Reply to Scott Peterson Netflix Documentary

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Scott Peterson Netflix Documentary "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Amber also had her own kid and Scott accepted that. So, according to the guilters, Scott wanted to leave Laci and not become a father and leave her for Amber, a single mom? He wanted to be a stepfather instead?[/quote]

I don’t think Scott actually wanted to be with Amber. I think he just realized as the baby’s due date approached that he was going to lose his freedom to have affairs and do as he pleases.[/quote]

She seemed like an easy lay.  A lonely single mom looking for a husband and provider and Scott came along to love bomb her. He had his traveling salesman story to keep her on the hook but never made her any real promises about a future. He was using her.[/quote]

According to the state, they embarrassingly used Scott’s own lies to Amber about wanting to be with her forever (lies he obviously just said to get in her pants) and used that as the key state evidence of Scott’s guilt.

That isn’t really evidence though of anything. Scott love bombed all his affair partners, many declined to have anything to do with the case after the defense badgered them to come forward.

The prosecution’s case was Scott was madly in love with Amber and would do anything to be  with her including kill Laci and that couldn’t be further from the truth and it’s actually disrespectful to Laci.

A guy like Scott loved Lacis hero worship. He married her for a reason and he wasn’t looking to get rid of Lack for Amber despite his claims to Amber about his wife being “gone”. That’s just what Cheaters  say. Do you think he’d get in Ambers pants if he called her what she really was to him? An easy lay.  [/quote]

So you acknowledge Scott is a lying liar. Why should we believe anything he says? But also there are many recorded phone calls of him telling Amber they would be wonderful together. Scott probably didn’t mean it, but he said it. He was a man who clearly didn’t want to be married with a kid. You’re acting like this is open to debate when it has already been determined. Scott’s legal challenges haven’t really gone anywhere. They asked for multiple items to be DNA tested, he was granted only one.[/quote]

Amber had a kid. After knowing him less than 2 weeks, she asked Scott to pick her 3 year daughter up from preschool.

If he hated kids, why would he want to play stepdad to her kid and why did he agree to pick the kid up from pre-K multiple times?

There’s zero evidence Scott didn’t want to be a dad. He and Laci were married since 1997, and decided to wait till they bought a home and were financially stable to have kids. That’s not unusual that he didn’t want kids earlier in the marriage before he had money. Scott didn’t ask Laci for abortion or to get on birth control and he helped decorate Connors nursery with fishing  decor. Laci said that was his touch and he was so happy he was having a son.

[/quote]

Picking a kid up from school once to get in her mom’s pants is not the same as supporting a kid with child support for the rest of their life. It’s amusing you’re trying to equate the two as if husbands don’t kill their wives and children all the time because they think they will get way with it. And don’t want the financial fall out and entanglement from divorce. He just wanted to make them disappear, problem solved.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics