If Scott Peterson had murdered Laci, he would have been arrested by now
WRTV News, March 16, 2003
On December 27, 2002, the authorities essentially determined that Scott Peterson had murdered his wife. They did not call Scott Peterson a murder suspect but members of the Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department were searching for a dead body and when officers served a warrant to search Laci's home, they cordoned off the Peterson house with crime-scene tape and actions speak louder than words.
"That's our plan -- as leads come in, they are developed and we will follow them."
One of those leads was to have Bruce Peterson -- the former Modesto resident who sold Scott Peterson his fishing boat weeks before Laci disappeared -- come in to look at the craft earlier this month.
"It's another piece of the
puzzle," Savelli said.
The Modesto investigator also said his team watches the
local and national media reports of Laci's disappearance
with special interest.
"We are learning a lot of information from watching the
media," he said. "In a sense that we want to hear from
those shows what other experts feel about what they are
hearing. It's important to us to get all opinions (on
the case)."
On March 4, 2003, the zeal to cement the case against
Scott Peterson was crystallized through the bold
headline, SAN DIEGO DETECTIVE AIDS IN LACI PETERSON
CASE.
The media stressed the fact that Bill Garcia, a Private
Investigator from San Diego, found an unusual patch of
cement without any guidance from the police. Is this a
joke? Who is developing the pattern of "discovery" here?
The suggestion that cement powder in Scott's boat, a
chunk of cement and a waterway is the key to solving the
disappearance of Laci Peterson is a preposterous
fiction. Clearly, the follow-up publicity that Scott's
boat has received reflects absolutely nothing beyond the
obsession to shift the focus away from persistent media
reports that the police had inappropriately ignored Laci
sightings. The police had Scott's boat in their custody
for at least 60 days before they conveniently made it a
focus of scrutiny and the current obsession to portray
the impression that Scott Peterson used his boat to bury
his wife in cement is grotesque fiction, it is not the
evidence that a competent investigation has exposed.
In essence, when the police make Scott Peterson's boat
the focus of their investigation, they promote the
foolish claim that Scott Peterson used his boat to dumb
Laci's body. The problem is, when you publicize unproven
allegations, you create the opportunity to corrupt the
process, and Private Investigators like Bill Garcia are
more than willing to oblige.
The patch of cement Mr. Garcia found was deemed to be
significant because it was in Stanislaus County, it was
near water, and it was allegedly the only unusual patch
of concrete in 20 to 30 miles that Mr. Garcia had
searched. Who put it there? Moreover, the patch of
concrete allegedly had a tire mark going through it, and
that is clearly the sort of mark that would implicate
Scott Peterson, given all the "follow-up" attention that
all the evidence is receiving.
Ridenour said police did not ask Garcia to get involved
in the case but they have talked with him about his
findings.
Bill Garcia thinks that he can find evidence of Laci's
disappearance by looking into what he calls the most
"probable areas". Needless to say, as far as the Modesto
Police Department is concerned, the most probable area
is linked to Scott Peterson's boat.
One of Garcia's volunteers is responsible for locating
Danielle van Dam's body, after the little girl was
kidnapped, and Bill Garcia is the ideal celebrity P.I.
to use for the purpose creating the impression that he
is absolutely independent and that his choice of the
"probable area" to locate Laci is a genuine,
contamination-free process.
On March 5, 2003, the very day that the Modesto Bee
published the story that Bill Garcia spotted a chunk of
cement by a waterway near Modesto, the police claimed
that Laci Peterson, the Modesto woman missing since
Christmas Eve, was a homicide victim.
Police spokesman Doug Ridenour would not elaborate on
why or when the missing-person case became a homicide
investigation.
He would not comment on a police visit to the path along
the Delta-Mendota Canal where Bill Garcia said he found
some spilled concrete mix.
Bill Garcia said the mix appeared to be marked with the
track of a trailer tire.
Ridenour said police did not ask Garcia to get involved
in the case, but have talked with him about his
findings.
Those who do not understand the method and the manner
that the National Enquirer uses to develop evidence,
should appreciate the fact that the conjecture and the
speculation that Bill Garcia and the police have
encouraged is more than enough to hang an innocent man
on.
The "cement residue" or dust in the boat is merely
suggestive but the missing launch wheels are positively
incriminating. These wheels are used to allow the boater
to park near the water, pull the boat off the trailer
and push or pull it to the water's edge and launch it.
No need for a ramp, you can launch in any area you drive
fairly close to and have a clear enough path to pull the
boat.
