He was convicted of murdering a man because he didn't cry at his mother's funeral. (Did some master's thesis work on Satre and Camus,)
The fact that I do think Peterson was guilty doesn't change the fact that I can see the parallel here in the thought process. Dana On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 09:55:27 -0600, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Camus' Stranger? > > Read it in high school, remember liking it a lot (i'm a fan of > existentialism)....but I don't remember much else about the book. I do > remember the lead character being rather apathetic at the death of a family > member...his Dad I think. > > Does it have some relevance to the Peterson trial ya think??? > > > > wow, has anyone read The Stranger? > > > > Actually, I think he is guilty and it was the taped conversations with > > Amber that did it for me. He told her he had "lost" his wife while > > Laci was still unsuspectingly getting ready for Christmas. All well > > and good and married men *have* been known to lie to their > > girlfriends. Except that a few days later, he *does* "lose" Laci. > > Also, the stuff about not wanting his own children although he was > > very willing to play and be with Amber's little girl is pretty > > damning. He was adamant about it on those tapes. I think the > > difference between Amber's little girl and Laci's little boy was that > > he would have owed child support for Conor. That's a pretty sleazy > > motive for murder. > > > > However, I find it pretty amazing that the physical evidence amounts > > to one hair. Either he's a very careful bastard, or they screwed up. > > > > Dana > > > > > > > > On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:20:24 -0500, Bill Wheatley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >> WOW then you get this. > >> > >> http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/14/peterson.case/index.html > >> > >> Jurors who decided that Scott Peterson deserves to die say his lack of > >> emotion played a large role in their decision. > >> Maybe he was sitting stone faced because standing up and screaming i > >> didnt do it wouldn't help him any? heh > >> > >> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:53:45 -0400, Angel Stewart > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > And Vice Versa. > >> > > >> > Hmm..that's strange though don't you think? > >> > A case with this much media coverage, > >> > and we don't really know WHAT they convicted him on do we? > >> > > >> > -Gel > >> > > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: G > >> > > >> > And you didn't see 1% of what the jury saw. > >> > > >> > Your vindication of him is based on media reports, while their > >> > indicment of him is based on arduous deliberation of the facts. I > >> > simply don't see how you can be so sure that you are right, and they > >> > are wrong. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:139788 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
