Courttv.com Message Boards - Why does Amber Frey sound just like Linda Tripp?
Author
Thread
roc1479
Member
Registered: Sep 2004
Location:
Posts: 19
Why does Amber Frey sound just like Linda Tripp?
quote:Originally posted by joeybishop Why does Amber Frey sound just like Linda Tripp?
Listen to this tape:
Tripp: Look, Monica, we already know you're going to lie under oath. We also know that I want out of this big time... If I have to testify, it's going to be the opposite of what you say...
Lewinsky: Well, it doesn't have to be a conflict.
Tripp: What do you mean? Tell me how? What am I supposed to say if they say. "Has Monica ever said to you that she is in love with the President or is having a physical relationship with the President? If I say no, that is f_ _ _ing perjury. That's the bottom line. I will do everything I can not to be in that position. That's what I'm trying to do... I think you really believe that this is very easy, and I should just say f_ _ck it. They can't prove it.
Is the relentless effort to manipulate Monica Lewinsky into disclosing a private sexual relationship, as fierce as what Chandra Levy faced before she was murdered?
You know, I must admit that even I laughed at Sween's post #897, but as time goes by, his theory begins to make more and more sense. It's all about the politics of sex, isn't it?
What's your problem with Amber? Jealouse she is gonna have a #1 selling book in the future? Or could it be that Amber started the walls tumbling down around Peterson? She got the ball rolling, so get over it. Peterson is DONE.
moo
joeybishop
Senior Member
Registered: Oct 2004
Location:
Posts: 141
What's your problem?
Amber is the Starr witness.
bobg00
Senior Member
Registered: Sep 2004
Location: Mile High
Posts: 164
Re: Amber has failed to implicate Scott to murder.
quote:Originally posted by joeybishop I am absolutely convinced that Scott did not murder Laci,
because she was not wearing black and white, when she was
discovered. Scott and Vivian Mitchell could not have possibly
been conspiring, when they said that Laci was wearing black
and white, on the day that she disappeared.
Now put yourself in the mind of a violent criminal who was
trying to get away with murder. If Scott had in fact murdered
while Laci was wearing tan pants, why would he lie about that?
Didn't he know that all the police had to do to expose him,
was to ask him about the missing pants. It makes no sense for
Scott the murderer to lie about what Laci was wearing, if he had
in fact murdered her.
On the other hand, if Laci was alive and well on the 24th, then
Scott had absolutely no idea what Laci was wearing when she was
murdered. and that is what the evidence proves.
To make a long story short, Scott would have correctly identified
Laci's wardrobe if he killed her and it would be the same when Laci
surfaced, because every other option points to somebody other than Scott.
The murderers were evidently not as smart as they thought they were,
when they listened to Nancy Grace's ideas about implicating Scott.
If you are saying the 'murderers' were evidently not as smart as they thought they were - you are absolutely wrong!!
Obviously, they are Geniuses because they have totally got away with Murder!! Scott's on trial, not your 'murderers.'
You just totally contradicted yourself........
And that is the intellect of a NG ladies and gentlemen.....
joeybishop
Senior Member
Registered: Oct 2004
Location:
Posts: 141
No contradiction there.
Scott is still innocent.
roc1479
Member
Registered: Sep 2004
Location:
Posts: 19
Re: No contradiction there.
quote:Originally posted by joeybishop Scott is still innocent.
You are correct. Amber was the star witness. She's gonna be known as the woman who put that SLIME BUCKET away.
Kudos to Amber.
moo
enlightenme
Senior Member
Registered: Jan 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1083
Re: Re: Amber has failed to implicate Scott to murder.
quote:Originally posted by bobg00
If you are saying the 'murderers' were evidently not as smart as they thought they were - you are absolutely wrong!!
Obviously, they are Geniuses because they have totally got away with Murder!! Scott's on trial, not your 'murderers.'
You just totally contradicted yourself........
And that is the intellect of a NG ladies and gentlemen.....
Actually, Joey's logic sounds amazingly similar to the famous detective, David Sween. He seems to have Lewinsky, Tripp, Levy and Martha Moxley all mixed up and swirling in his mind.
Most NG's on this board have way more intelligent arguments and logic than this!
