Have you read "Framed" in the LA Times

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read that yesterday! Holy crap it's crazy! Who would do that!? She's so lucky she is white.

Fixed.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, too. A white middle class person gets the benefit of the doubt.

Have you read the story? Both parties are white. One (the criminal) is much richer than the other. It has nothing to do with race.

+1.

There's obviously some racist die-hards still around us

I don't know. Both parties are white but do you really think that if this had happened at an inner city LA school and the PTA volunteer was black and poor that the cop would have been looking for reasons to exonerate? I think that is PP's point. The woman being an older frail white woman living in Irvine is the primary reason the cop thought twice about it.

And I'm a white woman FWIW.

You may not know, but white women can be crazy too. Like the one who committed the crime depicted in the article. Or, apparently, like you.

Read the article and you'll see that...
1) The initial suspect fully cooperated with the police
2) She had zero, as in zero, previous felonies or crimes
3) Nothing in her house, exhaustively searched, supported the drug possession
4) The drug find was in itself very unusual
5) There were obvious red flags with the 911 call
6) Everyone in the school, who had been working with her for years, testified on her behalf

I am sure that, in the same circumstances 1 to 6, anyone black and poor would have been treated the same way.

Please, Stop the Racist BS.

x 1000

PP who keep bringing up race and trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. It is just speculation.

If this had happened between two black families or even one black victim in wealthy Newport Beach, you don't think the police would have taken it seriously?

Listen I posted one time without a remotely aggressive tone and the next pp calls me a crazy white woman and seems to imply I don't think white women can be crazy. Me thinks the ladies here doth protest too much.

The cops, the author and the DA all in the story made the exact same speculation that we're making. That Kelli was fortunate to be a white woman in an exceptionally safe low crime town; that, in and of itself, gave her credibility that a poor black woman in a rough neighborhood wouldn't be afforded. I'm not saying this case is about race, it isn't, but the way the case played out DOES provide an example of what white privilege means. As it is pointed out later in the story, the majority of officers, after ruling out Kelli Peters, at first couldn't believe that it was the wealthy white couple and instead thought it was the mentally challenged Asian man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read that yesterday! Holy crap it's crazy! Who would do that!? She's so lucky she is white.

Fixed.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, too. A white middle class person gets the benefit of the doubt.

Have you read the story? Both parties are white. One (the criminal) is much richer than the other. It has nothing to do with race.

+1.

There's obviously some racist die-hards still around us

I don't know. Both parties are white but do you really think that if this had happened at an inner city LA school and the PTA volunteer was black and poor that the cop would have been looking for reasons to exonerate? I think that is PP's point. The woman being an older frail white woman living in Irvine is the primary reason the cop thought twice about it.

And I'm a white woman FWIW.

You may not know, but white women can be crazy too. Like the one who committed the crime depicted in the article. Or, apparently, like you.

Read the article and you'll see that...
1) The initial suspect fully cooperated with the police
2) She had zero, as in zero, previous felonies or crimes
3) Nothing in her house, exhaustively searched, supported the drug possession
4) The drug find was in itself very unusual
5) There were obvious red flags with the 911 call
6) Everyone in the school, who had been working with her for years, testified on her behalf

I am sure that, in the same circumstances 1 to 6, anyone black and poor would have been treated the same way.

Please, Stop the Racist BS.

x 1000

PP who keep bringing up race and trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. It is just speculation.

If this had happened between two black families or even one black victim in wealthy Newport Beach, you don't think the police would have taken it seriously?

Listen I posted one time without a remotely aggressive tone and the next pp calls me a crazy white woman and seems to imply I don't think white women can be crazy. Me thinks the ladies here doth protest too much.

The cops, the author and the DA all in the story made the exact same speculation that we're making. That Kelli was fortunate to be a white woman in an exceptionally safe low crime town; that, in and of itself, gave her credibility that a poor black woman in a rough neighborhood wouldn't be afforded. I'm not saying this case is about race, it isn't, but the way the case played out DOES provide an example of what white privilege means. As it is pointed out later in the story, the majority of officers, after ruling out Kelli Peters, at first couldn't believe that it was the wealthy white couple and instead thought it was the mentally challenged Asian man.

We get it. Stop derailing the thread.

[Anonymous]

I'm so fascinated by this level of crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read that yesterday! Holy crap it's crazy! Who would do that!? She's so lucky she is white.

Fixed.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, too. A white middle class person gets the benefit of the doubt.

Have you read the story? Both parties are white. One (the criminal) is much richer than the other. It has nothing to do with race.

