Talk:Laci Peterson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Merge with Scott Peterson
90% of this article is about the investigation and Scott Peterson's trial. Most of it should be merged into Scott Peterson and reconciled with the existing material there to maintain consistency. However, this article should be maintained as a separate entry, but with a very terse summary after the day of her disappearance. --Tysto 17:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- What is strictly about Laci Peterson should not be merged with Scott Peterson's article. After all, she was her own person, right? I do believe all the trial related info should move to Scott Peterson's article, or an entirely different article about Scott Peterson's trial. If I hear no objections in some time, I will put this into effect and move everything trial related to Scott Peterson's article. Stiles 01:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- The incredibly sad thing about this article is that it only exists because the subject & her child were brutally murdered by her husband, and it made headlines. It should be merged with Scott Peterson, because this page is really only about her death, despite a little biography. That's the only reason the world knows of her, and no one deserves that kind of morbid disrespect.--Wikiphilia 01:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Old discussion
The first paragraph of this article needs to summarize the case of her death, rather than go into her biography. Kingturtle 21:42 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)
Has there been a trial yet? Kingturtle 04:02, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Why is there an article on Laci but not Scott Peterson? Shouldn't the latter be the focus (as he is a purported multiple murderer) rather than the former (whose only claim to fame is that she died), and therefore Scott should have an article to himself? ugen64 20:33, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
A quite long article for nothing really important? And is "unborn child" really NPOV? -- till we *) 18:16, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I don't see how you can say it's not important. It's a high-profile case which will be referenced in American literature/writing. People like me (who don't live in the USA) need an article on the subject in order to understand references to the Petersons. [I was directed here when I didn't know what "the Peterson trial" refered to.]
- How about renaming this article to the Peterson murder case or something like that, and redirecting both the vicitim's name and the accused killer's name to that page? And if you find POV in this article (and I'm sure you do) - edit it out! fabiform | talk 18:48, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Peterson Double Murder - would be what I would name it.--Lazarias 21:39, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I agree that it needs to be renamed something. "Laci Peterson" doesn't begin to cover the situation. Moncrief 21:42, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] one dollar.
for one dollar? can someone check this edit out? name of dealership? Christopher Mahan 01:41, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The dealer's name is Doug Roberts and the used car dealership's name is Roberts Auto Sales and is on McHenry Avenue in Modesto, CA. Xanxz
[edit] Massive rewrite
THIS PERSON OBVIOUSLY BELIEVES IN SCOTT'S INNOCENCE - WHAT AN IDIOT!!!!!!!!! PEOPLE LIKE YOU MAKE ME WANT TO PUKE
The massive rewrite by 69.161.222.82 of Jan 24, 2005, needs to be edited for NPOV and other reasons. I would, however, like to avoid the urge to blanket revert the edits. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 17:34, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
- I have added various cleanup tags. See HTML comments for reasoning. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 17:40, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
MASSIVE REWRITE User:Toadfull 1734 Jan 24, 2005
Was needed due to gross mistatement of facts and leaving out exculpatory commentary. Certainly Peterson sold his wife's old Rover, but testimony in the trial showed that now only was Laci herself shopping for a new mercedes and planned to get rid of the Rover HERSELF, but testimony also showed that Peterson needed the money from the Rover to purchase a new vehicle so he could work since LE had impounded his vehicle.
The comments regarding Kristen Smart are inflamatory and certainly untrue as the suspect in the murder of Kristen Smart is in fact Paul Flores and has never been Scott Peterson, who, like hundreds of other students at the school was questioned regarding her dissapearance.
Thanks for the cleanup tags. People who have not read every scrape of testimony in both the preliminary trial and the trial should not be writing commentary regarding evidence as the previous write up was clearly biased and written from a prosecutorial point of view. There was no evidence, forensic or otherwise in this trial. The facts in evidence show that the prosecution didn't even believe their own story. The writer erroneously stated that Amber Frey was presented as motive, which is in fact untrue, as NO MOTIVE was ever presented to the jury. Exulpatory evidence where Peterson denies any involvement in his wife's disapearance was not included in the trial because those statments were called self-serving by the prosecution and the judge ommitted them. However the whole reason behind having Amber Frey tape Peterson was to entrap him and get him to say something predjudicial to his case however other than uttering "cheating man" semantics Peterson never did implicate himself in the crime and in fact denied many times he was involved and in fact questioned Amber Frey as to her own involvement.
This was a verdict rendered on emotional quotient alone and in fact several jurors, when asked what one piece of evidence they found most damming, each and every one of them stated his "demeanor" and mentioned how stoic the defendant was. HOWEVER the word stoic, appears in the trial transcripts one time to describe the defendants demeanor in life yet the word was used thousands of times by media to describe Peterson. This of course suggests that the jury was indeed watching media reports despite orders from the judge to abstain.
The fact that Peterson's alibi was fishing and the fact that LE focused solely on him is brought into focus when one studies the prelim, trial, and interview comments by Ron Grantski. Therein can be found so many glaring "errors" and contradictictions that one is forced to rethink his entire testimony. Ron Grantski never told LE that he too was fishing the day of the 24th yet in his testimony his comments about Peterson fishing are clearly the sole reason LE began to focus on Scott right from the very begining and in fact a homicide detective was summoned to the scene despite there being no evidence of foul play, and certainly no immediate crime scene.
-It's not our job to post POV on how we feel a trail has gone good or bad, or find perceived errors in the trail and write about them. It's our job to post the facts in what happened during the 'Laci episode'. And leave it at that. Post all you want in this talk section, thats what its for but not in the article. --Anonymous
[edit] Image of Laci Peterson
The image added to the article comes from www.lacipeterson.com. It's not perfect, thus it is probably met for WP:CSD due to the lack of confirmed copyright status. Unless the copyrighted work is found, please don't add any image to the article. Thank you. Adnghiem501 00:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] This came from User:RHaworth's talk page.
Did you mean you referred that talk to the image of Laci Peterson page? (*1* see below). Also, why did you mean to say "since when was 'image not perfect' a WP:CSD" on the summary, when you removed the speedy delete notice? I need your explanation. Adnghiem501 01:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Please provide a heading and a link when you contribute here. *1* I do not understand the first question please try different wording with a link to my alleged edit. I need your explanation: where is the consensus recorded that 'image not perfect' is a criterion for speedy deletion? -- RHaworth 02:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
The heading and the link I asked you about is: Image:Laci Peterson.jpg. I think the image is not good enough to be displayed, though. It can't be verified to be found at http://www.lacipeterson.com. Those are all what I thought. Adnghiem501 04:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Phrases such as 'image not perfect' and 'not good enough' suggest that you are talking about the quality of the image. If so, please note a) poor image quality is not a criterion for speedy deletion and b) although this image is not the world's greatest it is perfectly good enough.
- However I suspect you may be talking about the copyright position. If so a) please be explicit and say so and b) note my edits to the image description including {{HistoricPhotoRationale}} which I had not seen until I started looking at your contris but which fits the bill perfectly for this one.
- Come clean - what is your real objection to this image? It looks a bit like sour grapes to me after you have had several of your image uploads deleted. -- RHaworth 08:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Sharon Rocha (named after Almond Rocha)
Why would we merge Sharon Rocha (who is actually named after Almond Rocha) into the Laci Peterson article? Just because she is her mother? I motion that we also merge George H.W. Bush into the George W. Bush article, because that is his father. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.160.180.50 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 27 February 2006.
- User has been vandalizing other articles, such as Almond roca, with this nonsense. | Klaw ¡digame! 18:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- The onus is on you to prove your assertions. In the meantime, please stop vandalizing articles. | Klaw ¡digame! 00:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Actually, I believe the original person is correct here. I remember seeing a discussion on CNN when all of this was still in the news, and they spoke about how Sharon Rocha was actually named after Almond Roca. That wasn't vandalism after all.
-
-
[edit] Skimming Laci Peterson article
I think the article here in question just needs to be about Laci, not Scott. There's too much here about the trial and not enough about Laci's life and all that. Plus, I think Sharon Rocha deserves her own article, too. She did write a book, after all. MammaMia 5:16 May 16 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Just did a huge rewrite
Okay, a lot of the information that was here did not accurately cite sources or quotes, so I did some of that. I also cleaned up some grammar, some flow issues, a LOT--but not all--of the prose that was blatantly plagiarized from other websites, and added/reduced some of the details to make it read easier. Also added information on how Sharon Rocha eventually collected Laci's insurance money, not Scott. If I screwed anything up royally, I apologize...I just tried to look at the article from the POV of someone who knew very little about the case, and edit/restructure accordingly. LBoogey 04:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)LBoogey
[edit] Much too in-depth
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only thing that makes her notable is her murder and the ensuing media circus. There's no reason to include information such as
"Sharon Rocha moved to San Jose in 1977, but felt that the city was too large for her. She soon moved back to Modesto. Upon her return to Modesto, her cousin Gwen Kemple introduced her to Ron Grantski. A year and half later, Grantski and Rocha moved into a three-bedroom home with Brent Rocha and Laci Peterson. They never married."
"At Cal Poly, Laci Rocha majored in ornamental horticulture. Her desire was to one day open a specialty plant shop."
"Sharon Rocha feared that Gain would have a negative effect on her daughter's ambitious attitude toward school, but this did not strain the relationship between Gain and Laci. In fact, the two lived together in Laci's new home in Morro Bay, a small town north of Cal Poly."
All of the information in the biography can be condensed into about a paragraph. The sources for this information would be better used to illustrate examples of excessive media coverage and missing white woman syndrome rather than giving the reader every gruesomely mundane detail that has ever been reported by any media source.
Recommendations: a) Trim the biography down to one paragraph. b) Create a section on the quantity and specifics of media coverage. c) merge/delete the 'suspect' part of the article with Scott Peterson, with the exception of the delightfully tasteful few sentences on "finding the body".
I will do this in the next few days. If anyone has any concerns or ideas for a major revamp of the article, let me know and we can collaborate. Detruncate 04:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- This entire article is way too long. It is much longer than the bio's of many famous people. I don't know Wiki well enough to edit this much, but am hoping someone will really trim it down. I agree with the recommendations above and will try to get back after they are done to give more comments. Plus, there are way too many "feelings" in it, NPOV.--Lorraine LeBeau 20:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- I don't agree. Laci may not have been a famous actress or a famous singer but her death helped spur legislature regarding the death of unborn children due to violence/crime. There is nothing wrong with having some details on Laci's life. I think the article concentrates more on the murder case and murder trial about her, rather than on her life and death. I do not agree that the article should be merged into Scott Peterson's, either. This woman deseves an article in her own right. It's not her fault she was murdered or that her death led to intense media coverage or that legislature was created due to her death.