvr40l32t4h68dns...@4ax.com...
> wedlock. She knew where babies come from. After the first "mistake", you
> would think she would wise up. Of course, abortion was illegal then, and
> there was no welfare so she had little choice but to give them up for
> adoption. And, because abortion was illegal then, I hardly think white
> newborns were as much the rarity then as they are now. I have to wonder if
> her pregnancies were some sort of "man-trap" that just didn't work out.
>
> As far as "applauds", I save mine for women who keep their knickers on until
> they are prepared to properly keep the babies they make.
>
> Betsy
Maggie's trolling. Not only did Jackie give up two children for
adoption but she was not married when she had her third child.
Scott Peterson's half-brother John, Jackie Peterson's son from a
previous relationship, was 6 when Scott was born and shared a bedroom
with his younger
sibling in the family's two-bedroom apartment in La Jolla.
Patty
> I agree. She already had children, right? Then she had two more, out of
> wedlock. She knew where babies come from. After the first "mistake", you
> would think she would wise up. Of course, abortion was illegal then, and
> there was no welfare so she had little choice but to give them up for
> adoption. And, because abortion was illegal then, I hardly think white
> newborns were as much the rarity then as they are now. I have to wonder if
> her pregnancies were some sort of "man-trap" that just didn't work out.
>
> As far as "applauds", I save mine for women who keep their knickers on until
> they are prepared to properly keep the babies they make.
>
> Betsy
I meant to add that I agree with the notion that the preganancies may
have been some sort of "man-trap" that didn't work out. Births were
in 1963, 1965, 1968. She did come from a difficult background though,
raised in an orphanage with only weekly visits to see her mother,
sounds like she would be looking for some stability that a family
might bring.
Patty
I think the births were actually 1964, 1965, 1966.
tinydancer
I didn't realize they were that close together. I think even less of darth
jackie's maternal instinct now.
td
Sarah Monroe
>>you,
>>that is.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Gms
>
>***...by society for not aborting her babies, by the adoptive parents for
>giving them children. I've never even heard of otherwise normal adults
>criticizing a young woman for giving up her illegitimate children for
>adoption.
> Are you always so judgmental?
>
>Maggie
>
>"Objects in your mirror may be closer than they appear." --John Edwards after
>the WI primary
>
>
>
>
>
>
Are you always so quick to praise a woman who had 2 illegitimate children? What
if she was on welfare? Would you praise her then for having illegitimate
children. Oh, just have a couple more and give them away, no problem. My
goodness, a real example for teenagers.
Maggie
>I agree. She already had children, right?
***No.
Then she had two more, out of
>wedlock. She knew where babies come from. After the first "mistake", you
>would think she would wise up. Of course, abortion was illegal then, and
>there was no welfare so she had little choice but to give them up for
>adoption. And, because abortion was illegal then, I hardly think white
>newborns were as much the rarity then as they are now.
***I don't know a thing about her circumstances, but abortions were pretty
widely available in big cities in the US in the '60's. Even back then,
adopting couples had to wait years sometimes for babies--remember that foreign
adoptions were pretty much unheard of at that time.
I have to wonder
>if
>her pregnancies were some sort of "man-trap" that just didn't work out.
>
>As far as "applauds", I save mine for women who keep their knickers on until
>they are prepared to properly keep the babies they make.
***Last I heard, about 10% of women were virgins when they married, so very few
of these babies you're talking about would be born to married women. I think
there is nothing noble about women who don't want babies and don't have
husbands keeping children born out of wedlock. I'd much, much, much rather see
a young woman give up a child for adoption than try to raise it alone. I
almost always consider adoption a better choice for the baby than young, single
parenthood.
Maggie
>Maggie's trolling.
***Bite me.
Maggie
>>>you,
>>>that is.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Gms
>>
>>***...by society for not aborting her babies, by the adoptive parents for
>>giving them children. I've never even heard of otherwise normal adults
>>criticizing a young woman for giving up her illegitimate children for
>>adoption.
>> Are you always so judgmental?
>>
>Are you always so quick to praise a woman who had 2 illegitimate children?
***I would certainly never condemn any woman who realized she was unable to
raise a child and decided to give that child an opportunity at life (first) and
an opportunity to be raised by a better parent than she would be (second).
>What
>if she was on welfare? Would you praise her then for having illegitimate
>children.