Joey should stay away from the David Sween site. He is getting brainwashed. IMO
Re: Amber has failed to implicate Scott to murder.
quote:Originally posted by joeybishop I am absolutely convinced that Scott did not murder Laci,
because she was not wearing black and white, when she was
discovered. Scott and Vivian Mitchell could not have possibly
been conspiring, when they said that Laci was wearing black
and white, on the day that she disappeared.
Now put yourself in the mind of a violent criminal who was
trying to get away with murder. If Scott had in fact murdered
while Laci was wearing tan pants, why would he lie about that?
Didn't he know that all the police had to do to expose him,
was to ask him about the missing pants. It makes no sense for
Scott the murderer to lie about what Laci was wearing, if he had
in fact murdered her.
On the other hand, if Laci was alive and well on the 24th, then Scott had absolutely no idea what Laci was wearing when she was murdered. and that is what the evidence proves.
To make a long story short, Scott would have correctly identified
Laci's wardrobe if he killed her and it would be the same when Laci surfaced, because every other option points to somebody other than Scott.
The murderers were evidently not as smart as they thought they were, when they listened to Nancy Grace's ideas about implicating Scott.
SP could not describe LP wearing what she wore the night of the 23rd because he would of had a hard time explaining why. SP described LP wearing what she typically wore in the mornings. He did not believe she would ever be found.
joeybishop
Senior Member
Registered: Oct 2004
Location:
Posts: 141
So did he discard the tan pants to cover his tracks?
Re: So did he discard the tan pants to cover his tracks?
quote:Originally posted by joeybishop Is that what you are saying?
Huh?
amandaplease
Member
Registered: Oct 2004
Location:
Posts: 2
What is Amber Frey really all about? Anybody have a clue?
Amber Frey called Fresno police Detective Richard Byrd's home and personal cell phone 25 times, totaling almost 3 1/2 hours, starting Dec. 20, 2002....that's four days before Laci disappeared.
joeybishop
Senior Member
Registered: Oct 2004
Location:
Posts: 147
Sounds Like Dejavu
That is startling. If Richard Byrd is anything like Mark Fuhrman, blowhards like Lucianne Goldberg and Dominick Dunne are seeking to revive their floundering, crime story, publishing careers. No wonder Mark Fuhrman insists that Scott is undoubtedly guilty and Dominick Dunne wants a pre-jury verdict, hanging. These clowns are very sick people. Dominick Dunne is already responsible for the shocking, miscarriage of justice that sent Michael Skakel to prison. I won't mention Martha Moxley, because the censors don't like talking about a Dunne-Deal, but these clowns who turn bad fiction into reality, are very sick people.
There is one more fascinating point whose significance cannot possibly be ignored. Dominick Dunne was chasing false rumors that Gary Condit had hired a motorcycle gang to murder Chandra Levy, and that sounds just like the bizarre claim that Scott Peterson hired neo Nazis to murder Laci. What is the connection here, other than the fact that Dominick Dunne is a 3 time loser? First, he sends an innocent man to prison, then, he is sued by Gary Condit for falsely trying to implicate him in the murder of Chandra Levy and now, he is doing whatever he can think of, publicity-wise, to hang another innocent man. Like I said, these CLOWNS are VERY SICK PEOPLE !
articulett
Senior Member
Registered: Sep 2004
Location:
Posts: 579
Re: What is Amber Frey really all about? Anybody have a clue?
quote:Originally posted by amandaplease Amber Frey called Fresno police Detective Richard Byrd's home and personal cell phone 25 times, totaling almost 3 1/2 hours, starting Dec. 20, 2002....that's four days before Laci disappeared.
Where is your support for this? OMG--you and joeybishop and your lame conspiracy theories. You are unmasked here, darling--this kind of nastiness doesn't fly--go play at the "scottisinnocent" site.
joeybishop
Senior Member
Registered: Oct 2004
Location:
Posts: 147
Just the facts please.
It is really beginning to look like the people who are responsible for trying to implicate Gary Condit, are the very same ones who are trying to implicate Scott Peterson.
MissMarchHare1
Senior Member
Registered: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 1708
she's a single woman who was lonely, trusted where she shouldn't have and did the right thing going to police even though she knew shew was going to be dragged through the mud if she did.
ginaldi
Senior Member
Registered: Aug 2004
Location:
Posts: 627
quote:Originally posted by JustStymied I think she was just a single woman looking to meet a nice man.
