Anne Bird, a Very Calculating Sister
Anne Bird, Scott Peterson’s half-sister, is on the circuit, making the rounds, selling her story that she believes Scott Peterson is guilty. I tuned into Dateline NBC last night to watch her and sadly, I was disturbed by what I saw.
She doesn’t act normal. You can’t distinguish normal emotional responses from her. You can’t easily discern when she is supposedly hurt or upset versus when she is happy. She is like a doll without emotions, babbling and saying what she thinks she is supposed to say—only adding appropriate smiles or a twinge when she thinks she should—not because she is actually feeling that way. It is clear that her emotional responses aren’t genuine.
Her behavior is oddly similar to that of her half-brother Scott, although Scott Peterson mastered putting on the emotions more, so as to fool the average person. Scott said and acted the part he believed society expected of him, and he did his true dirty deeds behind the scenes. It really makes you wonder…
We all know that Scott was raised by Anne’s biological mother and was supposedly taught to shun real emotions, according to Jackie herself—but Anne Bird was raised by an entirely different family. Why is she shunning normal emotions? It’s rather scary.
Anne tries to convince you, the audience, that she is writing this book because she wasn’t asked to testify at her brother’s trial—and so now she believes the burden is too heavy on her conscience to keep it all inside. I believe she even says she feels she had no other choice but to tell her story.
During the trial, Anne stood steadfast by her half-brother. She says she thought he was innocent. But now she thinks he is guilty, as is obvious by her book title: 33 Reasons Why My Brother is Guilty.
Regardless of what she thought during and after the trial, it isn’t like the jury freed Scott Peterson, so why does she have to tell the world why she believes he is guilty?? They convicted him. So where does her guilt come in? She only had supporting evidence to the story. Her reasoning is flawed. Very flawed.
The real reason I believe Anne is writing this book? (A) She wants to get back at her mother. She has deep anger that she was given up for adoption, that her mom called Scott the “Golden Child”. This is her form of revenge: a very hurtful book for her biological mother. (B) She wants notoriety. (C) She wants the money from the book. (D) This is all about Anne, and Anne alone.
Anne is very calculating.
Anne also tries to convince you that she never doubted Scott’s innocence during the trial—that she completely trusted him regardless of incredible mounting evidence—and she saw way more than you and I did behind the scenes, which is supposedly written in her book. If you ask me, Anne knew damn well her half-brother was guilty long before she admits it.
Jackie Peterson, who gave Anne up at birth, has led a very tragic life. As told by NBC’s Dateline, Jackie “…had suffered a terrible childhood. Her father was murdered when she was just two years old—murdered just before Christmas. Then Jackie’s mother suffered a breakdown. Jackie grew up in an orphanage.”
Now add to that, Jackie gave up two children for adoption. And worse, as we all know, her flesh and blood killed someone. How much can one person handle? Wouldn’t a normal person have some form of compassion for her??
When you watch Anne talk, and you hear her divulge things about her mother that are painful, her face remains strangely emotionless, despite the fact she is saying very hurtful things. This is just another big red flag that things aren’t as they seem.
As a lie-detector, Anne’s behavior scares me. She is too emotionless to get a good read from her expressions. She is too calculated. I can only tell you that her behaviors don’t add up, that her expressions aren’t genuine—and real—and with that, I know enough to be very concerned with anything she says.
* * *
Did you know according to forensic psychiatrist Dr. Keith Ablow, who was featured on Oprah, that 1 in 25 people show sociopathic (non-empathic) tendencies?? I believe this is absolutely true.
However, Dr. Ablow went on to say that he thinks people are born good, and through deep struggle, stop empathizing. Then he says in time, they look at people suffering with bewilderment and curiosity.
I couldn’t disagree more. You can’t teach it—you just can’t. The normal person can’t turn it off. It’s not possible, no matter how hard you try—hence the reason why a lot of people pull the plug on life. You either have empathy or you don’t but if psychiatry admitted it, they’d loose a lot of business, wouldn’t they????
