Monday, August 8, 2011

Is Scott Peterson a sociopath?

Many people throw this label around based on a few observations of Scott's behavior during the affair and after Laci's disappearance.  I've found some information on the Internet that puts diagnosing a sociopath in the right framework.  I've added some italics, bolds, and underlines to emphasize certain of the information, and of course, my own commentary in red.

How to Diagnose a Sociopath 
By Maria Tarallo, eHow Contributor

Read more: How to Diagnose a Sociopath |
There are a number of mental disorders that affect the personality and antisocial disorders many times present similar characteristics. To diagnose a sociopath; there are a few clear behaviors, mainly, the sociopath's complete disregard for the rights of others. This disdain for others is expressed in a variety of ways throughout the person's life. To medically diagnose a sociopath, three of the following behaviors must be observed since childhood.
This is the part everyone seems to ignore -- these patterns of behavior must be observed since childhood.


    • 1
      Look for signs that a person does not experience guilt. For most people it is normal to feel guilt or remorse when they have wronged someone. Sociopaths don't experience empathic feelings and therefore feel no guilt. They see their behaviors as justified and will refuse to take responsibility or apologize. During childhood, sociopaths typically engage in behaviors such as hurting helpless animals and show no remorse.  Absolutely no evidence that Scott engaged in such behavior during childhood.  He was not a problem child, so what occasion would there be for him to feel guilt or remorse for having wronged someone?  He didn't cause Laci's disappearance, so how can he feel guilty or remorseful?  I do hear guilt and remorse in the phone conversations with Amber -- guilt and remorse for having had the affair, for having lied to Amber, for having dashed her dreams of a future with a wealth, jet-setting executive!  He repeatedly took responsibility with Amber for lying to her.  And he is very empathic towards Amber's daughter.  
    • 2
      Look for repeated deceitful behavior. A sociopath generally has a track record of lying and being deceitful. Making up wild stories and deliberately twisting scenarios to hurt someone are also commonly observed in sociopaths. As is the case with other sociopath behaviors, lying begins in childhood.  No such track record with Scott from childhood, or with anything in his adult life before Laci's disappearance with the exception of the affairs -- 2 documented affairs, 5 years apart. Sad reality is, lying and deceit are part and parcel with having an affair; not only lying to the spouse, but lying to the mistress.  
    • 3
      Look for signs of reckless behavior. Sociopaths have no concern for their own safety or for the safety of others. They commonly engage in fights and conflict repeatedly. They also tend to behave in other reckless ways such as driving at outrageous speeds purposely to put their lives and the lives of others in danger. During childhood, bullying and harassing others is common.  No evidence of such behavior from Scott -- either during his childhood or adult life.  
    • 4
      Look for defiant behavior. Sociopaths have a hard time conforming to social norms and regulations. They tend to repeatedly break the law and have a history of stealing and engaging in drug use. It is estimated that eighty percent of the male inmate population has a personality disorder that manifests as antisocial behavior.  No evidence of such behavior from Scott -- either during his childhood or adult life.
    • 5
      Look for signs of extreme emotions such as anger and rage, or complete indifference. Sociopaths usually display mood swings and manipulative behavior. Anger and violence are common as are extreme frustration when they can't get what they want. Although sociopaths are generally angry people, they are also known to turn on the charm in order to manipulate people to obtain what they want. They can also be aloof and indifferent to things that would upset a normal person.  People often cite using charm to manipulate people, but they fail to explain why there is no anger or rage in Scott's life -- none at all.  No evidence of violence.  Neither is there any evidence that he was completely indifferent to things that would upset a normal person.  He wasn't a publicly emotional person, but he did show emotions in public.  But we don't hear about those -- we only hear the myth perpetrated by the MPD and the family and friends who soured on Scott after they learned of the affair that Scott didn't show any emotion.  Other than Amber, who claimed Scott had manipulated them?  Laci certainly had no complaints to make about Scott to her family, or her friends, or her other associates.  Whatever problems they had in their marriage were not sufficient for her to feel it necessary to involve other people, and there is no evidence that Laci was the type of personality to stay in a bad marriage.  
    • 6
      Look at a person's history. Although the exact cause of why an individual becomes a sociopath is not clear, there are a number of things sociopaths have in common. A history of child abuse or having a parent with substance abuse problems is common among sociopaths. Genetics seem to also play a significant role as the children of parents with antisocial personality disorder appear to be at a higher risk of developing an antisocial personality disorder. Ultimately though, this cannot be used as a sure indicator because sociopaths have also been known to come from loving homes.  
Scott did not exhibit 3 of the above behaviors from childhood -- he didn't exhibit any of them from childhood.  The only category, lying and deceit, involved affairs after he married -- two affairs, 5 years apart.  Inexcusable.  Despicable. But not evidence of being a sociopath.  And certainly not evidence of murder.