She met Scott & fell head over heels for him.
(figurative & literally lol)
She started to have questions about him and utililized a friend to find out info on him.......End of story.
murder case or no murder case, if I had no "baggage" I would have told the law "thanks but no thanks" if they asked me to be involved in this. Who needs it - and forget that "moral and ethical responsibility BS - She was a single mom, trying to work, pay bills, and if she had to find the time and energy to be put through this - they had something they were holding over her. I just think that. Any normal person would have said - love to help ya there but I'm busy. And if she could afford a high-priced lawyer like GA - that makes me think even more she needed her rights looked after for some reason - other than being smeared in the media.
I can't believe Amber Frey came willingly to this point. If she was that ethical a person she wouldn't have dated that first married man, etc.
Also, if you think about it - if she was the prosecution's star witness - why didn't they have one of their own "out there protecting her reputation"? I think they thought they had her by the neck.
cranium4
Senior Member
Registered: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 179
quote:Originally posted by Lurkyloo
I believe most NORMAL people would feel it was their civic duty to try to help find out who committed murder against an innocent woman and her unborn child. And Amber probably felt a bit guilty knowing that she may have (unwittingly) been part of the reason for the murder.
Most struggling young women who have a young child and can barely pay the rent do not put their lives on hold to help the cops nail a guy. Who is paying her bills while she is out playing Dick Tracy?
Women in her financial position use their lack of finances as a reason to get out of jury duty. Now we are to believe they would be willing to play cop for free?
joeybishop
Senior Member
Registered: Oct 2004
Location:
Posts: 204
Judge goes too far, with his bizarre, cement block theories.
The judge went too far when he dismissed a juror who had done nothing wrong, and now that he is giving blowhards the opportunity to promote bizarre, raindance theories, he has crossed the line againg.
I think that he is too useless, to be entrusted with the guiding principles that our legal system demands, to procure justice.
Donald Trump would fire the idiot, and that is whether Scott is convicted or not. The means does not justify the end, and in this case, the beseless zeal to hang scott peterson is extremely repugnant.
if this judge wants to keep trying this case, he should ask the prosecution to produce the anchors in question, or to throw this laughing stock of a case OUT of court.
amandaplease
Member
Registered: Oct 2004
Location:
Posts: 13
Re: what bout that juror?
quote:Originally posted by betinasue i truly would like to know what that juror did wrong, or was accused of doing wrong, seriousy
This report explains everything very, very well:
Juror no. 5, who appeared to interact briefly with Laci Peterson's brother can stay on the Scott Peterson murder trial, the judge decided on Monday, June 21, 2004. It was like a breath of fresh air, coming on the first day of summer, because the judge in fact took the time to question the parties involved and to reach a reasonable and rational decision. After talking to Brent Rocha and to Juror No. 5, Judge Alfred A. Delucchi announced the juror would not be excused, because, in his own words, "The court is of the opinion that there was no misconduct on the part of Mr. Rocha or on the part of the juror." The judge and defense attorney Mark Geragos said that, based on their conversation with Rocha and the juror, media descriptions of the interaction were inaccurate, and it was not necessary to dismiss the juror. Case closed.
But the case was later re-opened, and the intent of the encounter between Brent Rocha and juror no. 5 became crystal clear. The media promoted the false claim that the juror was heard on the tape saying "could lose today", and in retrospect, the intent of this carefully orchestrated, false smear against juror no. 5, is absolutely clear. Both, the judge and Peterson's lawyer had indicated that the interaction was misportrayed by reporters, but the overzealous campaign to suspend common sense, is like the runaway, impeachment train -it is right on track but way off course. Juror no. 5 should not have been dismissed, and it is now the responsibility of the media to set the record straight, because a democracy does not tolerate jury tampering.
This is not a conspiracy theory, it is an absolutely irrefutable fact. The entire case against Scott Peterson has been about following the unreliable leads that irresponsible, overzealous advocates like Nancy Grace plants on shows like Larry King Live, and these ignorant blowhards are too predictable to mistake. The case against Scott Peterson has reached the ultimate stage of perversion -jury tampering, and as long as he spends another unecessary day in prison, the proper and legitimate administaration of justice is further discredited.
This exchange between Larry King and Nancy Grace, on June 15, 2004, is directly responsible for the dismissal of juror no. 5, and anybody who suggests that it does not expose a case of transparent jury tampering in the case against Scott Peterson, is not very serious. Clearly, the facts speak for themselves.