+1.

There's obviously some racist die-hards still around us

I don't know. Both parties are white but do you really think that if this had happened at an inner city LA school and the PTA volunteer was black and poor that the cop would have been looking for reasons to exonerate? I think that is PP's point. The woman being an older frail white woman living in Irvine is the primary reason the cop thought twice about it.

And I'm a white woman FWIW.

You may not know, but white women can be crazy too. Like the one who committed the crime depicted in the article. Or, apparently, like you.

Read the article and you'll see that...
1) The initial suspect fully cooperated with the police
2) She had zero, as in zero, previous felonies or crimes
3) Nothing in her house, exhaustively searched, supported the drug possession
4) The drug find was in itself very unusual
5) There were obvious red flags with the 911 call
6) Everyone in the school, who had been working with her for years, testified on her behalf

I am sure that, in the same circumstances 1 to 6, anyone black and poor would have been treated the same way.

Please, Stop the Racist BS.

x 1000

PP who keep bringing up race and trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. It is just speculation.

If this had happened between two black families or even one black victim in wealthy Newport Beach, you don't think the police would have taken it seriously?

Listen I posted one time without a remotely aggressive tone and the next pp calls me a crazy white woman and seems to imply I don't think white women can be crazy. Me thinks the ladies here doth protest too much.

The cops, the author and the DA all in the story made the exact same speculation that we're making. That Kelli was fortunate to be a white woman in an exceptionally safe low crime town; that, in and of itself, gave her credibility that a poor black woman in a rough neighborhood wouldn't be afforded. I'm not saying this case is about race, it isn't, but the way the case played out DOES provide an example of what white privilege means. As it is pointed out later in the story, the majority of officers, after ruling out Kelli Peters, at first couldn't believe that it was the wealthy white couple and instead thought it was the mentally challenged Asian man.

And it took them like 10 milliseconds to realize that the mentally challenged Asian man (who many people had previously denounced for harassment) was not involved, and to immediately move on to the wealthy and white couple.

WTF is "white privilege" other than in your racist imagination?

[Anonymous]

And it took them like 10 milliseconds to realize that the mentally challenged Asian man (who many people had previously denounced for harassment) was not involved, and to immediately move on to the wealthy and white couple.

WTF is "white privilege" other than in your racist imagination?

Actually, they were quite sure it was him until they saw the hotel video that had Easter in it. I don't know if it was 10 milleseconds since they did have to trace a phone call and scour security videos to make the connection. They did, however, make the connection so big points for the police.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm so fascinated by this level of crazy.

Which one? The PP who insists on something about race, or Jill?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm so fascinated by this level of crazy.

Which one? The PP who insists on something about race, or Jill?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And it took them like 10 milliseconds to realize that the mentally challenged Asian man (who many people had previously denounced for harassment) was not involved, and to immediately move on to the wealthy and white couple.

WTF is "white privilege" other than in your racist imagination?

Actually, they were quite sure it was him until they saw the hotel video that had Easter in it. I don't know if it was 10 milleseconds since they did have to trace a phone call and scour security videos to make the connection. They did, however, make the connection so big points for the police.

Not true. They considered that to be the most likely scenario, which makes perfect sense given available evidence. They tested the hypothesis, proved it wrong, and move on to the next likely scenario.

You race-obsessed folks should truly take a class on Thinking 101.

[Anonymous]

The best part of this whole story is that justice prevailed. So often people of privilege get away with crap like this because they hire superstar attorneys etc. But I think these people were just so unlikable and so monstrously messed up with no remorse that the police, the DA and even the judges went the extra mile to convict them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And it took them like 10 milliseconds to realize that the mentally challenged Asian man (who many people had previously denounced for harassment) was not involved, and to immediately move on to the wealthy and white couple.

WTF is "white privilege" other than in your racist imagination?

Actually, they were quite sure it was him until they saw the hotel video that had Easter in it. I don't know if it was 10 milleseconds since they did have to trace a phone call and scour security videos to make the connection. They did, however, make the connection so big points for the police.

Not true. They considered that to be the most likely scenario, which makes perfect sense given available evidence. They tested the hypothesis, proved it wrong, and move on to the next likely scenario.

You race-obsessed folks should truly take a class on Thinking 101.

She told police there was another possibility — a 43-year-old dad who lived across the street from the school and had a reputation for bizarre behavior.

Police knew him well. They had responded to complaints about him wandering onto campus without permission, ranting at school staff, heckling the crossing guard, and videotaping the crosswalk as kids moved through it. At least once, he showed up in a Batman costume, masked and caped, to pick up his son.

