The following is merely Patsy's opinion and
speculation and not to be construed as anything
"The Bling that Peterson Bought Me." "I am going to send him a
Thank You note. With a picture of the earrings. Dear Scott. Thanks
for the earrings! I hope next year I can send you a picture of another
nice piece of jewelry you buy me, too. Happy New Year!
Posted by: loretta at December 27, 2005 12:56 AM"
I think it is very poetic to resurrect the diamond stud earrings
as a symbol of Laci, and I'm sure she would approve of my
wearing them in her honor. Besides, she always loved a good joke.
Posted by: loretta at December 27, 2005 03:07 PM" Unquote
Au contraire. C'est peu probable. (To the contrary. It's not
Loretta Dillon Serrano has set herself up as THE public
internet expert on the Peterson case. She even wrote a blook
about the case which was chock full of her self professed
expertise, consisting of assumptions, speculation and opinion.
There's nothing wrong with one doing that, so long as one is
careful to point out that the blook is written by a lay person
and not one who's earned degrees in those fields upon which
Her verbose pontificating advice upon any and every subject
imaginable has fed her massive ego. So much so, that for anyone
to disagree with her, they are then considered to be an
abberation, an abomination for questioning or scoffing at her
Loretta set herself up as both Dr. N. Buster and Dr.
Schadenfreude, dispensing prodigious advice about
narcissm, parenting, education, marriage, medical and
legal advice. Although some of her family members do
possess degrees in some of those career fields, Loretta
herself does not. Her own personal track record (by her
own words) in no way equips her to hold herself up to be
a paragon of advice in several of those subjects.
One could put forth an argument that there's not much
difference in pretending to have degrees, or expertise in a
field, wording a biography for a blook to give the impression
of having said expertise, and actually obtaining faux degrees
to hang on the wall a la Scott Peterson. (Whom she repeatedly
mentions in as many conversations (within various subjects,
related or not) as possible.
Loretta's above comments and her presumption of Laci Rocha
Peterson's feelings are in my opinion insulting and spurious.
According to Laci's mother Sharon Rocha, Laci disliked
hypocrisy. Sharon stated that Laci wasn't perfect, but she was
raised not to lie. Sharon's portrayal of Laci shows us a very
vibrant, yet adamant and matter of fact person.
Laci's mother in law JP portrayed herself as an elegant and an
perfect mother and strict adherent on etiquette in her
household. The persona, or facade was portrayed to everyone
including her family. Regardless of Jp's reasons for that
portrayal, Laci was devastated and disturbed to learn about
As Laci herself stated to her mother Sharon, it wasn't the details
and facts of Jp's past, she understood that it was something in
the past that was very hard for her soon to be mother in law. Laci
felt JP had portrayed herself as something she wasn't. Laci lost
confidence and trust in her.
Laci's own words "Jackie made herself out to be someone she's not.
It's a lie. "
That's the crux of the point with this entry.
Given Laci's thoughts about that kind of behaviour,
I'm convinced that Laci would not have approved of