This is from another Internet article -- again I've added italics, bold, and underline for emphasis.

Early behavior problems

Most psychopaths begin to exhibit serious behavioral problems at an early age. These might include persistent lying, cheating, theft, fire setting, truancy, class disruption, substance abuse, vandalism, violence, bullying, running away and precocious sexuality. Because many children exhibit some of these behaviors at one time or another, especially children raised in violent neighborhoods or in disrupted or abusive families, it is important to emphasize that the psychopaths's history of such behaviors is more extensive and serious than that of most others, even when compared with those of siblings and friends raised in similar settings.

Early cruelty to animals is usually a sign of serious emotional or behavioral problems. Cruelty to other children—including siblings—is often part of the young psychopaths's inability to experience the sort of empathy that checks normal people's impulses to inflict pain, even when enraged.

Adult antisocial behavior
Psychopaths consider the rules and expectations of society inconvenient and unreasonable, impediments to their inclinations and wishes. They make their own rules, both as children and as adults.

Many of the antisocial acts of psychopaths lead to criminal convictions. Even within prison populations psychopaths stand out, largely because their antisocial and illegal activities are more varied and frequent than are those of other criminals.

Not all psychopaths end up in jail. Many of the things they do escape detection or prosecution, or are on the "shady side of the law." For them, antisocial behavior may consist of phony stock promotions, questionable business and professional practices, spouse or child abuse, and so forth. Many others do things that, although not illegal, are unethical, immoral or harmful to others: philandering, cheating on a spouse, financial or emotional neglect of family members, irresponsible use of company resources or funds, to name but a few. The problem with behaviors of this sort is that they are difficult to document and evaluate without the active cooperation of family, friends, acquaintances and business associates.
The only thing in this list that Scott Peterson is guilty of is cheating on a spouse. No illegal or unethical behavior, no spousal or child abuse; no financial neglect or irresponsible use of company resources or funds; no questionable business or professional practices; and certainly no criminal behavior.


My Sparkling Life said...

According to the DSM IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition) , it lists out some of the symptoms that have to be present in an individual in order to be diagnosed as suffering from antisocial personality disorder. According to the DSM IV, this disorder falls in the Cluster B list of personality disorder. For a person to be diagnosed as a sociopath, he or she must have at least three or more of the below mentioned symptoms.
*Displays heightened levels of deceitfulness in dealings with others, which involves lying, conning others without remorse, or even using aliases: Scott obviously lied on multiple occasions to multiple people. He lied to police, his own family, Laci’s family, friends, acquaintances, etc. When Lee Peterson was visited in San Diego by MPD to reveal Scott’s affair, he asked the detectives if she knew Scott as someone else. To me, that would reveal Lee’s knowledge that Scott had used or was using an alias.
*Inability to abide by the social norms and thus violating law: Since he was convicted of Laci’s murder, you could use this example.
Displays aggressiveness and often tends to get into assaults and physical fights
*Displays complete lack of empathy for others and their situation for which they are responsible: Scott told Amber that he was thought that Sharon Rocha was not showing any emotion. It was obvious to everyone that she was probably one of the most emotional people in the case. Not being able to even recognize the amount of pain she was in; complete lack of empathy.
*Displays no feelings or shallow feelings: Scott showed very little feeling or emotion throughout the entire investigation and trial. He had no visible reaction to any evidence presented or to any VOS from the families.
Displays impulsive behavior which is indicated by the inability to plan for the future
Displays no concern for safety of others around them or self
Inability to sustain a consistent behavior that stems mainly from irresponsibility especially at work place or in other dealings
*Displays promiscuous behavior : We know that Scott has obviously displayed this symptom. Janet Isle, Katy Hansen, and Amber Frey are they affairs that are known.

The description of a Narcissistic Sociopath sounds very much like Scott Peterson: “Sometimes people suffering from Antisocial Personality Disorder also tend to suffer from another mental disorder known as Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Such people are often called narcissistic sociopaths or sociopaths with narcissistic traits and such a situation is a dangerous one, as these people do not want to be helped. Such people often tend to be highly manipulative and without any shred of remorse for their actions, even if their actions have harmed others who are close to them or their family members. There is nothing that can stop a narcissistic sociopath from achieving his goals. He makes use of all his charm which is highly superficial and intellect in order to attain his goals by any means possible. Such people often think that they are above all and they do not really care if anyone disagrees with them.”

Jane said...

Heather, since you seem to "know it all," perhaps you can provide a word for people who are so thirsty for revenge that they are willing to put an innocent man to death.

My Sparkling Life said...


I don't claim to know it all. I am trying to have a discussion about this case. Because my viewpoint may differ from others does not make me "thirsty for revenge". He was convicted by a jury of his peers and sentenced to death.

Marlene Newell said...

Heather, what sociopathic behaviors did Scott demonstrate prior to Laci's disappearance? The only behavioral problems he had were affairs -- and that can't even be considered abnormal nowadays. Despicable yes, but out of the norm enough to be called sociopathic? Absoultely not.

He did not have a string of affairs -- he had one early in the marriage when Laci was working away from home, and he had one during the pregnancy, and a friend reported that Laci confided she didn't have any interest in sex. Get the pattern? Yes, it's quite obvious, Scot had affairs when Laci was not available. That's the pattern.

Yes he lied about the affair -- maybe in European cultures married men openly admit their mistresses, but not in America -- people lie about affairs, by its very nature adultery is deceiption.

But where is the pattern of lying anywhere else in his behavior? There is none. Remove the lies about the affair and the exaggerations to Amber (which is not abnormal, either, as many people exaggerate their circumstances in affairs) -- and you have no pattern of lying and deceit.

As for not showing emotion, well most people are quite hypocritcal about that because when he did show emotion, they say it's just fake. So if he doesn't, he's a sociopath, and if he does, it's fake and he's still a sociopath.

Your perception of Scott Peterson is seriously flawed.

But let's get to another point. Let's for the sake of discussion (and only for the sake of discussion because a diagnosis of sociopathy is simply not correct), but for the sake of discussion, let's say that Scott is a sociopath. And he was able to conceal that sociopathy from his wife, his family, his friends, his business associates, his customers -- everyone. No one had a clue he was a sociopath, even though every credible description of symptoms says he should have been giving off alarms right and left.

But let's assume he is a sociopath -- that is not evidence he committed murder. Where is the evidence he put a pregnant Laci in the Bay on either the 23rd or 24th? There is none. There is abundant evidence that she was alive and well on the 24th, that he went fishing at the Bay on the 24th, and that the Medinas were robbed on the 24th. There is abundant evidence that pregnant Laci was never in the Bay -- not put there by Scott or anyone else, not on the 24th or any other day. Conner did not wash ashore; he is too big to have been in that uterus for 3.5 months; and he was too old to have died on Dec 23 or 24.

So that still leaves us at the same exact spot -- no evidence to prove Scott murdered Laci and put her pregnant body in the Bay.

Arguing that he is a sociopath does nothing to prove his guilt because there is no evidence. What, do you think sociopaths can magically commit murder and leave no evidence, or magically defy the laws of nature, or magically fit a square peg into a round hole?

There is no evidence Heather, and making Scott out to be a sociopath does not make up for that lack of evidence.

My Sparkling Life said...

How can you say she was not put in the bay when her body showed EVIDENCE of being there. How would you explain the condition of her body?

My Sparkling Life said...

There are multiple articles and research that shows that sociopaths can, indeed, lead perfectly normal lives and seem perfectly normal.

Dr. Martha Stout "The Sociopath Next Door"

Dr. Robert Hare "Without Conscience"

Dr Robert Hare Ph.D. and Dr. Paul Babiak, Ph.D. "Snakes in Suits - When Psychopaths Go To Work"

Marlene Newell said...

Yes, her body was in the Bay, but she wasn't put into the Bay pregnant. I know she wasn't put into the Bay pregnant because the baby did not wash ashore, and the baby was too large for the uterus.

And she didn't die on or around Dec 24 because the baby is too old to have died on that date.

The uterus fits the size of the baby only if the baby was removed while Laci was alive, thus giving the uterus an opportunity to begin the shrinking process back to its normal size. A dead uterus in a dead woman cannot shrink -- there is no mechanism in a muscle dead for that long (3 1/2 months) to allow it to shrink. By that state of decomposition, the uterus is much like a limp rag -- whatever size it was when rigor mortis passed is the size it remained. And rigor mortis could not contract the uterus smaller than what was necessary to hold Conner.

Get over the notion that Scott was a sociopath, or that being a sociopath is evidence of murder, and you might be able to objectively analyze the evidence that does exist.

The plain fact is, neither Scott nor anyone else put a pregnant Laci into the Bay, not on Dec 24th or any other day.

Look at the evidence, Heather, and get over this stupid notion that Scott is a sociopath, or that it would make any difference if he was, because (1) there is no evidence he committed this crime, and (2) there is abundant evidence that he did not.

My Sparkling Life said...


You won't change my mind about this case and I won't change your mind. We are obviously have our different viewpoints.

Her uterus measured 23 cm at time of autopsy. A pregnant uterus minus the fetus, placenta, and amniotic fluid will naturally be smaller. As would one that has undergone decompensation and have a thickness of less than 2mm at time of autopsy. I have seen a pregnant uterus at the time of a C-Section and immediately after C-Section when it externalized. There is a significant difference in size.

Marlene Newell said...

I have no problem with people interpreting the same piece of evidence in different ways.

I have a definite problem with people who insist on comparing a dead uterus to a living uterus. You are so off-base with your argument -- it's hilariously stupid, Heather. Wake up and smell the coffee.

A living uterus contracts because the living woman has hormones and natural functions that make the uterus contract. It's the contractions that make the uterus smaller, not the removal of the baby. Contractions occur even during labor, so that when the baby is pushed out, the uterus is already contracted a significant amount.

But according to you this is NOT what happened -- Laci was not alive, according to you; Laci did not have a c-section, according to you; Laci did not deliver the baby, according to you. For pete's sake, Heather, you can't argue on the one hand that she went into the Bay pregnant and remained there pregnant until just before she was found on April 14, and on the other hand argue that her uterus, dead for 3.5 months inside of a woman dead for 3.5 months, holding a baby dead for 3.5 months, is going to act the same way as a living uterus in a living woman who is giving birth. Once the process of rigor mortis is passed, there is absolutely no mechanism present in either the woman or the uterus to allow it to shrink when the baby is removed. None. And she was well passed the rigor mortis stage, well passed it.

It just doesn't work that way, Heather -- the ONLY way that uterus fits that baby is for the baby to be born while Laci was alive and for Laci to live long enough (doesn't have to be long, just minutes) for the uterus to begin to shrink.

And that is a very logical explanation since we know that: 1) Conner did not wash ashore, so obviously he was not in her uterus while she was in the Bay, and 2) Conner is too old to have died on Dec 24.

It's not rocket science --

Marlene Newell said...

To add, Heather, I think you are assuming that part of the uterus was missing -- it was an intact uterus. Dr. Peterson said so, quite plainly. It was intact from the top of the fundus to the bottom of the cervix. It had an opening near the top of the fundus, but that did not reduce it's measurement -- part of the uterus wasn't missing. If I had the picture they showed, I'd display it. I think it's confusing to just read his testimony because part of it sound like the top part of the uterus was missing, which would validate your argument. But I did see the photo of the uterus shown to the jury, and it was an intact uterus, and the opening in no way that I could see affected its measurements.

Bruce Dombrowski said...

Uterus, Uterus, i thought this was a discussion about sociopaths? What i found interesting about scott was that i don't recall seeing any "lifelong" friends..I don't know if scott is a sociopath, and i have no idea about his childhood, of course parents are not going to bring up any problems they may have had with him, but what problems could he have had? he grew up in a rich house....had all he needed....any "problems" were "taken care of"...all i seem to remember about things that were said about him at the sentencing hearing, was that he would help someone change a tire, and he was a great golfer....i think scott was a social type of guy, but only when it suited his needs....can we get off the Uterus?

A Voice of Sanity said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
A Voice of Sanity said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Marlene Newell said...

Bruce, I would tend to agree with you about parents not bringing up bad things, but not in a case so publicized and not with a suspect so thoroughly investigated. If there had been someone to say something bad about Scott, they would have come forward or been found through other means. That's what this case was all about -- let's dig up some dirt on this guy so people will hate him and won't notice that we don't have any evidence. That's why all the sociopath garbage.

I point out the uterus as one of the evidences that so many people just ignore -- they can't explain it away, so they ignore it, or they come up with such nonsense that a dead uterus can shrink just like a living uterus can.

The uterus relative to the size of the baby is real evidence -- this sociopath stuff is the illusion of evidence. It's all smoke and mirrors. When magicians do it, we know it's a trick, but enjoy it anyway. Why can't people recognize the same tricks when cops and DAs do it?

My Sparkling Life said...

I'm not assuming that part of the uterus was missing. I know from the testimony that it was intact. My point is that it would logically be smaller once there was nothing present inside the uterus. And now, I'm done with uterus talk.

All the testimony you had from family and friends of Scott was that he never got upset or bothered by things that would have bothered anyone else. That is not normal. Have you ever seen a kid who never got upset and was always smiling?

Marlene Newell said...

That is not what I heard Heather. Can you quote some testimony to back up your claim.

No one claimed Scott was perfect -- that's the myth the media created. What they claimed is that in their observations he did not easily lose his temper, he was very considerate of people, and very considerate of Laci.

But again, even if what you say is 100% spot-on -- that still is not evidence of murder. Where is the evidence that he committed this crime? There is none. Not only is there no evidence he committed this crime, there is abundant evidence he did not.

My Sparkling Life said...

Is this what you are looking for:

HARRIS: And so you look at this uterus. Can you describe for us what your findings were?

PETERSON: Sure. The uterus, in the first place, from the lowest portion of the uterus where it connects to the vagina, to the uppermost portion, the fundus, measured 23 centimeters. That would be roughly ten inches. As I said, normally, a uterus in the non-pregnant state may be the size of a golf ball. So an inch and a half or so. In greatest dimension, this is substantially larger. In the non-pregnant state, the uterus is almost solid muscle. There is obviously a cavity on the inside of it. But just to feel it, to make a section across, it is a relatively solid muscle. This uterus was markedly thin. The thickest, and I measured the wall of the uterus in several locations. The thickest was two millimeters, very small, all the way to nothing. Up near the top of the uterus it actually been, to my eye, abraded, and was open. So up there there was no wall. So the thickness of the wall ranged from nothing to two millimeters. So, in summary, what we have is a uterus that's much larger than a normal, non-pregnant uterus. The wall is much thinner. And as I put those two things together, I determined that that had been a pregnant uterus.

Marlene Newell said...

I don't get the point of the testimony you quoted. I'm not disputing that it was a pregnant uterus -- I'm disputing that the size of that pregnant uterus was sufficient to hold that baby.

The only way the uterus could shrink any at all is if Conner was removed while Laci was alive. The process of birth itself begins to shrink the uterus, as the uterus contracts to push the baby out. There are charts in the professional literature about how much shrinkage occurs from the birth itself, and how much shrinkage occurs and then how long it takes for the uterus to shrink back to its normal size, or close to it.

We don't disagree that the uterus in a living woman shrinks as the baby is born and afterwards.

What I am saying is that a uterus dead for 3.5 months, has no capability to shrink when its contents are removed -- it will forever remain the same size. And the size of the uterus is not sufficient to hold that baby. It just isn't. You have to subtract the length of the cervix from the 23cm, because at Laci's stage of pregnancy, no part of the baby is in the cervix.

If you saw the photo of the uterus, you would know that it looked looked totally worn out. The thinness of the walls shows the extent of the decomposition, but really has nothing to do with the uterus being large enough to hold that baby.

I'll dig out those charts and post them as an article -- Also I think I have some charts that say how large the uterus normally is at certain stages of pregnancy.

My Sparkling Life said...

I'm pretty sure I know what charts you are referring to. The one I am specifically thinking of discusses the height, width, etc. that occur during pregnancy.

Burkey said...

I see what you are saying Marlene. The flesh will not contract if it is not living. If Conner *had* escaped from his mother's womb while at sea (not possible imo from the condition of his body), her uterus would have been large enough to fit him. It would not shrink because there is no elasticity in dead flesh, it does not change except to disintigrate.

Burkey said...

With apologies to Bruce ;^o

Marlene Newell said...

The uterus would have contracted as part of rigor mortis, but since it didn't expel the baby per the State's theory, after rigor passed, the uterus as a muscle would have relaxed and never contracted again. Hence, no opportunity to contract when its contents were removed per the State's theory.

The guy next door said...

I just came from an experenice that I have to say tops all so far in my life. My sister is a victim of a MFH plot from several years ago with a twist...she killed the the hit man. I know it is an incredible statement on this forum from some guy who calls himself 'The guy next door" but it is true. My brother in law(outlaw)hired someone to kill his wife of 17 years, however when it came time my sister was vastly underestmated. Doing this interview today I was asked the same you think your brother in law(outlaw) is a sociopath? I know that I thought I knew the man and I know the definition...but I still could'nt answer the question...

thanks for listening...

Marlene Newell said...

I'm sorry for your sister's problems -- and very glad she was able to take care of herself.

IMO, the label sociopath is used far too loosely. According to its medical definition, it is an anti-social disorder that exhibits itself usually from early childhood. In our culture, we are too easily prone to tacking on labels because it somehow makes us feel good.

Getting back to Scott's case, no one can point to a pattern of anti-social behavior prior to Laci's disappearance. You cannot call adultery anti-social behavior. While sociopaths may commit adultery, committing adultery does not make one a sociopath.

Lying about an affair isn't deviant behavior, either. A lot of people preach from their sanctimonious thrones that "I would have told the police about the affair immediately" - for most people, that's just a bunch of garbage -- they would no more have admitted an affair to the police and family/friends than Scott did.

It's also extremely sanctimonious and hypocritcal, in my opinion, for many to say that they would never have lied about their whereabouts during the investigation -- not when the media was hounding and tailing Scott at every opportunity, just itching to catch him in some awkward moment. And it's absolutely unreasonable, in my opinion, for anyone to conclude that it wasn't pre-arranged between Scott and his family and close friends that he would not disclose his actual location -- and no one else mattered.

So everything everyone points to as evidence of Scott being a sociopath IMO most people would have done under similar circumstances.

Yea, Yea, I know YOU are different -- YOU would never commit adultery (very good for you), and YOU would never lie about it, no matter what the circumstances. Well, if all people held true to the no-lying about it principle, there wouldn't be any adultery, would there? I mean, if you can't lie about adultery under any circumstance, how can you commit it in the first place? Are you going to tell you spouse as you walk out the door, I'm going out to pick up someone to start an affair, I just wanted to be totally honest and upfront with you.

Get real, people. Adultery is a plague on our society, and it's nice, normal, every day people that are doing it, not just the creeps and jerks. And lying about adultery, YES, even in criminal investigations, is not abnormal behavior.

There are a few saints in this world, who have never done any thing so despicable as have an affair, and who have never told an untruth no matter what the circumstances. But in my opinion, they are not the ones who would be judging Scott Peterson so viciously -- they would not themselves be stone-throwers.

All I ask is that people get real. Oh my gosh, HE LIED TO HIS OWN MOTHER! Yea, he lied about where he was because he strongly suspected he was being tailed, and he wanted some privacy. Why would he need privacy if he's innocent? For the same reason we have doors on bathrooms and bedrooms, locks on public bathroom doors, one-line telephones, curtains on our windows, and doors that lock to our homes. The same reason we don't want peeping toms looking in our windows, or nosy people taping our phones and reading our mail, or following us every where we go.

Burkey said...

Hey, Guy next door, I just read your fascinating comment. Good grief!!!

Congratulations to your sister, though, for outwitting this evil plot. That is amazing. I'd love to hear more about it. Occasionally on the news wire I see stories of people who fought off attackers or chased down purse-snatchers..but foiling a hit man is something else entirely. She must be a remarkable woman, your sister. Thank you for sharing this.

What I wonder is about your comment and the thoughts it caused you to have. Was there any clue? What interests me is whether you or anyone concerned could see trouble coming.
Forgive my nosiness but your situation is intriguing.

The guy next door said...

I know the definition of sociopath but who am I to define who is or is not. With Scott he does not appear be one by definition and after review of the trail record, I truley believe he is innocent...but who am I to say? With my brother in law(outlaw)I know that he is guilty by review of all of the evidence provided through pulic records and then some, in hind sight I could say that there is a good chance that he is a sociopath and I should have seen it or ??? Until he showed what he was willing to do end a marraige, he didnt seem to be.

I dont think anyone can truley know who or what another person is.

Burkey said...

But, did you get a weird feeling about your brother-in-law? Did you worry about their relationship? That is more what I was wondering.

The guy next door said...

a little but In my expereniece it is better to stay out of other peoples relationships...To many times I have seen couples together that are made for each other but friends and family get to involved and the relationship is doomed. As long as my sister liked him I liked him...we didnt hang out drink beer, play pool and tell stories...but he for the most part was just like you or me...just another guy(or gal)

Scott Peterson is in prison for having an affair with Amber whats her name, his wife came up missing due to no fault of his own, and a long the way people said alot and still say alot about Scott, who he is but in reality they dont know or cant know for sure...therefore the FACTS not the fiction of his actions is what really couunts.

Anonymous said...

Hi Marlene, thanks for all that you have done and are doing to get the truth to us.

From the start I didn't believe he did it...that was feeling/intuition only and not fact.

Thanks to you, there is interpretation of facts that prove to me my feeling is correct.

It's very painful to know that Scott and others are locked up to satisfy the system and that lies and the media can crush an innocent person. That sounds sociopathic to me!

It's in every high profile case...lies are put out there as truth and it 'sticks'...even after it comes out in court that it was not true.

I've wanted to write to Scott after his trial but I never have. He has my support in his fight to clear his name.

thank you Marlene.

Anonymous said...

Marlene, I hope you find some peace and are able to let it go. Scott was rightfully convicted. The jurors took a full week to determine a just verdict. Scott fooled a lot of people and is still fooling his lady fan club. It's sad, yes. His mother was totally in denial. She worshiped him. Their relationship was as disturbing as the Grifters -Shante & Kenny Kimes. She is the spitting image and has the same deceptive behavior. It was creepy how delusional she was about her 'perfect' son. Marlene, what is your reason for your obsession? Scott is guilty and he's never getting out. You can continue to deny it but the evil brown van didn't do it and the 'burglars' did not follow innocent Scott and plant Laci right where he went fishing. Come on! Get on with your life and quit wasting it on a killer. What id Laci was your daughter or sister? Would you still be searching for the van .. as OJ searched the golf courses... Until they finally got him where he belongs? I hope you let it go. You're much too involved and Scott is not going to be anyone's Lothario even if he were free-he will care for you as long as he can use you. If he got out today he wouldn't give you the time of day. That's just the great guy he is. I wish you peace to let it go. Best to you.

riomex8 said...

Sociopaths do NOT have to display certain traits since they are young. There is a type of learned sociopathy. A person observes sociopathic behavior then incorporates it or reacts to it. Something or another about the Bandhu model.
It is VERY interesting to me that when Scott Peterson is believed to kill someone everyone wants to punish him but when he OBNOXIOUS brother-in-law Brent Rocha interrupted the court proceeding and threatened to kill Scott Peterson and called Scott Peterson "a piece of s*#t" that was perfectly fine. I don't think Scott Peterson is a sociopath for not responding or reacting in a court. Anything he says can and will be used against him. His attorney is still appealing his case. Sharon Rocha screamed burn in hell to Scott at his hearing after the Judge said no more outbursts. Everyone can threaten and curse Scott but he is not allowed to answer or he will be shot and this will be applied to his appeal. People commented he refused to discuss not taking a polygraph test with Dianne Sawyer. It is not sociopathic to not discuss evidence of a court case on tv. The man is under scrutiny for murder.
Sharon Rocha broke the lock of Scott Peterson's house but she is not arrested? The laws do not apply to the Rochas. The Rochas publicly have filthy mouths. It is hard to listen to that and publicly it is something people don't want to be associated with. If Laci had that same filthy mouth maybe it was hard to live with her. Brent Rocha is NASTY!!! He told Scott Peterson his mother was pathetic, having problems breathing while moving Scott Peterson's possessions out of his house. What a horrible creep to abuse a sick woman who had nothing to do with the murder of Laci.
AND Scott did not lie about his whereabouts on Dec. 24. He told EVERYONE he went to the bay and he DID.
ALSO Laci was trying hard for awhile to get pregnant. I would NOT want to sleep with someone who kept pressuring me to sleep with her with a specific intent. If I sleep with someone it is for love and enjoyment NOT for someone to USE me. YUCK! Must have been some pressure. I see why he might have gotten sick of her.
Laci was a pig. She barely knew Scott and right away knew she was going to marry him and slept with him before marrying him. At her wedding he was hitting on a few waitresses. She knew. Laci's mother Sharon Rocha's a liar too. Sharon Rocha kept pretending Laci and Scott had a perfect marriage. Sharon Rocha knew Scott repeatedly cheated on Lace. Sharon Rocha's a pig too. How long has she been with Ron Grantski but doesn't marry him. When the Rochas lie and loosely sleep around they are not labeled as sociopaths. They sleep around without marriage, breaking societal institutions.
Laci brought Scott down. They used to live in an upscale town but she wanted to move to Modesto, an economically poor area so she could be near her family.
Brent Rocha is a hypocrite. He attacked Scott Peterson's lifestyle, yet he swam in his pool and took full advantage of it.
Peterson's parents are not delusional. They know exactly who he is. They will say and do anything to save their son. It is called unconditional love, something the Rochas know absolutely nothing about. They do whatever benefits them and the law lets them get away with it.
Scott does not need any one woman. He receives LOTS of love letters from women and probably some from men too.