***If she gave them up for adoption I would, of course, praise her. It's the
responsible thing to do. If she's asking me to pay for them with my taxes, I
wouldn't.
Oh, just have a couple more and give them away, no problem. My
>goodness, a real example for teenagers.
***An excellent example, as a matter of fact. Would that more teens would do
what Jackie Peterson did, rather saddle their 40+ mothers with another 20 years
of child-rearing.
Glenn and Betsy
"Maggie" <maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC> wrote in message
Really truly Maggie? 10% of women were virgins at marriage in *1963*? People
waited years to adopt a baby in *1964*?
Today, yes, but things have changed a lot since then. I do not advocate
abortion, and yes, *I* was a virgin when I married in 1983. It can be done.
I agree with you that all babies should be wanted and all babies have the
right to a mom and a dad. That is why I can say with a straight face, that I
save my applauds for women who take reproduction seriously and *don't get
pregnant* until they are ready. Adoption is the next best choice, but c'mon.
Is Jackie stupid or something? One mistake, ok. Two, I see a pattern.
Betsy
Maggie
>> ***Last I heard, about 10% of women were virgins when they married, so
>very few
>> of these babies you're talking about would be born to married women.
>I
>think
>> there is nothing noble about women who don't want babies and don't have
>> husbands keeping children born out of wedlock. I'd much, much, much
>rather see
>> a young woman give up a child for adoption than try to raise it alone.
> I
>> almost always consider adoption a better choice for the baby than young,
>single
>> parenthood.
Betsy said:
>Really truly Maggie? 10% of women were virgins at marriage in *1963*?
***??? Your last sentence is in the present tense, so of course my reply to it
is in the present tense.
People
>waited years to adopt a baby in *1964*?
***That's my understanding and memory. By 1964, the pill had been around for 4
years and the post WW II baby boom was winding down, but demand for babies was
still strong. Those people who couldn't have their own children adopted--the
demand for children during baby boom years extended to adopted children, as
well, you know.
>Today, yes, but things have changed a lot since then. I do not advocate
>abortion, and yes, *I* was a virgin when I married in 1983. It can be done.
>I agree with you that all babies should be wanted and all babies have the
>right to a mom and a dad. That is why I can say with a straight face, that
>I
>save my applauds for women who take reproduction seriously and *don't get
>pregnant* until they are ready. Adoption is the next best choice, but c'mon.
>Is Jackie stupid or something? One mistake, ok. Two, I see a pattern.
***In general, for this and lots of things (broken dates with friends,
divorces, children's "accidents," money owed that is forgotten, whatever), I
have a rule of three. Anything in the world can happen once and there should
be an automatic pass on the first bad act (I'm not talking about an actual
crime--just something stupid or rude, for the most part). Because of just pure
bad luck, a second, similar event is possible and an otherwise good person
shouldn't be judged for that second lapse. By the third event/lapse/whatever,
I'm ready to start blaming. Now that I hear that Jackie had a third child out
of wedlock, I'm prepared to be a little more disapproving. And I think it's
interesting that she kept the third child --I have no idea what her situation
was then that made it feasible to keep that last one.
She certainly seems to have married well for a woman with so many strikes
against her.
Mjkenoyer
Hrm, you know, I don't think I would have the courage to do something
like that myself--let alone once. I have never been pregnant before
(not yet, anyway, although my hubby and I do plan on it soon), so I
don't know how that would feel to have a life growing inside of me for
9-plus months, alter my body to accommodate this life, give birth to
this life most likely in a painful manner, only to give it up for
adoption and possibly never to see it again.
And to go through all that twice--whew. Re: getting pregnant twice and
giving each of the babies up for adoption, yes, it seems
incomprehensible to imagine someone wanting to go through that twice.
However, if Jackie was really young at the time she got pregnant, she
might have felt like she had no other choice but to atone for her
repeat mistake by giving the 2nd baby up. IIRC, Jackie grew up with a
strict Catholic upbringing (by nuns for part of her life), so she
might have had it drilled into her head that birth control and
abortion weren't options if you chose to have premarital sex, so
adoption was the only "way out".
It's true that enforced values like these probably led to her feeling
guilty later in her life, and it's possible that this guilt fueled her
desire to give into her youngest son's every whim (resulting in him
becoming the spoiled, Snott-y brat we know and love to hate today).
