Leslie Richardson
Unregistered User
(9/7/03 6:32 pm) Reply
BOGUS CONFESSIONS ARE A DIME A DOZEN.
Who is playing games here?
"In a videotaped account made to defense investigators in August, Tony Bryant said two friends picked up golf clubs in Skakel's yard and discussed attacking a girl, The Courant reported. He said it was clear to him the pair were talking about Moxley, whose death he heard about the following day."
Ken Littleton murdered Martha Moxley. Is this another obsessive campaign to cover for Ken Littleton?
Skakel is absolutely innocent, but Ken Littleton is the murderer. Ken Littleton used a single golf club to bludgeon Martha Moxley to death, not two.
This new revelation is not about Michael Skakel. It's about maintaining the fraud that Ken Littleton is innocent. Nice try !
The people who cover up for murderers like Ken Littleton, will never fail to produce yet another confession, to deflect attention from the real killer.
Ken Littleton claims that Michael confessed --remember?
It's not the crime, it's the cover up, stupid ! ! !
This is an excellent post, because it explains the bogus, neo-Nazi confessions which were supposed to convince the world that Scott Peterson was responsible for the disappearance of his wife Laci. Why is all the evidence which exposes the plot to frame Scott Peterson, ignored?
David Sween
Unregistered User
(9/8/03 1:36 pm) Reply
Glad you didn't fall for it !
Ken Littleton murdered Martha Moxley and if a thousand people confess to the murder, it will not make any difference.
People think that an admission of guilt is the most damaging evidence that can possibly be presented. That is not true.
When the Lindbergh baby was kidnapped in 1932, there were more than 200 false confessions.
What is the purpose of a false confession? A false confession is designed to make all the other aspects of a murder superfluous, and the question that always needs to be considered is what is the purpose of confession evidence? For example, Ken Littleton claims that Michael Skakel confessed to him. What is the purpose of that "confession"? Isn't it obvious? The consequence of a false confession is rather self-explanatory when the the totality of the trickery that Ken Littleton deploys for the sake of getting away with murder, is carefully considered. Indeed, the harder Ken Littleton works, to falsely accuse Michael Skakel, the easier it becomes to understand the claim that Ken Littleton murdered Martha Moxley. The truth is not superfluous. False accusations are.
It is not easy to separate false confessions from authentic confessions, but in the case of Martha Moxley murder, it is not a challenge because the evidence that implicates Ken Littleton is too strong to explain away with a false or unreliable confession.
People do not understand confessions and they need to be warned because it is very easy to pervert justice through false confessions.
Unfortunately, people assume that most confessions are spontaneous and that almost all are truthful. In reality, most confessions are negotiated and 20% are recanted.
Voluntary, false confessions are offered willingly without elicitation and are instigated for publicity purposes. Coerced-compliant false confessions are made even though the suspect knows that he is innocent and they are the specialty of rogue cops who exploit the fact that police interrogation is a stressful experience.
Good investigatores do not rely on confessions. In fact, confessions are meaningless. Ken Littleton is not innocent because he has refused to confess [at least, without a well organized recantation]. Ken Littleton is guilty because anybody who carefully explores all the circumstances surrounding the murder and the cover up which relates to the Martha Moxley homicide, cannot avoid the conclusion.
Ken Littleton now claims that Michael Skakel had told him he had murdered Martha Moxley. Anybody buy that confession? Anybody understand the purpose of this publicity?
Ken Littleton's routine conduct and behavior is better than a confession because he has consistently withdrawn cooperation in a panic and aggressively defied all his interrogators, and his current obsession to claim that Michael Skakel confessed, speaks for itself --more panic.
In my experience, if you are a good investigator, you should expect false confessions in highly publicized cases. This is no surprise.
Ken Littleton's apologists obsessively cover up the opportunity to solve the Martha Moxley murder through false confessions, and it is reasonable to assume that the latest confession is more of the same.
The promotion of a false confession is not proof of Michael Skakel's innocense. It is proof that Mark Fuhrman cannot prove that Michael Skakel is guilty, because Ken Littleton murdered Martha Moxley.
The trickery that surrounds false confessions may very well be Mark Fuhrman's cup of tea [Gregory Coleman was "high on cocaine" during his proxy confession] but it is not mine.
All confessions, and there are many, which relate to the Murder of Martha Moxley are false, unless Ken Littleton decides to tell the truth.
Great "Confessions Post".
Good stuff Sween, it sounds like you smell Mark Fuhrman here. We all know how the police coerce false confessions, don't we?
Maybe all these false confessions about a murderer other than Ken Littleton are merely designed to discredit you. After all, David Sween is the talk of every message board --are they getting worried?
Corrupt cops like Fuhrman clearly understand the value of false confessions like Gregory Coleman's because the research indicates that "confession evidence is inherently prejudicial and that people do not discount it even when it was logically and legally appropriate to do so."
Corrupt police use manipulation and trickery to induce false confessions, and if they are not the source of the zeal to discredit David Sween, then who is?
As for Scott's guilt, that's another big joke. Fortunately, they don't have prejudicial, "confession evidence" to hang him with, but what's the difference.? He is still the victim of a prolonged, illegal detention --the Prosecutor delayed the Prelim because he couldn't find the witness? --what an absolute joke.
This case against Scott is open and shut. The police tried to break Scott, they failed because the guy is innocent and now, they have egg on their face.
This is Police Academy 101 folks.
Sarah88
Unregistered User
(10/25/03 7:42 pm) Reply
The Modesto police and Jim Brazelton...
...JUST WANT SCOTTIE'S BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS AND I HOPE THEY DON'T GET IT!!!
Nancy Grace is a riot.
I saw her on Larry King Live, claiming credit for telling the world that Scott Peterson murdered Laci on December 23rd, because Amy Rocha was supposedly the last person to see Laci in the tan pants, before Scott murdered her. What a joke ! Nancy Grace looked like she was having an orgasm when she described how the infallible, Modesto Police force, followed her cue to the point where they made Laci's sister the circus clown of the follow up search that was supposed to give a puppeteer like Nancy Grace, multiple orgasms.
Nancy Grace must have very deep, psycholoigical problems because she revels in the opportunity to destroy innocent men. She did it with Richard Albert Ricci, and now, she thinks that she can do it with Scott Peterson. If she wants to have yet another orgasm in this case, she is going to have to find a man. She should give Scott Peterson a try, he's done an excellent job, so far.
Sarah88
Unregistered User
(11/14/03 1:44 pm) Reply
JESUS CHRIST, BOY, YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD...
Quote:...Nancy Grace looked like she was having an orgasum...
I was just thinking the other night when I watched that, "GEEZ, LITTLE NANCY REALLY 'GETS OFF' ON THIS STUFF, DOESN'T SHE?!"
Hey, Little Sarah !
The murder of Laci Peterson has never been investigated. Enjoy Grace's multiple orgasms, but if you want to give the real murderers a run for their money, promote the truth. I think this website is a great refresher course that is vital to the need to bring Laci's murderers to justice.
It's the only thing that can possible make Scott Peterson feel better -Grace's simulated orgasms do not turn him on.
Sarah88
Unregistered User
(11/14/03 7:54 pm) Reply
Hey, Steve! How are you?
You called me "little Sarah"... That's cute! Actually, it's true, too - I AM really little!
Well, I agree with you - I checked out the url and it's pretty good, you know. Thank you!
And Nancy Grace can go on her personal attacks against Mr. Peterson all she wants, Steve - SHE CAN'T CHANGE OUR MINDS!! Please check out my thread "Amber Frey is a weirdo and a kook, by Sarah88, age 15". Tell me what you think and if this woman is as big of a creep now to you as she was to me after I wrote that and allowed myself to take it in.
Hey, Steve - here's a pic of Nancy without makeup on:
Ok, you're talking about her having multiple oragums as she heads the Anti-Scott movement and I'm sitting here egging it on now... But you gotta admit we're pretty good, right?
Ok, bye Steve. Post again, dude. Keep supporting Scott, remember!
Looks like there are too many underemployed prosecutors with time on their hands. Why don't they hunt down real perverts and murderers and leave Scott and Michael alone?
Sarah88
Unregistered User
(11/18/03 1:43 pm) Reply
RENE, ME LIKES...
YOU, my friend, are so cool.
I agree with everything you say and I'm glad you were able to form your own opinion about things... Not get sucked into the press and what it says and all that.
Keep it up, girly! You're pretty cool!