KING: Nancy, do you jury-read?
GRACE: I certainly do. And it's just what we do, what we all do every day in our life. It is instinctual. You don't think it through, you feel it. It's a gut reaction when the hair stands up on the back of your neck. And this juror, for about a minute, had me worried because every time -- it wasn't during the trial...
KING: How do you know, if you weren't there?
GRACE: Because my reporter is there...
KING: Oh.
GRACE: ... every single day and observes the jury. I have two reporters in the courtroom every day. And both of them observed this male juror, not the one with the restraining order, come in the courtroom, and then he sees Peterson -- it's not during the evidence, but it's when they come in and out -- he's, like, Yo. But today, he didn't do that. That has ceased.
Needless to say, Nancy Grace believed that juror no. 5 threatened to undermine the ignorant tactics of irresponsible, overzealous advocates, and on that, you can rely. Juror no. 5 had everybody who was trying to lynch Scott Peterson worried, and he was subsequently ambushed, just like the testimony of Vivian Mitchell was destroyed
Make no mistake about it, Nancy Grace and her cronies targeted and destroyed juror no. 5 with the pinpoint accuracy of a laser. Indeed,on July 15, 2004, a caller on Larry King live noted Nancy's relentless obsession when she said, "My question is directed to Nancy Grace, and Ted Rowlands, in specific, since he's in court every day. Last week on Nancy's show, they mentioned that there's one male juror, and when he comes in every day, he's making eye contact with Scott Peterson, where the other jurors are all averting their eyes." It doesn't take a genius to figure out the fact that Nancy Grace loves the jurors who refuse to make eye contact with Scott Peterson because it will be easier for them to pervert justice if they continue to keep their heads buried in the sand.
This is not the first time the media has manipulated a jury to railroad an innocent man. During the Skakel trial, the media and Dominick Dunne dined within earshot of the jury, every single day during the trial [same restaurant], and the suggestion that Dunne's celebrity did not influence the jury is equally silly. Nevertheless, this time, the effort to railroad Scott peterson will fail because Mark Geragos is not Mickey Sherman, but it would be nice to give an accused the opportunity to rely upon the facts, rather than upon the strengths and weaknesses of hired advocates.
"The prosecution hasn't given us any reason to believe Scott Peterson committed murder," Falconer, the dismissed juror said, and the zeal to prove otherwise is obviously responsible for destroying his capacity to give his voice of reason, an official capacity. Regardless, this transparent case of jury tampering does not change the fact that the prosecution has failed to provide any evidence against Scott Peterson, and that is clearly because Scott Peterson did not murder Laci. At this point in time, Scott Peterson has been under the microscope long enough to remove even the slightest doubt about his guilt or innocence, and the jury has spoken.
Freed to discuss the trial, Falconer, a 28-year-old airport screener said he thought his exchange with Brent Rocha was "all blown out of proportion" by the media and that he would have found Peterson innocent if asked to deliberate the case now. "He'd be innocent because the prosecution hasn't given us any reason to believe otherwise so far," he said. "Yeah he lied about a couple of things that we saw in there but I haven't seen anything to make me believe that he committed this crime." Falconer was removed from the case because he is not an ignorant, self-serving jailhouse snitch or controversial neo-Nazi who thrives on the capacity to promote fabricated stories. Juror no. 5 is as honest and as ordinary as reliable witnesses like Vivian Mitchell, and it is absolutely disgusting to contemplate credible claims that she was reportedly murdered because her testimony cleared Scott, and she would probably still be alive today if she was a prosecution witness like the repugnant Yoga Instructor who was willing to lie about the fact that Laci was able to walk her dog. It is absolutely disgusting to watch truth destbutchered tampered with in this maner and method,and those who responsible for this absolute fiasco, Nancy Grace in particular, should be prosecuted.
It is absolutely clear and obvious that the dismissal of juror No. 5 is merely a matter of crushing opposition to the claim that Scott Peterson is guilty, and that is as illegal as murdering Vivian Mitchell because her testimony, according to Nancy Grace herself, could have cleared Scott Peterson. The murder of Laci and Conner has spawned a cottage industry of criminal conduct, and Scott Peterson is now the ultimate victim.