However, I have a hard time believing that this woman is evil simply
because she made a mistake twice and gave her babies to loving homes
twice. This IMO is much more admirable than having unprotected sex and
multiple abortions, which would truly be a lack of responsibility and
disregard for the possible lives inside, IMO...<<ducking from possible
flame-throwers who might misconstrue this last statement as one by
some religious-right whacko>>
OzzieAnnie
"Maggie" <maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC> wrote in message
She had a third child w/out being married and kept him? Is that the
son she brought to her marriage to Lee?
OAnne
OzzieAnnie
"Maggie" <maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC> wrote in message
Well, don't bite me. :)
I didn't know that her third child was also "out of wedlock", but
that doesn't mean much to me really, I mean she kept him and raised
him and *he* didn't turn into a murderer (that we know of). Always
want to have the real scoop whatever it is tho, thx Patty. You have
the best memory, I swear.
OAnnie
Sarah Monroe
>what Jackie Peterson did, rather saddle their 40+ mothers with another 20
>years
>of child-rearing.
>
>
>Maggie
>
>"Objects in your mirror may be closer than they appear." --John Edwards after
>the WI primary
>
>
>
>
>
>
Oh sure. No problem. kiddies, just have unprotected sex all you want, we'll
just give them up for adoption and people will praise you.
Patty
:
: "Maggie" <maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC> wrote in message
:
: Really truly Maggie? 10% of women were virgins at marriage in *1963*? People
: waited years to adopt a baby in *1964*?
: Today, yes, but things have changed a lot since then. I do not advocate
: abortion, and yes, *I* was a virgin when I married in 1983. It can be done.
: I agree with you that all babies should be wanted and all babies have the
: right to a mom and a dad. That is why I can say with a straight face, that I
: save my applauds for women who take reproduction seriously and *don't get
: pregnant* until they are ready. Adoption is the next best choice, but c'mon.
: Is Jackie stupid or something? One mistake, ok. Two, I see a pattern.
:
: Betsy
I realize Maggie was talking about today but here are some facts about then.
One 1963 poll said 75% of women were virgins at that time when they married.
Percentage of children born to unmarried women that year was 6.3%. I don't
know how common abortions were in the early mid 60s in California, it
was legalized around 1967 in the state. And I don't know when AFDC started.
tinydancer
"Patty" <aie...@iuyc.com> wrote in message
news:df2f790ea0ef82b0...@news.teranews.com...
>
snipped>
> I realize Maggie was talking about today but here are some facts about
then.
> One 1963 poll said 75% of women were virgins at that time when they
married.
> Percentage of children born to unmarried women that year was 6.3%. I
don't
> know how common abortions were in the early mid 60s in California, it
> was legalized around 1967 in the state. And I don't know when AFDC
started.
>
>
Well then abortion wasn't an option to darth jackie in 1963 and 1965. She
had no choice but to carry both the pregnancies to term and give the kids
up. Hardly a noble effort on her part.
td
Maggie
***You're not that naive, td. Most estimates I've read say that about a
million women a year got abortions in the decades before they became legal in
the US. Even right to life organizations concede that the number likely
exceeded 100,000 annually. Certainly in California abortions were available
before they became legal--tens of thousands of women there got them every year.
Glenn and Betsy
"Maggie" <maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC> wrote in message
Yes, but a woman raised by nuns in an orphanage? Do you really think Jackie
would have had the knowledge, or nerve, to seek out an illegal procedure
that would have meant eternal damnation?
I am with tiny. It was hardly noble on her part.
Betsy
Sarah Monroe
>that doesn't mean much to me really, I mean she kept him and raised
>him and *he* didn't turn into a murderer (that we know of). Always
>want to have the real scoop whatever it is tho, thx Patty. You have
>the best memory, I swear.
>
>OAnnie
>
>
>
>
The family tree at..
http://www.findlaci2003.us/peterson-tree.html
tinydancer
Of course there were illegal abortions, but I personally don't know of
anyone who had one. I did know someone who went to Sweden to get one. I'm
with Betsy, I wouldn't have known how to go about finding an illegal
abortion back then. I do remember reading about women found bled to death
in raunchy motel rooms though.
td
>
>
Maggie
>>that doesn't mean much to me really, I mean she kept him and raised
>>him and *he* didn't turn into a murderer (that we know of). Always
>>want to have the real scoop whatever it is tho, thx Patty. You have
>>the best memory, I swear.
>>
>>OAnnie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>The family tree at..
>
>http://www.findlaci2003.us/peterson-tree.html
>
>
>
>
>
>Gms
***Thanks. Looks like we've been fed a lot of misinformation (if these dates
are right).
Maggie
***LOL. You guys just don't give up, do you? According to the family tree GMS
just posted, Jackie was 19 when her first child was born and certainly old
enough to be out from under the thumbs of the nuns--she did manage to get
pregnant, didn't she? I think it's silly to claim she wouldn't have been able
to figure out how to get an abortion if she wanted one--hundreds of thousands
of women in her situation did just that. And it doesn't matter for the next
baby, because she was born in 1965 when abortion was legal in California.
Maggie < sick to death of people absolutely determined to hate this poor,
abused, parentless woman, no matter what
Maggie
>baby, because she was born in 1965 when abortion was legal in California.
>
Glenn and Betsy
"Maggie" <maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC> wrote in message
Yes, I do dislike the woman. She called the police Nazis. She greedily told
Sharon she wanted Laci's diamonds--the ones she inherited from her
grandmother. She treated Sharon in an abominable way. I do not find this
woman to be likeable or sympathetic in any way. Sorry.
As far as the abortion thing, remember, she had no family support to speak
of. Who would she ask about where to find an abortion? And to a catholic
girl *barely* out from under the nuns, getting pregnant by a man (I am
guessing here) who told you he loved you and killing that baby are sins of
significantly different magnitude. Besides, I do not have a problem with a
young naive woman having one baby out of wedlock. It is THREE babies I am
having difficulty with! I just have a gut feeling that she is a selfish
schemer who just tossed out the first two kiddies when they were of no
longer any use to her. (My personal theory: "honey, I'm pregnant! Isn't that
good news? We'll get married now, right?")
Usually, Maggie, I agree with your posts. But this view of yours just
confounds me. Please explain to me just what behaviors Jackie has exhibited,
besides support for her son, that makes you like her? Because I just can't
find anything at all.
Betsy
Maggie
***She was an adult. She'd ask her friends, of course. I've never even heard
of any adult asking her *mother* where to get an illegal abortion--have you?
And to a catholic
>girl *barely* out from under the nuns, getting pregnant by a man (I am
>guessing here) who told you he loved you and killing that baby are sins
>of
>significantly different magnitude. Besides, I do not have a problem with
>a
>young naive woman having one baby out of wedlock. It is THREE babies I am
>having difficulty with! I just have a gut feeling that she is a selfish
>schemer who just tossed out the first two kiddies when they were of no
>longer any use to her. (My personal theory: "honey, I'm pregnant! Isn't
>that
>good news? We'll get married now, right?")
>
>Usually, Maggie, I agree with your posts. But this view of yours just
>confounds me. Please explain to me just what behaviors Jackie has exhibited,
>besides support for her son, that makes you like her? Because I just can't
>find anything at all.
>
>Betsy
***I don't like Jackie Peterson or dislike her--she's certainly nothing to me.
But I think she's gotten a very raw deal from many people who I firmly believe
would laud her behavior if, oh, say Sharon Rocha had engaged in it. I can hear
them now defending Sharon's judgment and compassion ("Sharon wouldn't *think*
of having an abortion or selfishly raising the baby herself. She wanted her
children to have two parents. How noble of her.") And I'm absolutely sure
that these same people would be excoriating Jackie if it was discovered that,
like Sharon Rocha, she had never married the man she'd been living with for
years.
Bradley K. Sherman
Maggie <maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC> wrote:
>
>***You're not that naive, td. Most estimates I've read say that about a
>million women a year got abortions in the decades before they became legal in
>the US. Even right to life organizations concede that the number likely
>exceeded 100,000 annually. Certainly in California abortions were available
>before they became legal--tens of thousands of women there got them every year.
>
And they faced social ostracism if found out, and many of them
followed up their trip to the back-alley abortionist with a
trip to the hospital to deal with bleeding or infection.
I don't doubt your numbers (that's why abortion is legal now!),
but electing to have an abortion in the mid-60's was no
walk in the park.
--bks
Glenn and Betsy
Maggie,
It is not the adoptions I dislike, it is *not preventing the pregnancies in
the first place* not one, but THREE times that I think people are wondering
about. Yes, it is good that she did not abort them. Yes, it is good she gave
them to other couples. What you don't understand is my reluctance to laud a
woman who got pregnant THREE times without benefit of marriage during an era
when pretty much everyone believed that kind of behavior to be wrong. Now,
it would be no big deal.
I just think it shows how her brain works. She does what she wants,
regardless of what the rest of society thinks. It just adds to the sort of
behavior we saw exhibited toward Sharon. And you are wrong, wrong, wrong to
think I would approve had Sharon done it.
Betsy
Patty
:
: Yes, but a woman raised by nuns in an orphanage? Do you really think Jackie
: would have had the knowledge, or nerve, to seek out an illegal procedure
: that would have meant eternal damnation?
: I am with tiny. It was hardly noble on her part.
: Betsy
This is going on another tangent. I was talking to this woman who is about
22 or 24 years old, and she told me that she went to Catholic elementary
school and Catholic high school, and did not have one single nun as a
teacher, even for religious studies. She said even lay people teach
catechism. So what happened to the nuns?
Chocolic
They got too mean to teach in this day and age. :*)
Chocolic
OzzieAnnie
"Chocolic" <chatt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:29c4c.5768$H44.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
There are comparatively few young (young being a relative term) nuns
these days, and fewer still who teach h.s. and primary. Perhaps
because of this (or as a result??), many orders either have sold the
schools they founded or have turned them to independent boards of
directors and no longer have day to day involvement in any way. Of
course many Cath schools are run by big parishes that have little to
do with nuns at all.
OA
DedNdogYrs
little choice but to give them up for adoption.>
You must not have been alive in the 60s or havn't done much reading about the
history of welfare. It was Santa Claus time regarding welfare in the 60s. You
could live quite well on welfare as long as you had a child under 18. Not only
was welfare easy to get and lasted the entire childhood of one's children, but
rent was cheap and in Los Angeles County the county hospital privided
everything; glasses, fillings for teeth, any medical care you needed. Adoption,
on the other hand, could mean life in foster homes and orphanages, because
there was a shortage of adoptive parents. If Scott Peterson's mother gave two
children over to the government back then, then she's as much a sociopath as
her son. Now I know where he got his personality and character from. He
inherited it.
Dogs & children first.
RJRSJ1
>22 or 24 years old, and she told me that she went to Catholic elementary
>school and Catholic high school, and did not have one single nun as a
>teacher, even for religious studies. She said even lay people teach
>catechism. So what happened to the nuns?
My stepson attends a private Catholic school and there's a mix of a few nuns
that still teach there, but not many.
tinydancer
"DedNdogYrs" <dednd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040313072206...@mb-m03.aol.com...
That's what I think too. I remember a rather tactless, to say the least,
comment darth jackie made sometime last year about "being busy, having a
'new grandchild' " To me anyway, that must have felt to the Rocha's like
sticking the knife in *and* twisting it. Darth jackie had a new grandchild
to admire while Sharon Rocha's laid at the bottom of the bay.
td
Sherman
You got that all right on the head of the heartless nail!
Sherm.
Maggie
>news:20040313072206...@mb-m03.aol.com...
>> <Of course, abortion was illegal then, and there was no welfare so she
>had
>> little choice but to give them up for adoption.>
>>
>> You must not have been alive in the 60s or havn't done much reading about
>the
>> history of welfare. It was Santa Claus time regarding welfare in the 60s.
>You
>> could live quite well on welfare as long as you had a child under 18.
>Not
>only
>> was welfare easy to get and lasted the entire childhood of one's children,
>but
>> rent was cheap and in Los Angeles County the county hospital privided
>> everything; glasses, fillings for teeth, any medical care you needed.
>Adoption,
>> on the other hand, could mean life in foster homes and orphanages, because
>> there was a shortage of adoptive parents.
***That last sentence is not true at all of white infants. During the post
WWII baby boom, adoptive children were in high demand and there were not many
out of wedlock births of white babies. Healthy ones didn't life in orphanages
or foster homes.
DedNdogYrs
baby boom, adoptive children were in high demand and there were not many
or foster homes.>
Around 1966 and 1967 when I was staying with my aunt near San Francisco, there
were a number of articles in the newspaper there about there being more babies
in the care of adoption agencies than there were couples to adopt them. One
article specifically said "It isn't just minority babies; that could be
anyone's baby there." Also, on a radio interview program in Los Angeles, I
heard a social worker being asked about any differences then than there were 10
or 20 years before. She said "Well, back then there were people waiting to
adopt babies, and now we have babies waiting to be adopted." For a child seeing
this happen to other children, it had a strong effect on me. I thought it was
horrible, and couldn't understand a mother doing that to her baby.