In other words, Scott Peterson, the devious murderer,
drove to a remote area, no one around and used those
wheels to launch the boat and dispose of Laci. No launch
ramp, no witnesses.
Is that why the claim that the wheels are missing is
reported after the follow-up search of Scott's boat?
Are Garcia and the police trying to suggest that Scott
Peterson poured cement right there at the site he rolled
the boat to, dumped out the leftover cement there on the
ground by the water's edge and rolled through it with
the launch wheels, either as he launched the boat or
pulled it back out of the water to the boat trailer? Did
he later notice the cement residue on the launch wheels
and got rid of them both, but didn't realize he left a
patch behind?
That appears to be the speculation that the police and
Garcia are encouraging, but that sounds like a desperate
follow-up, it doesn't sound like a competent,
comprehensive, objective investigation.
If competent investigators had reviewed Scott's boat,
they would have removed the wheels from the boat before
taking their official pictures and they would have
bagged them to preserve trace evidence and send them on
for testing. Perhaps, the people who are in charge of
this investigation did not find any evidence, and they
think that these suggestive, follow-up searches will
provide the opportunity to claim that Scott Peterson
murdered his own wife. After all, there has to be a
logical explanation for the fact that the wheels on
Scott's boat are missing.
On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, the Modesto Police
Department held a strange news conference to anounce the
claim;
"This investigation began as a missing person case and
we were all hopeful that Laci would return safely.
However, we have come to consider that this is now a
homicide case."
Craig Grogan, the department's lead homicide
investigator said the homicide reclassification prompted
a new $50,000 reward for "information that leads to her
location and recovery." A $500,000 reward previously
offered for tips leading to the woman's safe return also
remains available.
People who discuss issues on message boards provide an
instant reaction, and the following post reflects the
confusion that this awkward press conference produced:
I find this very confusing also. "Brutal Homicide" did they actually say that? Your question makes sense... [Why was it called a brutal homicide?] If they found a large amount of blood or something. Why in heavens name would they use that wording ..especially if the Rocha's were right there? Somethings mighty peculiar ..why these choice of words? What made it a homicide ...time? This was a weird conference... Asking the two donners if it was okay to give 50 K of the money to the finding of the body... (?) Unsettling...messy in some way...not neatly thought out. Like suddenly they decided to have a conference?"
After further thought, this
confused poster inquired, "Why not a "KIDNAP" victim.
What makes it a 'homicide'?"
Another poster said; "500K for her safe return 50K for
just her return. I wish someone would just bring Laci
home."
The website at lacipeterson.com changed its header for
the HOME page, from "$500,00 reward for safe return" to
"$50,000 REWARD FOR INFORMATION LEADING DIRECTLY TO THE
RECOVERY OF LACI'S REMAINS."
Ted Rowlands quoted the Modesto Bee: "The Modesto Bee
reported on Wednesday that investigators were going to
return to the Mendota Canal area -- a region already
searched by police and an army of volunteers -- to
follow up on a report by a private investigator that he
found cement residue near the shoreline." According to
Rowlands, the MPD Press Conference is to update the
investigation and make changes to the reward and the
police are following up leads from private investigator
Bill Garcia of San Diego, who reported finding spilled
concrete and tire tracks near the Delta-Mendota canal.
Rowlands claimed the change in the wording of the reward
is believed to be to accommodate an arrest in the case.
The previous reward had been offered simply for
information leading to her safe return.
Garcia made what he characterized as an unusual
discovery right next to the Delta Mendota Canal at a
specific location he did not wish publicly disclosed
[What's the big secret?] but which he said he had
reported to Modesto police on Monday, March 3rd. It was
an irregularly-shaped cement mix spill that was about
three feet wide at its widest and perhaps three to four
feet across. He guessed it to be no more than a few
inches thick at its thickest point. He said it looked to
him like someone had parked a vehicle next to the canal
and was then handling or removing from it some cement
mix that was then accidentally spilled. He said he could
not be certain if the mix was in dry powder form when it
spilled and was then subsequently rained upon and then
hardened, or if it was already mixed with water and was
spilled in that form. But in either case, there was a
distinct tire track through it that looked to him like
that of a smaller tire such as what might be found on a
boat or some other kind of trailer. Garcia admitted he
had no way of determining it with any degree of
certainty, but it looked to him like the concrete patch
had not been there very long -- perhaps two or three
months, at the most. Needless to say, if it had been
there any longer than that, Garcia would not be able to
say that Scott Peterson used the cement to bury Laci
Peterson.
“It was interesting because it was the only patch of
cement we saw in about 20, 30 miles stretch. And there
was a tire track through it,” said Garcia.
Detective Doug Ridenour, spokesman for the Modesto
Police Department, said he could not comment about any
aspect of the investigation. He said he became aware
that Bill Garcia was in the area through calls from
reporters.
Bill Garcia has reportedly been involved in several
high-profile missing persons cases in the past few
years.
In January, Garcia found Philip Salcedo Jr., an armored
car driver accused of stealing $3 million from his
company and fleeing to Mexico. Did he find the money as
well?
On March 5, 2003, the Modesto Bee reported the
following:
Garcia said he has spoken to the families of Scott and Laci Peterson but neither has hired him. Instead, he's in the area to see if he can make a dent in the case."We are here because we are just nosy people," Garcia said.
Of course, he added, he's also a businessman. If his investigation does help solve the missing case, he said he would be interested in some type of compensation.
"We are here for the long haul," Garcia said. "But it will all be based on our finances and how quickly we can cover these areas."
Garcia is clearly a hired gun.
He is not an investigator. The claim that a private
investigator from San Diego discovered a chunk of cement
that might help police in their search for missing
Modesto woman, Laci Peterson, is a hoax and a farce, but
it made the papers.
The focus on "Private Investigators" like Garcia and on
Scott's boat is a deliberate and ultimately obscene
rejection of some very sound advice offered to police,
by Jonna M. Spilbor, a frequent guest commentator on
Court-TV and other television news networks, where she
has covered many of the nation's high-profile criminal
trials. A graduate of Thomas Jefferson School of Law,
Jonna has also served in the San Diego City Attorney's
Office, Criminal Division, and the Office of the United
States Attorney in the Drug Task Force and Appellate
units, and she is clearly not an easy person to
discredit. In her own words, Jonna said:
Just last week, Modesto police were criticized for ignoring a call from what could turn out to be a critical witness. A neighbor living ten blocks from the Peterson home, called police within a week of Laci Peterson's disappearance to report seeing her the very morning she went missing - a full forty-five minutes after Scott Peterson left to go fishing.Police have yet to speak to the witness, claiming they haven't had time to return the more than 8,000 phone tips they've received on the case. They have had time, mind you, to keep a close eye on Scott Peterson despite his continued protestations of innocence.
Maybe the most important piece of evidence the police have overlooked is the family dog Laci was walking when she disappeared. Although Laci never returned home from that walk, the dog did. Which means the pooch didn't get too far before his owner went missing. My advice to the Modesto police? Stop looking in the ponds, puddles and potholes, and start knocking on the neighbors' doors.
The police are rejecting
intelligent people like Jonna Spilbor and are relying on
quacks like Bill Garcia, and his associate, Wayne, who
prefers not to be photographed because of his undercover
work. These so called. "independent" fools are seeking
to implicate Scott in Laci's murder because, according
to the press release that Garcia issued to reporters,
"It is our belief that Mrs. Rocha-Peterson did not leave
of her own accord and was the victim of abduction. At
this time our firm believes that Mr. Scott Peterson has
not been forthright with the Rocha family or authorities
and may be involved in his wife's disappearance."
Laci has indeed been abducted, an undercover operation
is trying to create the false impression that Scott
Peterson murdered his wife and the only mystery here is
the following question: Who is using Garcia for the sake
of covering up the truth about the disappearance of Laci
Peterson?
A quack like Bill Garcia cannot be taken seriously when
it comes to exposing the truth about the disappearance
of Laci Peterson because he is not a competent
investigator. John Philpin exposed the the prerequisite
of a competent investigator when he said, "a thorough
and effective investigation does not begin with
suspects, nor does it begin with theories of motive or
motivation. Initially, the best investigators focus on
the evidence." John Philpin, one of the first
independent criminal profilers in the United States, is
a retired forensic psychologist with an international
reputation as an expert on violent behavior, he is not a
quack like Bill Garcia.
There is a very high demand for quacks like Bill Garcia
because the relentless obsession to arrest Scott
Peterson is absolutely fierce. On March 3, 2003, KTVU's
Ted Rowlands reported that sources close to the case
have told him, "it's not a matter of if, but 'when' an
arrest will come in the more than two-month-long
investigation. Ted Rowlands and his secret sources are
constantly deferring the date of Scott Peterson's
arrest.
Rowlands was also told that a reported sighting by
neighbor Vivian Mitchell was taken seriously when first
reported early in the investigation, but that the report
has been ruled out.
Apparently, there were two other pregnant women walking
their dogs in the same vicinity that morning and police
believe Mitchell saw one of them.
Vivian and Bill Mitchell told The Bee they saw Laci
Peterson at about 10 a.m. or 10:15 a.m. on Dec. 24,
wearing white and black clothes and walking with a
golden retriever.
"I had seen Laci walk by the house several times
before," said Vivian Mitchell. "When she walked by on
Christmas Eve, I hollered to Bill, Oh look, it's the
lady with the golden retriever."
Bill Mitchell, who served three terms on the Modesto
City Council, said he saw them go around the corner as
he went to the window.
"It looked like the dog wanted to go one way, and she
was going another," he told The Bee. Vivian Mitchell
said she reported the sighting to Modesto Police about a
week after Laci Peterson disappeared, but never heard
back.
The Mitchell sighting was dismissed because police claim
that Mrs. Mitchell saw another pregnant woman walking
her dog and not Laci Peterson. But If you read the
Modesto Bee link from 12/30/02, it says that officials
located people who saw Laci in the Park at 10:00 a.m.
and it is reasonable to assume that these sightings
enabled the authorities to provide a description of what
Laci was wearing when she disappeared. The most
disturbing fact about a possible kidnapping was provided
by a police officer who interviewing people along the
park's Peggy Mensinger Trail and reported that he spoke
with a woman who said she heard screams on Christmas Eve
at about 10:15 a.m. [modbee.com, December 27, 2002] Did
the police ask the other two pregnant women who were
allegedly walking their dogs at the same time as Laci
was, whether they heard anybody scream or did they
consider the possibility that one of the ways to make a
potential kidnap victim like Laci vanish without a trace
was to drive her to Longview, Washington, or to some
other location where nobody was looking for Laci? The
initial excuse for failing to investigate Mrs.
Mitchell's claim was that Police did not have time to
return the more than 8,000 phone tips they've received
on the case.
The effort to dismiss Laci sightings is exceedingly
fickle. Candace DeLong, a former profiler for the FBI,
said she doubted the report that Laci was spotted in
Longview Washington.
"Either this clerk is confused or it didn't happen at
all," Delong said. "First of all, she said the woman
gave her a check and said just fill in the amount.
According to police reports, Laci Peterson's purse and
checkbook were left at the house. There may have been a
pregnant woman who said I'm being abducted, but I don't
think it was Laci Peterson." [KTVU.COM, January 31,
2003]
You can detect the extreme obsession to discredit a
valid report when a sighting is attributed to another
pregnant woman.
If it was another pregnant woman, as Candace DeLong
suggests, we would have heard about it by now, and this
nauseating pattern of dismissing every Laci sighting by
claiming that it was another pregnant woman is
disgusting. In the final analysis, Candace DeLong's
obsession to claim that a pregnant woman's appeal for
help was bogus, is absolutely irresponsible, and Laci
Peterson paid the ultimate price for this extreme
negligence.
Candace DeLong does not dispute the fact that a pregnant
woman told the clerk, in Longview Washington that she
had been abducted, because the Laci sighting in
Longview, Washington, was not a bogus claim.
The clerk was far too detailed and specific, to grant a
quack like Candace DeLong the opportunity to obstruct
justice.
The clerk told police that a pregnant woman came into
the Market Place and said: "This is serious. I was
kidnapped. Call the authorities when I leave."
After the man stepped out of line to get something he
forgot, the clerk remarked to the woman that she should
be wearing a coat on such a chilly day. The woman told
the clerk she didn't have time to take a coat because
she was kidnapped. She also told the clerk that the man
had a weapon.
When the man returned, he asked what the two talked
about while he was gone, the police report says. "She
said you kidnapped her," the clerk said. The clerk said
the statement seemed to make the man angry, and she
teasingly added that her husband always kidnapped her to
take her to dinner. The man relaxed and laughed.
"Yeah, I guess I kidnapped her," she recalled him
saying.
The failure or reluctance to produce a surveillance tape
to backup the clerk's story is used to discredit Laci
sightings, but another, independent woman confirmed the
clerk's story. Longview Police Chief Bob Burgreen said
that he would reinterview the two women, and needless to
say, if there was any reason to believe that both women
were mistaken, Candace Delong would have brought it to
everybody's attention.
Despite the refusal to acknowledge Laci sightings,
Laci's dog made it back to the Peterson house by 10:30
am. on the day that Laci was kidnapped, and that had
absolutely nothing to do with any other pregnant women,
despite the nonsense that Candace DeLong promotes.
Surveillance tapes can be erased or destroyed but
contemporaneous press reports cannot possibly vanish
without a trace."Neighbors have told police they saw
Laci -- dressed in a white shirt and black pants --
walking her dog in the park around 10 a.m. Karen Servas,
a neighbor, said she spotted the Petersons' golden
retriever about 10:30 a.m. The dog was wearing its
leash, which was muddy. Servas said she returned the dog
to its yard, not realizing there might be something
amiss." The police cannot even discredit Scott Peterson,
let alone, all the neighbors who clearly understand the
fact that Christmas eve is too special to confuse with
any other day of the year, and if the neighbors say they
saw Laci on Christmas eve, it is certainly a very
credible claim.
Candace DeLong is a 20 year veteran of the FBI and it is
not appropriate for this former Special Agent to inist
that Scott Peterson murdered his own wife and to thereby
destroy the opportunity to investigate credible
sightings of Laci Peterson. Clearly, the only thing that
has denied the opportunity to conduct a complete and
thorough investigation is the fraudulent claim that
Scott Peterson murdered his own wife, and that is not
acceptable. The FBI may think it can avoid
accountability in this matter because Candace DeLong is
a former agent, but it can't. There is no excuse for the
obstruction of justice that Candace DeLong has engaged
and she should be held accountable.
Candace DeLong has successfully brainwashed Laci's
mother to the point where she parrots her suspicions,
but competent investigators assess credibility, they do
not manupulate grieving families. The testimony of
witnesses like the Mitchells appears to be spontaneous
and unrehearsed, but the claims of witnesses like Amber
Frey and her father Ron, are bizarre and mysterious.
Scott Peterson claims he had an inappropriate sexual
relationship with Amber Frey and apologizes for the
grief he has caused. The Freys never fail to send mixed
signals that raise more questions than provide answers.
On the one hand, Amber's dad, Ron Frey suggests that he
shuns publicity because he refuses to sell a photograph
of Scott Peterson and his daughter [according to Ted
Rowlands, the National Enquirer offered the Freys more
than $100,000 for the photograph.] On the other hand,
Ron Frey sits down with Ted Rowlands and publicizes a
complete description of the picture he refuses to sell.
Most normal people would simply sell the picture of
Scott Peterson and Amber Frey. Who would rather sit down
with a reliable, "police spin" ally like Ted Rowlands
and publicize a precise description of a photograph
allegedly in his possession? Needless to say, if Ron
Frey thinks that it is more important to feed Ted
Rowlands of KTVU than it is to make a hundred thousand
dollars, there is something very peculiar about his
values. It has been reported that KTVU, the San
Francisco Bay area's Fox affiliate does absolutely
nothing beyond dutifully report police spin, and that
has evidently turned Ted Rowlands into absolutely
nothing beyond a mouthpiece of the relentless zeal to
create the impression that Scott Peterson murdered his
wife. Under the circumstances, selling a story to the
National Enquirer is far more honorable than pretending
that Ted Rowlands reports the news.
Incidentally, the police also used photographs to divide
the Rochas and the Petersons. Is there some reason why
the rest of us are being denied the opportunity to see
these photographs? One would think that if they were
really that incriminating, they would have been posted
on KTVU's website, next to the link of the National
Enquirer report about the claim that Scott Peterson
murdered Laci on December 23, 2002, even though the
neighbors saw Laci walking her dog, the very next day.
The truth about the relationship between Amber Frey and
Scott Peterson is extremely obscure. Did Amber Frey
really have to call the Police to tell them that she had
a "romantic relationship" with Scott? According to the
well publicized account, "one month after a pregnant
Modesto woman vanished, a tearful 28-year-old woman
stepped forward to admit that she had carried on an
affair with the missing woman's husband." According to
Scott Peterson, he told the police that he was having an
affair on December 24, 2002. Who is telling the truth?
Is it unreasonable to believe that on December 24, 2002,
Scott Peterson, who was in a state of panic over the
disappearance of his wife, told the police about his
affair because he was too preoccupied with the obsession
to find Laci, to worry about what the police thought?
After all, Scott Peterson repeatedly made claims like "I
don't care what you think about me as long as Laci
remains the focus" and it appears to be in character for
Scott Peterson to have told somebody about the affair,
not because he was proud of it, but because he did not
care about what anybody thought about him personally.
Scott Peterson is indeed very credible because he has
always been consistent. The Freys have revised their
allegations. Frey, it was initially reported, notified
Modesto police of the affair when she discovered Scott
Peterson was Laci Peterson's husband. Amber, it was
repeatedly reported, had thought that Scott Peterson was
single. Now, we are supposed to believe that Amber knew
that Scott was married, but he had told her that his
wife was dead. Now isn't that a bizarre revision?
On March 11, 2003, KTVU, promoted the claim that Ron
Frey said that Scott Peterson lured Amber Frey into an
affair by saying he had "lost" his wife the previous
year.
Ron Frey said the last few months had been devastating
for his daughter. He said among the disturbing things
Scott had told Amber while he was courting her was that
he had been married but had "lost" his wife in 2001. "He
had implied that he had lost her a year ago," Frey said.
"He didn't say how he had lost her or what it was (she
died of) ... She (Amber) took that to mean she had
passed away."
This desperate, carefully worded effort to create the
false impression that Scott Peterson murdered his own
wife is fascinating. It almost makes the "cement in the
boat" theory sound credible.
Scott Peterson is a perfect gentleman with a common
flaw. The obsession to create the impression that he
murdered his own wife is a a grotesque joke and the fact
that Ted Rowlands and KTVU routinely promote police spin
raises serious questions about the level of corruption
which surrounds the plot to cover up the truth about
Laci Peterson's disappearance.
Amber Frey's father certainly changed his tune since he
said that his daughter thought that Scott Peterson was
single. "He not only fooled her, but he fooled the
nation for a month," Why is Ron Frey acting like Scott
Peterson is President Bill Clinton, a man who lied about
sex and provoked a national crisis? Scott Peterson is a
perfect gentleman with a common flaw, he is not the
President of the United States.
There is no room for suggesting that the Freys are not
deliberate liars. On January 26, 2003, Ron Frey, who was
quoted in the Fresno Bee was very specific. "She
really thought he was a truly fine person," Frey said.
"She had no clue in the world that he was married. She
was proud to be with him." Clearly, if Frey did not know
that Scott was married, she cannot credibly claim that
he told her that he was a widower.
The investigation into the disappearance of Laci
Peterson has been an absolute fiasco. Incompetence
reflects benign negligence or it can reflect malignant
corruption when it is too extreme and too deliberate, to
casually dismiss. To be brief, a fishing expedition is
not necessarily corrupt, but the conspiratorial parallel
of a predictable fishing expedition is the "mastermind"
criminal who stages a suicide, to cover up a murder.
No need to waste any more time documenting the extreme
incompetence that is responsible for the exclusive focus
on Scott Peterson. Suffice it to say that it is time to
clear Laci's husband because the well publicized myth
that Scott Peterson is still a free man because he has
not cooperated with the police is astoundingly ignorant.
First and foremost, Scott Peterson has fully cooperate
with the police because he has told them everything he
knows about the disappearance of Laci Peterson, and even
Laci's neighbors confirm the fact that Scott Peterson is
telling the truth. More importantly, if the police rely
upon the cooperation of an alleged, mastermind criminal
like Scott Peterson to solve a murder, they are too
hopelessly incompetent to take seriously.
To be fair to the police, they are facing a monumental
challenge because it is very difficult to determine a
conceivable motivation to account for the disappearance
of Laci Peterson. The following message board post
reflects the range of speculation:
The modus operandi of the people who murdered Chandra Levy and the people who are responsible for the disappearance of Laci Peterson is exactly the same. In both cases, the women vanished without a trace and in both cases, innocent men were aggressively vilified, not because they were guilty of murder but because they were victims of an unwarranted, intrusive investigation into their private sex lives. In both cases, the women were not victims of robbery, but victims of being abducted without wallet or purse. In other words, they were victims of professional murderers.
Needless to say, the breadth of
the human imagination is boundless, but if somebody like
Dominick Dunne can use his celebrity status in a fickle
effort to prove that Gary Condit murdered Chandra Levy,
why can't somebody like Ted Rowlands pin the
disappearance of Laci Peterson on Scott? -isn't that the
logical follow-up, different targets, same scam?
It is not possible to officially link one murder to
another until at least one of them is solved, and that
is not even remotely plausible as long as the wrong
people are targeted. When the media portrays Scott
Peterson as a man who is guilty of murdering his wife,
the fix is in, even before the crime is investigated. An
allegation is nothing more and nothing less than a
fickle guess, until all options and all possibilities
are carefully scrutinized.