SUPPORT MJ RIGHT NOW, TOO, ESPECIALLY... He needs fan support now more than ever - it is my fear that he will commit suicide. WE CANNOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN!! Not only for our sake but for his babies' sakes! He has three children - 6-year-old Prince, 5-year-old Paris, and 1-year-old Blanket - who all need to be thought of right now, as well. SO SUPPORT MJ...
Thanks for posting, Rene!
woodjadoit
Unregistered User
(11/19/03 10:12 am) Reply
it just occured to me
Both Peterson's and Jackson's names end in "son". How that for coincidence?
Sarah88
Unregistered User
(11/19/03 10:17 am) Reply
WOODY...
Stop.
This is NOT a time for sarcasum - I need your COMFORT.
Re: and both are being framed
686 Date: 2004-02-11 12:02:50
David Sween ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
The death of Vivian Mitchell is as eerie as locating the headless corpse of Laci Peterson and Scott's "pristine condition" son, to implicate an innocent man.
Vivian Mitchell was a key witness because, like Scott Peterson, she told the police that Laci was wearing black pants and a white top on Christmas Eve. If Scott was the murderer, the last thing he would do is lie about the clothes that Laci wore, when he killed her.
When you dig beneath the surface, the entire case against Scott Peterson has been about using the intelligence that only the murderers would know, to implicate Scott Peterson. As long as Vivian Mitchell was alive, she was in a position to clearly and convincingly expose the preposterous, prosecution suggestion that Scott Peterson is the murderer because he lied about what Laci was wearing, on the day she disappeared. Clearly, Scott Peterson did not tell Vivian Mitchell what to tell the police and that is what you call pure evidence. When Laci walked Mackenzie, on Christmas Eve, and I use the fact that Laci's own dog confirms the suggestion, to prove the point, she wore black pants and a white top, and this simple fact was widely reported in the media. Did anybody issue an "all points bulletin" to locate a missing woman in tan pants? Vivian Mitchell would have died laughing if that had happened.
Scott Peterson had no idea what Laci wore when she magically surfaced because he did not shoot his beautiful wife in the head. My ignorant critics say that if I am so smart, why don't I find Laci's head? The answer is simple. I am not responsible for the murder of Laci Peterson and I am not the one who is exploiting the knowledge that only the murderers would know. I merely point out the fact that Laci was probably dismembered before being dumped, probably to cover up the cause of death. All the preposterous, "magic head" theories that pundits routinely manufacture are so disgusting, that I have a panic attack, every time I hear a moron advance his so called, investigative skills, to suit the "revelations" that are published in the National Enquirer.
The people who are responsible for the murder of Laci Peterson are experts at exploiting their "intelligence" and the ignorance of all the pundits, but in the final analysis, they are directly responsible for proving that Scott Peterson is absolutely innocent. We are talking about innocent beyond the shadow of any doubt, because there is no greater difference between a "slam dunk" and this transparent scam which seeks to create the false appearance that Scott Peterson is guilty. There is no greater difference between Scott Peterson and the people who kidnapped his wife, on December 24, 2003. Vivian Mitchell may be dead, but her observations are as relevant as ever.
685 Date: 2004-02-10 23:36:57
CASE CLOSED ( no email / message.alturl.com) wrote:
684 Date: 2004-02-10 23:27:38
Pam Clark ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
I know this sounds gross, but I was reading another board which suggested that Laci was buried in a shallow grave and then dumped, to implicate Scott Peterson and the argument makes a lot of sense because the evidence indicates that Laci was probably dismembered prior to going into the water.
Isn't that why her head is missing? I am not one to believe preposterous theories -the head is not there...period, and that strongly suggests that the head is probably still in the shallow grave the body was initially dumped in. If that was not the case, the head would have turned up by now.
Like the rest of you, I also think that Vivian Mitchell and Laci's dog are currently the most reliable witnesses to the fact that Laci was alive and well, on December 24, 2002.
683 Date: 2004-02-10 12:21:19
To accuse Scott, you need... ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
--A hysterical police force that refuses to return the calls of intelligent, reliable eye witnesses like Vivian Mitchell
--A hysterical DA's Office that repeatedly leaks to the National Enquirer to demonize Scott
--A gullible public that tolerates this excessive abuse
--Hysterical, neo-Nazi eye witnesses who replace independent witnesses like Vivian Mitchell because they claim that Scott Peterson is guilty
--Hysterical demagogues like Nancy Grace, who falsely claim that eye witnesses like Vivian Mitchell coached Scott Peterson's dog, to create an alibi
--The bizarre, disgusting list goes on and on.
All you need to conclusively prove that Scott Peterson was absolutely shocked when his wife was kidnapped on Christmas Eve is the ability to view the evidence without distorting it
--it's called, simple, common sense.
682 Date: 2004-02-09 18:12:52
Richard Reed ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
Mrs Mitchell was not alone. At least two other residents of the neighborhood where Laci Peterson lived also claim they saw her walking her dog between 9:45 and 10:30 a.m. on the day she vanished. These witnesses are extremely reliable and only a fool would challenge them because Laci Peterson's own dog confirmed their onservations. I agree with everybody who considers Vivian Mitchel's testimony to be conclusive.
681 Date: 2004-02-09 17:33:27
Lisa Kent ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
Bill Mitchell defends the credibility of his wife. "I really think they had a theory, and facts that don't fit the theory sometimes don't impress others,'' Bill Mitchell, 84, said in a telephone interview from his Modesto home. "We're both long in years, but she was a good observer, and she was positive up to last Sunday when she could still talk."
Vivian Mitchell's account would have corroborated Scott Peterson's account of what happened Christmas Eve morning. Geragos has suggested that Laci Peterson was abducted by two men while walking her dog in a nearby park.
Bill Mitchell said that although he and his wife met several times with Geragos and his legal team, no formal deposition was ever taken. Without it, her account would be considered hearsay and would never make it to Peterson's trial.
Robert Talbott, a law professor at the University of San Francisco, says Vivian Mitchell's testimony could have been damning for the prosecution's case, which appears to be overwhelmingly circumstantial so far.
"If the jury would have found her credible, it would have meant big problems for the prosecution," Talbott said. "It would have thrown their whole timeline off."
God Bless Vivian Mitchell, she was a very credible witness to the fact that Laci Peterson was kidnapped.
680 Date: 2004-02-08 02:08:10
Jordan McQueen ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
Vivian Mitchell was not an old fogey. It's too bad she is being treated like one -guess they have to do it now, to justify her death.
679 Date: 2004-02-08 01:46:35
This was posted, March 2, 2003 ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
Has it been pointed out that the Bill and Vivian Mitchell live next to the same river bed park system as the Peterson's? I'm very curious if these three parks have a trail meandering throughout?
Mrs. Mitchell said she thought Laci was heading for Kewin Park. Kewin Park is also a part of the very same river bed park system as the La Loma Park next to the Petersons. Apparently these parks adjoin...Kewin being to the SW of La Loma.
Could Laci have been either entering (or exiting)the park in the area of the Mitchell home?
Of course the MPD doesn't want the Mitchell's statement. Their entire focus since day ONE evaporates along with their *93* sacks of "evidence" in the event that the sighting of Laci after 10 a.m. that morning is verified.
===========================
Take a peek: Very interesting. recall the Peterson address is: 523 Covena Avenue, Modesto
William and Vivian Mitchell 231 Buena Vista Drive, Modesto
The Mitchells house has the star. The Peterson house is located at the upper right of the map (click on the arrow on the upper right side) The streets that follow the southern perimeter of this park run directly from the Peterson's to the Mitchell's. (The Peterson's resident is just around the corner from Edgebrook Dr., on Covena.)
No wonder the Modesto resident in this group who appears as a MPD mouthpiece wants to discount and disparage the Mitchell's as senile old fogey's. ..and the MPD doesn't want to hear anything about it.
It's obvious when you look at the map.
***You're right. The map certainly makes it look like the Mitchell house would be right along a likely dog walking route from the Peterson's. Interesting.
678 Date: 2004-02-07 15:08:23
Brian Walt ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
If the DA's Office uses emotional nutcases like Nancy Grace to discredit Vivian Mitchell, it raises serious suspicions.
Who else did they use?
I think it is very serious when a witness who proves that a defendant is innocent, is found dead. It's like the death of reason -to be replaced by the insanity that Nancy Grace promotes.
677 Date: 2004-02-06 22:55:54
James McDonnell ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
If four pregnant women were walking their dogs, Vivian Mitchell saw Laci Peterson because the other dogs were not reported missing.
The Modesto police and Jim Brazelton... 
JESUS CHRIST, BOY, YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD...
it just occured to me
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies