Researcher Claims Peterson Innocent

On can read the case files and trial records which Marlene assembled here:
http://www.pwc-sii.com/

Her blog at http://pwc-consulting.blogspot.com/ explains certain aspects of the case in more detail.

That site is not credible. marlene is a fired secretary who is a thief. Why you talking about the site as if it not yours marlene? You are a fraud and nothing more. Nothing detailed about this case. It was pulled from your filthy butt only. using an IP blocker and different nics will never free scott.

Marlene Newell, who writes online about the Peterson case??? I write about the case too. Doesn't me you a researcher. Liar!! You have no credibility. I told the station exactly what you are and what you are not...ANYONE WHO HAS A JOB.

Read more: http://www.kfiv1360.com/cc-common/mainheadlin...

omg are all of you still at it...

this is MODESTO for God's sake, get over it, what is done is done and will not change....

who cares?

Who Cares asks: "who cares?"

Ask us again when the cops frame YOU up.

Noob wrote:

On can read the case files and trial records which Marlene assembled here:
http://www.pwc-sii.com/
Her blog at http://pwc-consulting.blogspot.com/ explains certain aspects of the case in more detail.

Tooting your own horn much fake researcher not from Munich. Fraud that you are.

The Voice of Sanity wrote:

Who Cares asks: "who cares?"
Ask us again when the cops frame YOU up.

Miss the trial have ya voice of insanity? Oh yes, you were too busy screaming your foul head off on the net. Funny how not one of your false claims made it in the appeal brief.

Scott is a killer wrote:

That site is not credible. marlene is a fired secretary who is a thief. Why you talking about the site as if it not yours marlene? You are a fraud and nothing more. Nothing detailed about this case. It was pulled from your filthy butt only. using an IP blocker and different nics will never free scott.

Why are you so vicious toward Marlene? Is it any of your concern what she may or may not be?

Guess what, if the "independent researcher" had come to the conclusion that he did it, I seriously doubt anyone would be interested in reading the article. Based on that, it seems to me that the conclusion was formed before one word had ever been written.

Loser wrote:

<quoted text>Why are you so vicious toward Marlene? Is it any of your concern what she may or may not be?

She's a fraud. This case is my concern, not hers.

Duh wrote:

Guess what, if the "independent researcher" had come to the conclusion that he did it, I seriously doubt anyone would be interested in reading the article. Based on that, it seems to me that the conclusion was formed before one word had ever been written.

Yet the fake researcher is proven wrong still yrs later. Some people are just thick.