Dogs & children first.
IBegg2Differ
>Make sure you rent the original movie with Patty McCormack who also
>played "sweet" Rhoda ("A basket full of kisses for a basket full of
>hugs") in the stage version. The ending for the 1956 movie was
>actually changed from the stage version, and would have made a more
>satisfying movie but they didn't think the audience would go for it.
This is one of my daughter's all-time favorite movies. Anytime she wants
something from me, she throws her arms around me and says, "I've got the nicest
mother. I've got the prettiest mother. If I gave you a basket full of
kisses..." Blech. This is usually when I scrape her off me like something I
stepped into in the grass. ;)
Cliff and Linda Griffith
news:20040321035157...@mb-m29.aol.com...
I have vivid memories of Patty McCormack, but I can't place her in the
movies in which she appeared. I think she's my age...an "old" woman now.
Kinda like the English girl in "Parent Trap". ("Heather" comes to mind, but
I don't think that's it.)
Linda
tinydancer
Cute kid! <g> Sounds like you did something right, she's got a sense of
humor and a playfullness I admire. ;) Mine have started a new line with
me. If they ask my advice, or if I see something glaring out at me and
offer it myself, they've taken up the habit of saying "you're right mom,
you're right" in a certain tone of voice. Kind of exasperated or perhaps
exhausted. Anyway, we all are in on the little game. Once they do that I
say "okay, that's the last advice you'll get from me.' It started out as a
game with us, but then we're all big 'funners' the way it is, so it's
evolved into kind of a secret code between us now. Sometimes it means "you
are right, I just don't like to have to face that fact right now, and other
times it just means "you're right, your'e right, but I don't feel like doin
it your way. It all depends upon their tone of voice. And I've started
doing it right back at 'em. So it's turned into one of those things that
once somebody says it, we all crack up.
td
IBegg2Differ
>Kinda like the English girl in "Parent Trap". ("Heather" comes to mind, but
>I don't think that's it.)
Haley (sp?) Mills.
Cliff and Linda Griffith
Yep, that's it. I think her sister is Heather..............or something.
Haley Mills was my heroine for a long time. Given 24-48 hours, I might have
come up with her name.
Linda
IBegg2Differ
>Mine have started a new line with
>me. If they ask my advice, or if I see something glaring out at me and
>offer it myself, they've taken up the habit of saying "you're right mom,
>you're right" in a certain tone of voice. Kind of exasperated or perhaps
>exhausted. Anyway, we all are in on the little game. Once they do that I
>say "okay, that's the last advice you'll get from me.' It started out as a
>game with us, but then we're all big 'funners' the way it is, so it's
>evolved into kind of a secret code between us now. Sometimes it means "you
>are right, I just don't like to have to face that fact right now, and other
>times it just means "you're right, your'e right, but I don't feel like doin
>it your way. It all depends upon their tone of voice. And I've started
>doing it right back at 'em. So it's turned into one of those things that
>once somebody says it, we all crack up.
>
My mother and I had a little running-joke remark when I was a teen. She'd sigh
deeply and say, "Nevermind, I'll do it myself." Then, of course, I'd feel
guilty and go do the thing she'd been pestering me about. It reached "joke
level" when she started using it for every little thing, like reaching two feet
across the sofa to get the remote control, and I started sarcastically
replying, "Yeah, we wouldn't want you to have to *do it yourself* or anything."
To this day, now with me in my thirties, the joke still comes up. She calls
me, and the conversation goes something like:
"Can you give your grandmother a ride to the doctor on Tuesday?"
"I dunno. If I say 'no', are you gonna threaten to do it yourself?"
"I might."
"Hmmm...I'm kinda busy Tuesday."
"Nevermind. I'll do it myself."
"Okay, I just needed to hear that. What time should I pick her up?"
Hahahaha. ;)
tinydancer
Yup, that sounds just like what our's is too. We tend to throw the 'you're
right, you're right', out there quite regularly for any number of things.
It's good to have running jokes, 'eh? And now you are carrying the
'tradition' on with your own daughter too! She sounds like a real trip,
that kid of yours! Keep up the good work. I think private jokes go a long
way towards keeping the windows of communication open between you.
td