He made parents nervous; Peters had felt sorry for him. But now she recalled how he’d wanted her PTA job, how he’d even asked her for copies of the bylaws. Maybe he had studied them, and knew that drug possession would disqualify her from her position.

Cops have an informal phrase for such people, who do not quite meet the requirements of a 51-50, the code for an involuntary psychiatric hold. They are 51-49½, vexing but hard to do anything about.

At the Irvine Police Department, some cops thought, “It has to be him.” He seemed a likelier culprit than two lawyers they had never heard of.

You have absolutely no idea how long they spent on that. That man isn't the focus of the expose. So all you are using to support your hypothesis that they moved on in '10 milliseconds' is that the narrative of this article quickly moved to the more juicy story. Don't act like you have any insight into the actual timelines of the police investigation.

[Anonymous]

WOW - Peters is a lucky woman!!!!! (white helps, definitely)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The best part of this whole story is that justice prevailed. So often people of privilege get away with crap like this because they hire superstar attorneys etc. But I think these people were just so unlikable and so monstrously messed up with no remorse that the police, the DA and even the judges went the extra mile to convict them.

Yep.

Think of OJ Simpson, that racist and sexist bastard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WOW - Peters is a lucky woman!!!!! (white helps, definitely)

I don't think lucky is the right decriptor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank goodness that cop knew something wasn't right and kept talking to her instead of just dragging her off in cuffs and letting that be that. I think it's incredibly telling that the school stuck by the PTA volunteer not only through the first interaction when the boy was locked out but also through the legal mess that ensued. Shows either they knew these parents were nutso, they knew the PTA woman was innocent, or (more likely) a big combo of both.

+1

Glad people knew/know the truth! Without going into too much detail, there is a ton of precedence on this type of thing. I think everyone knows one (or two) unhinged PTA mom/s who doesn't know how to keep things in perspective, IRL. Not at all surprised that Jill Easter underestimated Kelli (and everyone involved - that is how delusional Jill was/is) - clearly that was/is Jill's greatest downfall. Love it when the bad guy loses - or moreso, when the good guy wins.

This was fascinating reading, OP. I had heard bits and pieces of this story, but didn't have a sense of all the details.

Yep, all I kept thinking when I read this article was that I can name a couple of moms at my kids' school that I could imagine doing this. There are some people out there that just really like a fight and somehow, when they couch it in terms of their kids, they can convince themselves that they are just being good mothers and therefore the fighting is justified. I think Jill was mad at the suggestion that her kid was "slow" (i.e., unintelligent). It seems clear in the circumstances that Kelli was suggesting that the kid was "slow" in that he moved slowly. It seems that perceived slight on her child's intelligence set Jill off given her inflated view of her own intelligence and she just lashed out from there. In her mind, I'm sure it was all justified as "standing up for her child." I'm sure you all know some moms like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank goodness that cop knew something wasn't right and kept talking to her instead of just dragging her off in cuffs and letting that be that. I think it's incredibly telling that the school stuck by the PTA volunteer not only through the first interaction when the boy was locked out but also through the legal mess that ensued. Shows either they knew these parents were nutso, they knew the PTA woman was innocent, or (more likely) a big combo of both.

+1

Glad people knew/know the truth! Without going into too much detail, there is a ton of precedence on this type of thing. I think everyone knows one (or two) unhinged PTA mom/s who doesn't know how to keep things in perspective, IRL. Not at all surprised that Jill Easter underestimated Kelli (and everyone involved - that is how delusional Jill was/is) - clearly that was/is Jill's greatest downfall. Love it when the bad guy loses - or moreso, when the good guy wins.

This was fascinating reading, OP. I had heard bits and pieces of this story, but didn't have a sense of all the details.

Yep, all I kept thinking when I read this article was that I can name a couple of moms at my kids' school that I could imagine doing this. There are some people out there that just really like a fight and somehow, when they couch it in terms of their kids, they can convince themselves that they are just being good mothers and therefore the fighting is justified. I think Jill was mad at the suggestion that her kid was "slow" (i.e., unintelligent). It seems clear in the circumstances that Kelli was suggesting that the kid was "slow" in that he moved slowly. It seems that perceived slight on her child's intelligence set Jill off given her inflated view of her own intelligence and she just lashed out from there. In her mind, I'm sure it was all justified as "standing up for her child." I'm sure you all know some moms like this.

+1

PREACH!

Inflated is right. LOL.