Was Scott Peterson Wrongfully Convicted?

[Lili007]

You mean there was no evidence that the mortiser was involved in the murder of Laci. How does that differ from having no evidence that the boat or the truck were involved in the murder of Laci?

No, I don't mean that at all.

It differs because the mortiser was sitting in the warehouse and didn't go for a trip to SF bay where Laci and Conner's bodies washed up. Were there any hairs caught in the mortiser?

[Lili007]

It really doesn't matter because Scott has a different first name...a different address..his correct full name and correct home address were listed on the "Release of Liability" DMV form..so IMO, the fact that the seller has the same last name had no bearing on Scott's decision to buy this boat..it is nothing more than a coincidence..keep in mind that Scott found an unregistered boat and he chose to buy the boat that was registered..

Scott is surrounded by coincidences, isn't he?

Coincidence that he bought his boat from someone called Peterson.

Coincidence that he took the boat out for the first time on the day Laci disappeared.

Coincidence that Laci's body and Conner's body washed up where he went "fishing" that day.

Coincidence that he was driving a car bought in his mother's name when he was arrested.

Coincidence that his hair and facial hair turned blond from swimming in a pool.

and so on...

[One2Snoop]

Scott is surrounded by coincidences, isn't he?

Coincidence that he bought his boat from someone called Peterson.

Coincidence that he took the boat out for the first time on the day Laci disappeared.

Coincidence that Laci's body and Conner's body washed up where he went "fishing" that day.

Coincidence that he was driving a car bought in his mother's name when he was arrested.

Coincidence that his hair and facial hair turned blond from swimming in a pool.

and so on...

This is a great idea for a new thread! :beer: "Scott's Coincidence's"

[Wudge]

It really doesn't matter, remember? :D

Can you say yes or no to my question? :shrug:

I recall no such information ever being put forth by any media source regarding your question.

I don't know why you would say it really doesn't matter. The transcripts are the main source for case facts. I could not find that Bruce Peterson had been asked that question.

I have no recall that Scott was asked that question either.

[One2Snoop]

I recall no such information ever being put forth by any media source regarding your question.

I don't know why you would say it really doesn't matter. The transcripts are the main source for case facts. I could not find that Bruce Peterson had been asked that question.

I have no recall that Scott was asked that question either.

My response "it really doesn't matter" was because when I originally asked the question I got a long song and dance from AW2B when all I wanted was a yes or no answer.
I also don't recall this being the "case facts" thread. All I wanted was a simple yes or no. I think you answered my question in a roundabout way. Thank you. :patriot:

[Lili007]

This is a great idea for a new thread! :beer: "Scott's Coincidence's"

OK - I'll be in it! :beer:

[One2Snoop]

OK - I'll be in it! :beer:

Cool :cool: I'll start one now.

[Radio Flyer]

I agree. It's too bad someone did not ask Bruce Peterson what his boat license was.
Anyone have access to this exhibit:

People's 263: DMV registration documents for boat and trailer

which was being referred to during this testimony:

GROGAN: Yes. Appears that they go back in the history of that vessel quite a ways. But it shows, there is a certified printout from DMV showing that a 91 Sears vessel, which is the boat in this case, with a license number. Had a release of liability transfer date of 12-9 of 02.

[Toggie]

Anyone have access to this exhibit:

People's 263: DMV registration documents for boat and trailer

which was being referred to during this testimony:

GROGAN: Yes. Appears that they go back in the history of that vessel quite a ways. But it shows, there is a certified printout from DMV showing that a 91 Sears vessel, which is the boat in this case, with a license number. Had a release of liability transfer date of 12-9 of 02.



Thank you Radio Flyer!


Do I dare assume Scott did register his boat?

Now I have another silly question....Does a little boat like Scott's get registered with the coast guard or anything like that?

[Lili007]

Thank you Radio Flyer!


Do I dare assume Scott did register his boat?

Now I have another silly question....Does a little boat like Scott's get registered with the coast guard or anything like that?


Or anything like that.

It's particularly relevant when a boat is taken into evidence in a murder case. :rolleyes:

[Toggie]

Or anything like that.

It's particularly relevant when a boat is taken into evidence in a murder case. :rolleyes:

No need to :rolleyes: Lili007. I'm looking for a simple answer. Most people that have followed the case or know the answer are more than willing to help out without :rolleyes: Obviously, you're not one of them.

Thank you to all that helped out with the boat information.

[attorneywan2be]

All I need is a yes or no answer on my question - Was Bruce Petersons name in the ad? And if you don't know the answer then there's no reason to respond. :seeya:


Yes or no answer?!:rolleyes:

My response was addressed to the implication of your question..I should have posted my opinion on that without replying to you..!

[Lili007]

No need to :rolleyes: Lili007. I'm looking for a simple answer. Most people that have followed the case or know the answer are more than willing to help out without :rolleyes: Obviously, you're not one of them.

Thank you to all that helped out with the boat information.

I'm so sorry. I never meant to offend, Toggie.

[thinkaboutit]

thinkaboutit - that looks like more of Geragos's wordplay. Of course, a person might send information to a couple through sending one email meant for both of them.

That doesn't indicate that Laci used Scott's email address, or that she would check his without checking her own.

Besides which - that is not the email address I saw as being checked that morning. The one I saw was spete1, without the O.

Not saying that this must be 100% accurate, but considering all of the cell phones and secret post office boxes, it's not a stretch to assume that he had many email addresses, too.

Laci certainly didn't know about the one he was corresponding with Shawn S. with.

SLPETE1 was the e-mail address being checked that morning - not SPETE1.

Let's be reasonable - there was no wordplay here. Geragos asked Buehler if Servas told him that SLPETE1 was the address she used to communicate with both Laci AND Scott and Buehler said "that's correct" and yes - it does indicate that Laci used this e-mail address. There is no other interpretation for the answer - "that's correct". Why do you assume that this was only Scott's e-mail address? How do you know the L in SLPETE1 does not stand for Laci? I realize that Scott's middle name is Lee - but there is no proof that the L did not stand for Laci.

SLPETE1 was the same e-mail address Scott used to communicate with Shawn Sibley.

So it is not certain, as you say that Laci didn't know about this e-mail address.

I don't think it's reasonable to point out the obvious typo of an O instead of an L. Anyone familiar with the transcripts of the testimony knows there are MANY typos - in addition to it being a possible typo - in a courtroom - the letter L when spoken could easily sound like O.

[Toggie]

I'm so sorry. I never meant to offend, Toggie.


No problem Lili007.:)

I'm just trying to figure out exactly what Scott did with his boat. If he registered the boat in his name, it wasn't a secret. If he didn't, and he left the plates on that belonged to Bruce Peterson, was Scott trying to pull a fast one? Was Scott going to eventually get rid of the boat? I guess that is why I'm wondering if a boat has to be recorded with the coast guard.

I've never owned a boat so I don't have a clue what exactly is involved.:shrug:

[thinkaboutit]

The point would be that the seller is requesting a release from liability for a specific boat that he/she no longer owns. I would think the name and address of the new owner would have to be supplied. One couldn't legally own a boat, request release from liability and continue to leave the boat in his/her name as owner of the boat.
I don't think anyone has a problem agreeing that there is a record that Bruce Peterson sold the boat and gave Scott's name and address as the new owner. The problem is this does NOT prove that the boat was NOT a secret from the people CLOSEST to Scott. The DMV records have NO connection to Scott's family and friends whatsoever. He could have 25 boats registered in his name but, if he doesn't tell family and friends that he has those 25 boats then that is his secret that he's keeping from them. Why is that so hard to understand?

I don't believe I was addressing the fact that Scott and Laci did not tell anyone about the boat - I was addressing the issue of whether or not DMV had a record of the boat sale/purchase and the fact that him not running to the DMV within two weeks of the purchase to register the boat in his name is not suspicious at all.

But since you brought it up, the fact that family and friends didn't know about the boat does not mean Laci didn't know about the boat. Period. Laci's family said - no way Laci would not say something to someone if Scott was having an affair - and lo and behold we find out that Laci did know about his first affair and she told no one.

Then there is the woman who told MPD that Laci used the bathroom at her office, a few days before she went missing, because she couldn't get to the bathroom in Scott's warehouse. Although it is not proof that Laci saw the boat we can infer that either Scott invited Laci to come to his work for something - or Laci showed up uninvited. Either way - it is an indication that the warehouse would have been the last place Scott would have kept the boat if he wanted to hide it from Laci.

[thinkaboutit]

When Bruce Peterson listed his boat for sale do you know if his name was in advertisement?

I don't think it's common practice for people to put their names in an ad when they are selling something. Every letter costs additional money - and it is not necessary.

[Anne2719]

I don't think it's common practice for people to put their names in an ad when they are selling something. Every letter costs additional money - and it is not necessary.
I agree. I don't think I've ever seen someone put their name in an ad when they were selling something. This, in my opinion, was a true coincidence.

[accordn2me]

I agree. I don't think I've ever seen someone put their name in an ad when they were selling something. This, in my opinion, was a true coincidence.I third this agreement. Maybe we should put it in the common ground thread.:tongue:

However, it was a good question O2S and I bet before the first phone conversation ended, both parties knew they had the same last name....

[accordn2me]

Thank you, dear adnoid. Your kindness, wisdom, and sprinklings of humor are like a breath of fresh air. All the credit for my analysis skills goes to you. I've poured over the Logical Fallacy site. Though it has helped tremendously, it's your insightful, almost bordering on psychic, posts that have sharpened my mind so much. Your reassurance that our justice system works just fine lets me go out in public without fear, and rest easy in my own home knowing that if my boyfriend kills me and dumps my body it's a good chance that LE will be able to sift through the vast amount of evidence and potential suspects, and work with the D.A.'s office in order to put him right where he belongs. We are so lucky to have you here. Welcome!

[accordn2me]

Well said, A2me. Adnoid, you have amazing knowledge of this case, and your wit and intelligence as so appreciated. We can always count on you to brighten the day when things get too tense. We are fortunate to have you here.Well aren't you a ray of sunshine! Let me get my microscope...it's a beautiful day on the board!
:beer:

[Wudge]

No problem Lili007.:)

I'm just trying to figure out exactly what Scott did with his boat. If he registered the boat in his name, it wasn't a secret. If he didn't, and he left the plates on that belonged to Bruce Peterson, was Scott trying to pull a fast one? Was Scott going to eventually get rid of the boat? I guess that is why I'm wondering if a boat has to be recorded with the coast guard.

I've never owned a boat so I don't have a clue what exactly is involved.:shrug:

Using Scott's boat being registerd as a good example, it'swould be key for it to be registered in your name with the State.

Geragos's Cross Examination Of Detective Grogan

384. Okay. And specifically these documents show that that boat's
been registered for a while, correct?
385. Yes. It appears so.
386. Okay. And specifically these documents show that Scott
Peterson's name is registered with the DMV as the buyer of the boat; isn't that
right?
387. That’s correct.


Distaso certified the trial record as being accurate, and he never argued or stated anywhere that Scott did not register the boat.

Obviously, he was persuaded that Detective Grogan testified truthfully and accurately. Having to certify Detective Grogan's testimony must have been tough for Diastaso.

(smile)

[Otter]

Using Scott's boat being registerd as a good example, it'swould be key for it to be registered in your name with the State.

Geragos's Cross Examination Of Detective Grogan

384. Okay. And specifically these documents show that that boat's
been registered for a while, correct?
385. Yes. It appears so.
386. Okay. And specifically these documents show that Scott
Peterson's name is registered with the DMV as the buyer of the boat; isn't that
right?
387. That’s correct.


Distaso certified the trial record as being accurate, and he never argued or stated anywhere that Scott did not register the boat.

Obviously, he was persuaded that Detective Grogan testified truthfully and accurately. Having to certify Detective Grogan's testimony must have been tough for Diastaso.

(smile)

I believe you're missing the entire context of what Grogan meant due to the phrasing and limited scope of the question. The document was the seller's report to the state.

Its not disputed that the seller filed the necessary paperwork with the DMV. Peterson gave the seller his correct name and address off his driver's license which is the information the DMV had. The DMV did not receive any paperwork from Peterson the buyer. The seller has no control over that, he's done.

From Grogan's list of 41 reasons why Laci was in the Bay:

"The fact that he paid cash for the boat and didn't register the boat."

http://crime.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.modestobee.com/reports/peterson/trialupdates/story/9176961p%2D10076514c.html

[Wudge]

I believe you're missing the entire context of what Grogan meant due to the phrasing and limited scope of the question. The document was the seller's report to the state.

Its not disputed that the seller filed the necessary paperwork with the DMV. Peterson gave the seller his correct name and address off his driver's license which is the information the DMV had. The DMV did not receive any paperwork from Peterson the buyer. The seller has no control over that, he's done.

From Grogan's list of 41 reasons why Laci was in the Bay:

"The fact that he paid cash for the boat and didn't register the boat."

http://crime.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.modestobee.com/reports/peterson/trialupdates/story/9176961p%2D10076514c.html


Correct, Detective Grogan had that as a point on his list, Unfortunately, he bore witness against himself, for his own testimony impeached that point on his list.

Moreover, Bruce Peterson testified that Scott Peterson paid cash at his request.

However, no witness testified Scott had not registered the boat with the DMV.

[Otter]

Correct, Detective Grogan had that as a point on his list, Unfortunately, he bore witness against himself, for his own testimony impeached that point on his list.

Moreover, Bruce Peterson testified that Scott Peterson paid cash at his request.

However, no witness testified Scott had not registered the boat with the DMV.

We could go back and forth on this all day. No witness needed to testify. A simple copy of the buyer's report filed with the DMV would be proof enough, but no such document existed. Geragos produced the seller's report, if there was a buyer's report, he would've produced that. The seller was complying with the law and did all he needed to do to complete the transaction.

What would be unusual about the seller requesting cash? Avoids hassles for the seller, and its not like we're talking about a yacht money-wise. What was the price -- $1,500? The seller avoided a trip to the bank and risking a bad check. I don't read anything into it for either party.

[Beebee]

Correct, Detective Grogan had that as a point on his list, Unfortunately, he bore witness against himself, for his own testimony impeached that point on his list.

Moreover, Bruce Peterson testified that Scott Peterson paid cash at his request.

However, no witness testified Scott had not registered the boat with the DMV.

Wudge,

Can you think of any reason.... at all, that Scott would need or want a "secret boat" to kill Laci? :shrug: It seems to me that he merely wanted one for his own pleasure. He liked to boat, and fish.
I don't understand how a "secret boat" helps him at all?

Guilty or not, why would the boat have to be secret? His fishing trip, in his own boat wasn't a secret.

It doesn't make sense to me :shrug:

[JustMyOpinion]

Wudge,

Can you think of any reason.... at all, that Scott would need or want a "secret boat" to kill Laci? :shrug: It seems to me that he merely wanted one for his own pleasure. He liked to boat, and fish.
I don't understand how a "secret boat" helps him at all?

Guilty or not, why would the boat have to be secret? His fishing trip, in his own boat wasn't a secret.

It doesn't make sense to me :shrug:

If it is okay, I'll answer ( even though you directed this query to another poster) I don't think Scott purchased the boat (and told nobody he knew about the purchase prior to reporting Laci missing) around the time he told his girlfriend he'd lost his wife & would spend his first Xmas alone because he needed it to kill Laci. I think he bought the boat & searched tides/waterways because he planned to dispose of Laci/Conner in the water. Also, who testified that prior to his fishing trip, Scott told them he had planned a fishing trip for 12/24?

[Hey Paula]

Wudge,

Can you think of any reason.... at all, that Scott would need or want a "secret boat" to kill Laci? :shrug: It seems to me that he merely wanted one for his own pleasure. He liked to boat, and fish.
I don't understand how a "secret boat" helps him at all?

Guilty or not, why would the boat have to be secret? His fishing trip, in his own boat wasn't a secret.

It doesn't make sense to me :shrug:

If the boat formed part of his plan to dispose of Laci's body, it makes perfect sense Scott would keep it secret (COG).

I have always believed that Scott had intended to golf on 12/24, and pick up the basket for Amy as promised the night before. I believe golfing was Scott's intended alibi, which would have easily been accepted since he was known by all to be an avid golfer.

For some reason, the murder took longer than he'd planned. (Perhaps the cement anchors hadn't dried sufficiently.) He couldn't keep Laci's corpse lying around, so he was forced to use the boat, and having chosen the SF Bay as his disposal site, couldn't get back in time to play a round of golf. I suspect this was another act of Divine Intervention to be added to the other two I'd previously posted.

IMO

[Invrdv8]

No, I have my own insurance, which I got immediately (that could be done via phone call and fax). But I haven't gone to the DMV to get my own plates.
You won't get your "own plates" unless there were no plates on the car when you bought it. If there were plates on the car, it will be registered in YOUR and you will retain the plates that are already on the car. I just bought a used car and I have the same plates as were on the car when I purchased it. The only thing that changed was the name of the registered owner which is now me!

[JustMyOpinion]

If the boat formed part of his plan to dispose of Laci's body, it makes perfect sense Scott would keep it secret (COG).

I have always believed that Scott had intended to golf on 12/24, and pick up the basket for Amy as promised the night before. I believe golfing was Scott's intended alibi, which would have easily been accepted since he was known by all to be an avid golfer.

For some reason, the murder took longer than he'd planned. (Perhaps the cement anchors hadn't dried sufficiently.) He couldn't keep Laci's corpse lying around, so he was forced to use the boat, and having chosen the SF Bay as his disposal site, couldn't get back in time to play a round of golf. I suspect this was another act of Divine Intervention to be added to the other two I'd previously posted.

IMO
I agree that it appears something happened to change Scott's original plan (I also believe he had intended to golf, to pick-up the basket). I continue to wonder if Scott originally planned as if he had until morning of 12/25 ( prior to holiday brunch they were hosting in home) to actually report Laci missing, since Sharon testified that Laci had not confirmed they would attend her Xmas eve dinner until approx 8:30 p.m. 12/23. Maybe Scott's whole timeline was shortened as a result of Laci telling Sharon they would attend, and, as you say: other issues could have arisen as well. I also do not think Scott was prepared for the police to respond right away to a missing-adult report and begin to investigate so thoroughly ( or, that a crimes against persons detective would show up within a few hours). Hence the changed story from what the neighbor testified he told her ( golfing) to fishing. He was adapting, IMO.

[Wudge]

Wudge,

Can you think of any reason.... at all, that Scott would need or want a "secret boat" to kill Laci? :shrug: It seems to me that he merely wanted one for his own pleasure. He liked to boat, and fish.
I don't understand how a "secret boat" helps him at all?

Guilty or not, why would the boat have to be secret? His fishing trip, in his own boat wasn't a secret.

It doesn't make sense to me :shrug:

Beebee, I never thought it made sense to think that premeditation could be evidenced by an alleged plan to submerge a body in the full daylight of high-noon in a bay where where thousands of bay watchers with telescopes and/or binoculars reside in homes and apartments that line the hills overlooking the bay.

More realistically, Scott was a fertilizer salesman who knew the countryside like the back of his hand for hundreds of miles around Modesto. He could have easily dug a hole ahead of time to bury Laci in. It would have been cheaper, simpler, faster, far, far safer and less prone to error and discovery.

More importantly, Nancy Grace agrees with me. And when that happens, it is like trying to ignore an exploding supernova.

Larry King Show 6-15-2004

CALLER: Hi, Larry. My question is for Nancy. First, Nancy, let me quickly say that Court TV message boards love you. Nancy, do you think the prosecution will present a one-trip or a two-trips-to-the- bay theory by Scott Peterson?

GRACE: I think, given what we know right now, they'll have to present a two-trip-to-the-bay because, when he went to go fishing in the afternoon, believe you me, if he is, in fact, guilty, he did not dispose of Laci's body at that time in plain view in the middle of the day.

(planets colliding)

[enlightenme]

I feel the same way. This is why Scott used the "I was golfing all day" line on the first few people he talked to, but then realized that it wouldn't work. He must have been as nervous as a kangaroo in a room full of rocking chairs.

He could reasonably assume nobody would have had contact with him on a golf course on 12/24. In fact, if he had been smart, he could have started the round and walked off the course at the first or second green, and the records would have shown he was at the course and teed off. If the course is empty the marshal probably wouldn't be out and, even if he was, could assume you just went to the john or something if he drove the course & didn't see you.

I think his whole timing scheme got screwed up, he got back from the bay too late to make it work, but didn't change his alibi until he had told both Sharon and Amy the golf story - and then he was caught.

The explanation that he had originally said he was going to golf and just forgot that he was boating all day gets no traction with any but a few of his rabid supporters. You don't forget what you were doing all day!

I think it was in the first interview with Brocchini that Scott said there were some other people at the warehouse complex that morning. I think that may have slowed him down some...waiting for them to leave. I don't know what he was doing in the warehouse all that time besides preparing Laci's body with weights. He certainly wasn't building a mortiser!

JMO

[Invrdv8]

Using Scott's boat being registerd as a good example, it'swould be key for it to be registered in your name with the State.

Geragos's Cross Examination Of Detective Grogan

384. Okay. And specifically these documents show that that boat's
been registered for a while, correct?
385. Yes. It appears so.
386. Okay. And specifically these documents show that Scott
Peterson's name is registered with the DMV as the buyer of the boat; isn't that
right?
387. That’s correct.


Distaso certified the trial record as being accurate, and he never argued or stated anywhere that Scott did not register the boat.

Obviously, he was persuaded that Detective Grogan testified truthfully and accurately. Having to certify Detective Grogan's testimony must have been tough for Diastaso.

(smile)
Yes, Scott's name was registered as the buyer of the boat but, only because Bruce Peterson filed the "Release of Liability" naming Scott as the buyer. That in no way implies that the boat was registered in Scott's name as owner of the boat. Clever play on word's that didn't get caught.:no: Anybody know where the boat is now?

[Wudge]

Yes, Scott's name was registered as the buyer of the boat but, only because Bruce Peterson filed the "Release of Liability" naming Scott as the buyer. That in no way implies that the boat was registered in Scott's name. Anybody know what happened to the boat? Clever play on word's that didn't get caught.:no:

:patriot:

It's nice that we agree Scott was registered as the boat's owner and that the DMV had his home address of 523 Covena Avenue. Obviously, there is nothing sinister about those facts; in fact, the opposite is true.

[Invrdv8]

Anyone have access to this exhibit:

People's 263: DMV registration documents for boat and trailer

which was being referred to during this testimony:

GROGAN: Yes. Appears that they go back in the history of that vessel quite a ways. But it shows, there is a certified printout from DMV showing that a 91 Sears vessel, which is the boat in this case, with a license number. Had a release of liability transfer date of 12-9 of 02.


We already know that Bruce Peterson filed a "Release of Liability" form. Where is there any documentation that indicates when the boat was registered in Scott's name? The boat needed to be registered by Scott in order to legally put it in the water after 12-9-02.

[Invrdv8]

The boat was taken back to Modesto a short time ago. It is still considered evidence.

You are correct -While the Release of Liability named Scott as the buyer, and the paper was sent to the DMV, it does NOT register the boat to Scott automatically. Scott would need to do that himself.
Oh, I think I remember it being reported that the boat had been taken back to Modesto. If it's still considered evidence it must be in the possession of the MPD? Couldn't a search be done to find out if the boat is or is not yet registered in Scott's name?

[thinkaboutit]

Snipped...

What would be unusual about the seller requesting cash? Avoids hassles for the seller, and its not like we're talking about a yacht money-wise. What was the price -- $1,500? The seller avoided a trip to the bank and risking a bad check. I don't read anything into it for either party.

I agree. I would say it is common practice for a seller of a car, boat, etc. to only accept cash. Too many yayhoos out there writing bad checks.

IMO, it was a useless point on Grogan's list (not the only one) and a perfect example of MPD's mentality during this entire investigation.

[Invrdv8]

Surprising nobody has mentioned this before. :rolleyes:

I've seen it many times, but because of the play on words in the testimony no one wants to pay attention. Can't seem to get it across that "registered buyer" is not the same as "registered owner".

[Beebee]

Beebee, I never thought it made sense to think that premeditation could be evidenced by an alleged plan to submerge a body in the full daylight of high-noon in a bay where where thousands of bay watchers with telescopes and/or binoculars reside in homes and apartments that line the hills overlooking the bay.

More realistically, Scott was a fertilizer salesman who knew the countryside like the back of his hand for hundreds of miles around Modesto. He could have easily dug a hole ahead of time to bury Laci in. It would have been cheaper, simpler, faster, far, far safer and less prone to error and discovery.

More importantly, Nancy Grace agrees with me. And when that happens, it is like trying to ignore an exploding supernova.

Larry King Show 6-15-2004

CALLER: Hi, Larry. My question is for Nancy. First, Nancy, let me quickly say that Court TV message boards love you. Nancy, do you think the prosecution will present a one-trip or a two-trips-to-the- bay theory by Scott Peterson?

GRACE: I think, given what we know right now, they'll have to present a two-trip-to-the-bay because, when he went to go fishing in the afternoon, believe you me, if he is, in fact, guilty, he did not dispose of Laci's body at that time in plain view in the middle of the day.

(planets colliding)

I remember her comments well.

Well, Nancy isn't stupid.... the prosecution's theory defies logic, imo.

Do you know, did Nancy ever comment on the high noon body dump after she made that statement?

[Invrdv8]

I don't believe I was addressing the fact that Scott and Laci did not tell anyone about the boat - I was addressing the issue of whether or not DMV had a record of the boat sale/purchase and the fact that him not running to the DMV within two weeks of the purchase to register the boat in his name is not suspicious at all.

But since you brought it up, the fact that family and friends didn't know about the boat does not mean Laci didn't know about the boat. Period. Laci's family said - no way Laci would not say something to someone if Scott was having an affair - and lo and behold we find out that Laci did know about his first affair and she told no one.

Then there is the woman who told MPD that Laci used the bathroom at her office, a few days before she went missing, because she couldn't get to the bathroom in Scott's warehouse. Although it is not proof that Laci saw the boat we can infer that either Scott invited Laci to come to his work for something - or Laci showed up uninvited. Either way - it is an indication that the warehouse would have been the last place Scott would have kept the boat if he wanted to hide it from Laci.

When the DMV received the "Release from Liability" forms from Bruce Peterson that was notification that he had sold the boat. He included Scott's name on that form as the buyer. That does not in turn automatically register the boat in Scott's name. Scott had to do that himself. The big deal is, if he delays registering the boat, takes it out on the water and gets caught it could result in all kinds of consequences.

There is absolutely no way to know whether or not Laci knew about the boat. IMO she didn't know about it. Buying a boat right before Xmas, not to mention with a baby on the way doesn't seem like a good financial decision to me.

As for Laci being at Scott's business on Dec. 23rd and asking to use the restroom at the business nextdoor doesn't mean anything either. There was a partition around Scott's office area that prevented veiwing the contents of the warehouse especially for someone of Laci's stature. IMO she knew the warehouse was packed full and never went back there. Thus Scott could put the boat in there and no one would see it. He asked that his bosses not be told he was storing the boat there and I don't believe anybody ever came forward to say they saw Scott putting the boat in the warehouse. That all adds up to "secret" IMO.

[Invrdv8]

:patriot:

It's nice that we agree Scott was registered as the boat's owner and that the DMV had his home address of 523 Covena Avenue. Obviously, there is nothing sinister about those facts; in fact, the opposite is true.
We do not agree that "Scott was registered as the boats owner". Another twisting of words IMO. It was the "Release of Liability" from Bruce Peterson that was registered with the DMV. Scott was named as the buyer. That does not mean the boat was automatically registered in Scott's name. He had to fill out the proper paperwork to do that. Which, he apparently did NOT do. He put that boat in the water illegally.

[Wudge]

I've seen it many times, but because of the play on words in the testimony no one wants to pay attention. Can't seem to get it across that "registered buyer" is not the same as "registered owner".

Distaso had very little in the way of probative evidence upon which to adduce motive, and, in turn, prove premeditation. As such, there had to be a reason why Distaso never stated, claimed or argued that Scott had not registered the boat.

Moreover, the fact that the jury agreed on a verdict absent motive means the jury did not consider the alleged "secret" boat to have established motive, nor did the jury consider Scott saying he "lost" his wife to have established motive either.

The jury found no motive. Therefore, looking at the best path for "registration or not" shows it leads absolutely no where.

[thinkaboutit]

When the DMV received the "Release from Liability" forms from Bruce Peterson that was notification that he had sold the boat. He included Scott's name on that form as the buyer. That does not in turn automatically register the boat in Scott's name. Scott had to do that himself. The big deal is, if he delays registering the boat, takes it out on the water and gets caught it could result in all kinds of consequences.

Snipped



I agree there probably would be consequences if he got caught in a boat he failed to register - a ticket - a fine. How is that relevant to the murder case?

[Anne2719]

You won't get your "own plates" unless there were no plates on the car when you bought it. If there were plates on the car, it will be registered in YOUR and you will retain the plates that are already on the car. I just bought a used car and I have the same plates as were on the car when I purchased it. The only thing that changed was the name of the registered owner which is now me!
Oh good, since changing plates is a huge pain in the neck. I hope what you say is true in Colorado.

[Beebee]

The jury found no motive. Therefore, looking at the best path for "registration or not" shows it leads absolutely no where.

Speaking of the jury, what do you think of Richelle Nice writing Scott?

Why does she want a confession?

Isn't she sure beyond a reasonable doubt?

I have always found her writing him to be odd.

[A_seeker]

I agree there probably would be consequences if he got caught in a boat he failed to register - a ticket - a fine. How is that relevant to the murder case?

It may or may not be relevant. However, it brings up a good point. For all those who say Scott was always law-abiding...never even received a ticket....I say....he obviously was NOT always law-abiding...maybe he had just never been caught. Someone who is a serial cheater has the perfect personality for trying to "beat the law" at their own game...whether it be illegal use of vehicles, or murder. It's that risk-taking mentality...the same one that exhibited itself sooooo clearly when Scott (who claims to be intelligent) would stand at a prayer vigil romancing Amber on his cell-phone...as if he didn't care that he was under scrutiny.
Tell me, if he was such a stickler for the rules as his supporters say, WHY he wouldn't have done something so simple as to make his boat legal, before he put it in the water???

[Beebee]

I agree there probably would be consequences if he got caught in a boat he failed to register - a ticket - a fine. How is that relevant to the murder case?

Same with the fishing license.

Did the prosecution think he wanted to be legal on the waters to dump a body? :shrug:

[A_seeker]

Speaking of the jury, what do you think of Richelle Nice writing Scott?

Why does she want a confession?

Isn't she sure beyond a reasonable doubt?

I have always found her writing him to be odd.

Because according to her, she wanted to see him show some remorse. She said she was hoping he would break down and come clean with the truth. She seemed to think if he was honest, he could be "helped".

[Wudge]

I remember her comments well.

Well, Nancy isn't stupid.... the prosecution's theory defies logic, imo.

Do you know, did Nancy ever comment on the high noon body dump after she made that statement?

She never brought it up again as far as I know.

[Wudge]

Speaking of the jury, what do you think of Richelle Nice writing Scott?

Why does she want a confession?

Isn't she sure beyond a reasonable doubt?

I have always found her writing him to be odd.

I have no insight as to why she would write Scott. However, like many of the appeal issues that are predicated on post-verdict juror statements, Richelle is risking an issue having her name on it.

[Anne2719]

That's because someone with a seriously limited understanding has created the concept of the "registered buyer" - which does not exist and cannot be found in the California DMV regs - and used this concept as a substitute for "registered owner" - a concept which IS in the regs and has real and legal meaning.

You can try to explain it with smaller words - that might help. Then again, I doubt it will.

Please be nice.

[Hey Paula]

I agree that it appears something happened to change Scott's original plan (I also believe he had intended to golf, to pick-up the basket). I continue to wonder if Scott originally planned as if he had until morning of 12/25 ( prior to holiday brunch they were hosting in home) to actually report Laci missing, since Sharon testified that Laci had not confirmed they would attend her Xmas eve dinner until approx 8:30 p.m. 12/23. Maybe Scott's whole timeline was shortened as a result of Laci telling Sharon they would attend, and, as you say: other issues could have arisen as well. I also do not think Scott was prepared for the police to respond right away to a missing-adult report and begin to investigate so thoroughly ( or, that a crimes against persons detective would show up within a few hours). Hence the changed story from what the neighbor testified he told her ( golfing) to fishing. He was adapting, IMO.

Why, on a day when he would want most to remain iinconspicuous, would he intentionally draw attention to himself by not picking up the basket which he himself volunteered to do? Obviously, he was forced to change his plans, and because of it, was forced to reveal his secret boat, placing himself at the very location he used to dispose of Laci's body.

Scott left a mess behind at the warehouse, which he undoubtedly intended to clean, but couldn't because LE had returned to take a closer look and were posted outside. Somehow I believe the delay might very well have been caused by the failure of the cement anchors to have dried adequately. Hence, the mess left behind by their manufacture.

IMO

[Wudge]

Why, on a day when he would want most to remain iinconspicuous, would he intentionally draw attention to himself by not picking up the basket which he himself volunteered to do? Obviously, he was forced to change his plans, and because of it, was forced to reveal his secret boat, placing himself at the very location he used to dispose of Laci's body.

Scott left a mess behind at the warehouse, which he undoubtedly intended to clean, but couldn't because LE had returned to take a closer look and were posted outside. Somehow I believe the delay might very well have been caused by the failure of the cement anchors to have dried adequately. Hence, the mess left behind by their manufacture.

IMO

Paula, you are assuming that Scott had a plan, then you use that assumption to conclude what you wish to prove (that he had a plan). Never assume that which you wish to prove, it is fallacious logic.

[Hey Paula]

Paula, you are assuming that Scott had a plan, then you use that assumption to conclude what you wish to prove (that he had a plan). Never assume that which you wish to prove, it is fallacious logic.

Hi Wudge!

My original post was in response to BD's post which was actually addressed to you, asking why Scott would need a secret boat in his plan to kill Laci. After addressing that issue, I explained why I thought the boat had to be kept secret, and why I felt Scott intended to golf and use that as his alibi, far removed from the SF Bay. One thought following another, I explained what I thought might have gone wrong for Scott to have been forced to deviate from his intended plan, and instead place himself at the disposal site.

The reason for these post-trial, post-conviction discussions is for us to attempt to logically hypothesize/theorize the unknowns which, as in most trials, are the result of many unasnwered questions, absent of a videographed crime and the perpetrator detailing his/her crime.

IMO

[Wudge]

Hi Wudge!

My original post was in response to BD's post which was actually addressed to you, asking why Scott would need a secret boat in his plan to kill Laci. After addressing that issue, I explained why I thought the boat had to be kept secret, and why I felt Scott intended to golf and use that as his alibi, far removed from the SF Bay. One thought following another, I explained what I thought might have gone wrong for Scott to have been forced to deviate from his intended plan, and instead place himself at the disposal site.

The reason for these post-trial, post-conviction discussions is for us to attempt to logically hypothesize/theorize the unknowns which, as in most trials, are the result of many unasnwered questions, absent of a videographed crime and the perpetrator detailing his/her crime.

IMO

Nice post Paula. (take a bow)

I agree that forums can, as you said, "logically hypothesize/theorize the unknowns which, as in most trials, are the result of many unasnwered questions, absent of a videographed crime and the perpetrator detailing his/her crime."

Probably far before your time, a "Court Of Last Resort" existed and did just that. Today, the Innocence Project" has basically taken leadership in that role. But forums have their moments of value add too.

:patriot:

[Wearing A Halo]

Btw, Jimmy, can you PROVE it wasn't secret?

:seeya: :beer:

[Wearing A Halo]

Oh dear - all wrong as usual.

However, he bought a boat on the same day he lost his wife.
Untrue - he lost his wife on March 15th when she died
Didn't tell a soul.
Unproven
Didn't register it.
Untrue
Bought his launch ticket on the 20th, but told everyone on the 22nd he was going golfing.
Had an alternate plan if the weather was bad
Instead he drove the boat nobody knew about
Unproven
90 miles away, on Christmas Eve., to get it wet
Closest sea water to him

Batting zero again, huh?

:no:

Okay, I got you down for March 15. Any other NGs have different date(s)?

[enlightenme]

Can you show me any place, any time, when you've been able to formulate a logical argument - or follow one?

All of the things I have stated were either testified to by other witnesses or were the state's to prove - and they failed.

And you finally fell back on the weakest argument in the world - "The jury convicted him". That's the equivalent of "My mummy said so" - and as convincing.


That is at least the third insult to TG specifically. Not very nice and it doesn't make your unreasonable (IMO) theories or logic any more believable or factual.

[LionRun]

Mr. Jone's first name has been clearly stated as, "Jim." His name is not Jimmy or Jimbo. If the nic name were given as a term of endearment or to shorten his name, with no sarcasm involved that would be fine. That is not what I read into this, though.

Please, folks have respect for others and stop the sarcasm.

Lion

[Anne2719]

Can you show me any place, any time, when you've been able to formulate a logical argument - or follow one?

All of the things I have stated were either testified to by other witnesses or were the state's to prove - and they failed.

And you finally fell back on the weakest argument in the world - "The jury convicted him". That's the equivalent of "My mummy said so" - and as convincing.
Jim, please treat people as you would like to be treated. No personal insults.

[Anne2719]

I'd like everyone to agree that saying "Scott was convicted" is a mind numbingly pointless argument. It doesn't make any point that has any validity, since everyone knows that juries have been wrong many times before. It is only done to annoy the other poster, since it is without merit.

On the day when the US carried out its 1,000th execution (after resuming them) over 125 people had been released from death row as innocent. That's 1 in 8 - and that is a terrible record of failure. All too many of those people were released as a result of new science, or of work by reporters, or of law students in training, or of members of the public. The 'system' failed all of these people.

If the jury decision was the ultimate answer there would be no courts of appeal and no retrials. What we are arguing here is whether the jury was right or not. This is not some sort of football or baseball game - it is supposed to be a search for the truth. It is not who can shout the loudest - it is who can marshal real facts and reasonable conclusions based on them.
You imply you are a mathematician/logician. If you are, then you are deliberately being misleading with that 1-in-8 figure, and you know it. You have to take the ratio of those 125 released people against the total number of people awaiting execution. In 2005 there were 3254 prisoners on death row. So, unless I'm doing my math incorrectly, that's 1 in 26. Still too many, I know, but that's not my point.

THIS is the kind of specious logic you indulge in.

ETA: And if you add the 1000 who were executed, then the ratio is even lower.

[accordn2me]

Mr. Jone's first name has been clearly stated as, "Jim." His name is not Jimmy or Jimbo. If the nic name were given as a term of endearment or to shorten his name, with no sarcasm involved that would be fine. That is not what I read into this, though.

Please, folks have respect for others and stop the sarcasm.

LionWhen my momma was mad at me, she used BOTH my names....

"ACCORDN 2ME I WILL WASH YOUR MOUTH OUT WITH SOAP IF YOU SASS ME ONE MORE TIME!"

Like that.:eek:

[attorneywan2be]

You imply you are a mathematician/logician. If you are, then you are deliberately being misleading with that 1-in-8 figure, and you know it. You have to take the ratio of those 125 released people against the total number of people awaiting execution. In 2005 there were 3254 prisoners on death row. So, unless I'm doing my math incorrectly, that's 1 in 26. Still too many, I know, but that's not my point.

THIS is the kind of specious logic you indulge in.

ETA: And if you add the 1000 who were executed, then the ratio is even lower.


As far as I know, the ratio is calculated based on the number of wrongful convictions vs the number of executions...they do not include the number of people awaiting executions..for a simple reason..those cases are pending, meaning, some of them could end up being released..some will have their verdict reversed and get a second trial....etc..etc..

They are comparing cases that have been resolved :
1-Executions
2-Wrongful convictions..

[LionRun]

When my momma was mad at me, she used BOTH my names....

"ACCORDN 2ME I WILL WASH YOUR MOUTH OUT WITH SOAP IF YOU SASS ME ONE MORE TIME!"

Like that.:eek:

Please explain what you mean.

Lion

[accordn2me]

Please explain what you mean.

LionIn the South, sometimes people have double names....animals too...like my cat Samantha June....we call her Sam for short....but when she's bad....we call her SAMANTHA JUNE! So when you're frustrated, instead of giving someone a nickname....it's more effective if you use both names...or their whole name....like you were in serious trouble if you heard your first, middle, and last name....better RUN! LionRun...:D

you really need the benefit of sound for this one...

[Beebee]

For some reason, the murder took longer than he'd planned. (Perhaps the cement anchors hadn't dried sufficiently.) He couldn't keep Laci's corpse lying around, so he was forced to use the boat, and having chosen the SF Bay as his disposal site, couldn't get back in time to play a round of golf. I suspect this was another act of Divine Intervention to be added to the other two I'd previously posted.

IMO

Hi Paula,

He didn't leave the warehouse until 11:18.... do you think he had a tee time set up for late afternoon?
Also, just about every minute of his day was accounted for:
http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/id53.html

When/how do you think he killed her, and how do you think he got her to the Bay?

[Beebee]

Scott left a mess behind at the warehouse, which he undoubtedly intended to clean, but couldn't because LE had returned to take a closer look and were posted outside. Somehow I believe the delay might very well have been caused by the failure of the cement anchors to have dried adequately. Hence, the mess left behind by their manufacture.

IMO


Paula,

I'm just curious, why do you think he made cement anchors? Wouldn't it have been way easier to just buy some metal anchors? If the purpose of the anchors is to weight a dead body, why go through the hassle of making cement anchors that leave a mess and have to dry?
Or why not use bricks?

The whole cement anchor thing has never made sense to me.

[packy]

Paula,

I'm just curious, why do you think he made cement anchors? Wouldn't it have been way easier to just buy some metal anchors? If the purpose of the anchors is to weight a dead body, why go through the hassle of making cement anchors that leave a mess and have to dry?
Or why not use bricks?

The whole cement anchor thing has never made sense to me.

Didn't he say he did make one anchor and used the rest to patch the drive? I can't find it, but I seem to remember that Geragos got the expert to say the cement from the warehouse and drive did have the same basic components, but the expert claimed the rocks were mixed in it so that supposedly proved Scott lied. How the heck can they really tell whether the cement got mixed with the rocks during patching or that it was mixed in the original mixture anyway?

[Beebee]

Didn't he say he did make one anchor and used the rest to patch the drive? I can't find it, but I seem to remember that Geragos got the expert to say the cement from the warehouse and drive did have the same basic components, but the expert claimed the rocks were mixed in it so that supposedly proved Scott lied. How the heck can they really tell whether the cement got mixed with the rocks during patching or that it was mixed in the original mixture anyway?

Hi packy! :seeya:

Yes, he made one anchor. My point is if he needed multiple anchors to weigh a body, why not buy them? Why save "one" and risk it matching the others?
Why mix cement for a sinister purpose, and then not clean it up?
Yet he gets rid of every other speck of evidence?
Plus no anchors were found, any where....

pic of boat and anchor here:
http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/May06FF.html

[packy]

Hi packy! :seeya:

Yes, he made one anchor. My point is if he needed multiple anchors to weigh a body, why not buy them? Why save "one" and risk it matching the others?
Why mix cement for a sinister purpose, and then not clean it up?
Yet he gets rid of every other speck of evidence?
Plus no anchors were found, any where....

pic of boat and anchor here:
http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/May06FF.html

Hi, Beebee, I hear what you're saying. Saving one does not make sense. I also don't believe that they proved he lied about the anchor and cement.

[JustMyOpinion]

Hi packy! :seeya:

Yes, he made one anchor. My point is if he needed multiple anchors to weigh a body, why not buy them? Why save "one" and risk it matching the others?
Why mix cement for a sinister purpose, and then not clean it up?
Yet he gets rid of every other speck of evidence?
Plus no anchors were found, any where....

pic of boat and anchor here:
http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/May06FF.html

He claims he made one anchor, one anchor was collected into evidence. Residue at the warehouse suggests more were made, IMO ( as does the fact that Laci's body stayed submerged for months, and her limbs eventually disarticulated) Wecht agreed: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0304/18/bn.02.html
SNIP: WECHT:
I think that weights were attached to this body. Someone did not throw that body into the water and let it float around, expecting or anticipating, certainly, that it could be discovered the very next day. That body was weighted, and I believe that it was -- understood, in the perpetrator's mind that that body would never be seen again. That heavy weight had to be affixed to the body by a wire or a rope, most probably around the neck, another one probably around the lower torso. After a period of time, with the tissue softening, loosening, decomposing, that heavy weight remaining, the tension and the stress pulling down on the wire or the rope, and you have disarticulation of the head and of the lower extremities. That is why I believe the body is in the condition that it is.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0304/18/bn.02.html
I don't know why Scott chose to make anchor(s) instead of purchaing them ( I'd only guess that he didn't want a purchase of multiple, light weight anchors traced back to himself) I believe Scott would have cleaned up the mess later on, he likely didn't anticipate police responding so quickly to a missing- adult report on Xmas eve, IMO. Also, Scott did not get rid of "every speck" of evidence, ( i.e. boat, blood on comforter, pliers found under boat seat, blood in vehicle, cuts on his hand, one concrete anchor, fishing permit, phone message, launch receipt,etc)

[enlightenme]

Didn't he say he did make one anchor and used the rest to patch the drive? I can't find it, but I seem to remember that Geragos got the expert to say the cement from the warehouse and drive did have the same basic components, but the expert claimed the rocks were mixed in it so that supposedly proved Scott lied. How the heck can they really tell whether the cement got mixed with the rocks during patching or that it was mixed in the original mixture anyway?

Gebler, the defense expert, testified that Scott put the cement mix on dry and watered it or waited for rain. Judge Delucchi had to have him explain that. This theory is not reasonable.

Judge Delucchi: I just have a question. I may missed it. I missed it. The concrete that contains the pea gravel, was that put on, if you have an opinion, was it as likely to be put on wet as it is put on dry, and then it got rained on?

Steven Gebler: The way the appearance of the concrete and the softness of the surface is more likely that it was placed on dry and then rainwater worked on it.

Judge Delucchi: If I walked out there, and I had a half bag of concrete, and I just emptied the bag on top of the aggregate, and then it rained on it, it would end up like that?

Steven Gebler: Over time it would.

Judge Delucchi: Okay. Because this, you can't hardly call that finished concrete, can you?

Steven Gebler: And that's one of the things we said in our report. There was no trowel finish, like if I was doing a sidewalk or a driveway, you would finish it off here. It was just laying right down. Plus it got eroded away with the surface not being consolidated and densified, then the rainwater, and the elements, the rest,

Judge Delucchi: Rainwater, even a hose?

Steven Gebler: Well, yeah, it could do that.

[Hey Paula]

Hi packy! :seeya:

Yes, he made one anchor. My point is if he needed multiple anchors to weigh a body, why not buy them? Why save "one" and risk it matching the others?
Why mix cement for a sinister purpose, and then not clean it up?
Yet he gets rid of every other speck of evidence?
Plus no anchors were found, any where....

pic of boat and anchor here:
http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/May06FF.html

Hi BB!

What possible explanation could Scott provide for buying 5 anchors for a boat which was yet unregistered? As a homeowner, however, with a cement driveway and patio, a purchase of cement seems innocuous.

Scott had intended to clean the mess he made while making those anchors at the warehouse, but LE got there before he could accomplish it. No wonder he whistled when he played Sharon's message. He must have been shaking in his boots thinking LE had recovered one of his homemade anchors.

IMO

[Scampi]

Hi BB!

What possible explanation could Scott provide for buying 5 anchors for a boat which was yet unregistered? As a homeowner, however, with a cement driveway and patio, a purchase of cement seems innocuous.

Scott had intended to clean the mess he made while making those anchors at the warehouse, but LE got there before he could accomplish it. No wonder he whistled when he played Sharon's message. He must have been shaking in his boots thinking LE had recovered one of his homemade anchors.

IMOYoo Whoo, just like old times Hey Paula!!! :tongue:

[Hey Paula]

Hi Paula,

He didn't leave the warehouse until 11:18.... do you think he had a tee time set up for late afternoon?
Also, just about every minute of his day was accounted for:
http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/id53.html

When/how do you think he killed her, and how do you think he got her to the Bay?

Hi BB,

I think Scott had intended to do exactly what he'd told Amy the night before, i.e., to play golf and to pick up the fruit basket as he'd volunteered to do.

I believe Laci was murdered sometime after she'd spoken to Sharon, while she was in the midst of undressing, preparing to don her bedclothes. As she was removing her blouse, with her back turned to the bedroom door, I believe Scott came up behind her, overtook her and either suffocated and/or strangled her.

Believing the account of Todd and Pearce, and that the Medina burglary took place in the wee hours of 12/24, I believe might have caused a delay in getting Laci's body out of the house, and perhaps Scott fearing LE would arrive.

I think the anchors could very well have caused the delay, perhaps because the cement hadn't dried sufficiently.

I believe Laci was transported to the Bay, wrapped in tarp, placed between the seat and floor of the boat, which was securely covered by the boat cover purchased with the boat.

IMO

[Hey Paula]

Yoo Whoo, just like old times Hey Paula!!! :tongue:

Hi Scampi!! :seeya:

It's great to see you here!

This is a case I still like to discuss. As with most other cases, which end in conviction, there are many unanswered questions because most murders aren't videotaped, and most defendants don't describe how they carried out their crimes. So here we are hypothesizing/theorizing what might have logically taken place, given the facts known to us.

IMO

[Beebee]

Hi, Beebee, I hear what you're saying. Saving one does not make sense. I also don't believe that they proved he lied about the anchor and cement.

I don't know how the prosecution got away with the alleged anchor "evidence"..... there was no evidence at all that Laci was weighted down, in fact there is evidence that she was not (mineral deposits on pants).

That's like speculating a person was shot, even though they have no bullet wounds or residue on them, and no bullets around them after an extensive search... and then introducing guns into evidence.

I really don't see it as any different.

[Beebee]

Hi BB!

What possible explanation could Scott provide for buying 5 anchors for a boat which was yet unregistered? As a homeowner, however, with a cement driveway and patio, a purchase of cement seems innocuous.



Why would he need to explain buying anchors?

[Beebee]

Hi BB,

I think Scott had intended to do exactly what he'd told Amy the night before, i.e., to play golf and to pick up the fruit basket as he'd volunteered to do.

I believe Laci was murdered sometime after she'd spoken to Sharon, while she was in the midst of undressing, preparing to don her bedclothes. As she was removing her blouse, with her back turned to the bedroom door, I believe Scott came up behind her, overtook her and either suffocated and/or strangled her.

Believing the account of Todd and Pearce, and that the Medina burglary took place in the wee hours of 12/24, I believe might have caused a delay in getting Laci's body out of the house, and perhaps Scott fearing LE would arrive.

I think the anchors could very well have caused the delay, perhaps because the cement hadn't dried sufficiently.

I believe Laci was transported to the Bay, wrapped in tarp, placed between the seat and floor of the boat, which was securely covered by the boat cover purchased with the boat.

IMO


Yikes.

Laci had different pants on than what she wore the night of 12/23.

The Medinas were home the wee hours of 12/24. They didn't leave until 10:30 in the morning.

When do you think he made the anchors? After he got to the warehouse? If so, how long does it take?

The space between the seat and the floor is too small for a body. Have you seen the pics of the inside of the boat?

His boat cover could not be used for transportation. It was for storage only. It had no hardware to fasten it, only some cloth loops. It would have flown off on the freeway. Bruce Peterson testified to this.

[JustMyOpinion]

[QUOTE=Beebee;8836693]Yikes.

Laci had different pants on than what she wore the night of 12/23.

QUOTE]

I don't agree this was proven. Her remains were clad in the same color slacks she was seen wearing on 12/23. I don't know if they were the same slacks, ( based on some testimony about style) but they could have been, IMO. I think the evidence shows Scott used his hands to strangle or smother her while she was undressing the night of 12/23, or getting dressed the morning of 12/24.

[attorneywan2be]

I don't know how the prosecution got away with the alleged anchor "evidence"..... there was no evidence at all that Laci was weighted down, in fact there is evidence that she was not (mineral deposits on pants).

That's like speculating a person was shot, even though they have no bullet wounds or residue on them, and no bullets around them after an extensive search... and then introducing guns into evidence.

I really don't see it as any different.

Exactly!! :beer:

[thinkaboutit]

Laci had different pants on than what she wore the night of 12/23.



I don't agree this was proven. Her remains were clad in the same color slacks she was seen wearing on 12/23. I don't know if they were the same slacks, ( based on some testimony about style) but they could have been, IMO. I think the evidence shows Scott used his hands to strangle or smother her while she was undressing the night of 12/23, or getting dressed the morning of 12/24.

I'm not sure what you are basing your opinion (that these could have been the same pants that Laci was wearing on the 23rd) on...- when Amy Rocha testified they were not? She specifically said she did not remember the line down the front of the pants. The pair of pants Laci was found in have a very distinct look. Line down each pant leg (I think Geragos referred to it as a "pin cuff"?). And a large cuff at the bottom of the pants. MUCH different style than the ones Amy picked out of Laci's closet.

[JustMyOpinion]

I'm not sure what you are basing your opinion (that these could have been the same pants that Laci was wearing on the 23rd) on...- when Amy Rocha testified they were not? She specifically said she did not remember the line down the front of the pants. The pair of pants Laci was found in have a very distinct look. Line down each pant leg (I think Geragos referred to it as a "pin cuff"?). And a large cuff at the bottom of the pants. MUCH different style than the ones Amy picked out of Laci's closet.

Amy did not "testify" that in her opinion, they were not the same slacks. She did testify as to details about the styling of the slacks that she did not remember. I understand that it is your opinion that this proves they were not the same slacks. It is my opinion ( based on testimony of Amy and others) that they could have been the same, might not have been the same.

[Hey Paula]

Yikes.

Laci had different pants on than what she wore the night of 12/23.

The Medinas were home the wee hours of 12/24. They didn't leave until 10:30 in the morning.

When do you think he made the anchors? After he got to the warehouse? If so, how long does it take?

The space between the seat and the floor is too small for a body. Have you seen the pics of the inside of the boat?

His boat cover could not be used for transportation. It was for storage only. It had no hardware to fasten it, only some cloth loops. It would have flown off on the freeway. Bruce Peterson testified to this.

I believe Laci was wearing the same pants she wore to the salon on 12/23, despite Amy's uncertainness.

Re the burglary: LOL, yes, of course the Medina's left at 10:30AM on 12/24. I apologize for that error and attributing any delay to the burglary. I believe the burglary occurred in the wee hours of 12/26, as Pearce had explained he'd previously drove by and noted the house appeared to be empty, and later returned, staying in the house for several hours. I've never believed the burglary occurred on the morning of 12/24, as it defies logic, IMO.

Re the anchors: I don't know how long it takes for the cement to adequately dry.

A pregnant LE member, of the same size and stature as Laci, fit between the seat and the floor of the boat.

Despite its intended use, I think Scott could have used the boat cover, during transporation to the Bay, resourcefully securing it, even though Bruce Peterson never did.

IMO

[Wudge]

Amy did not "testify" that in her opinion, they were not the same slacks. She did testify as to details about the styling of the slacks that she did not remember. I understand that it is your opinion that this proves they were not the same slacks. It is my opinion ( based on testimony of Amy and others) that they could have been the same, might not have been the same.



The Court said otherwise.

June 7th testimony.

Judge: I think she testified those were not the pants.

GERAGOS: Yeah.

Judge D: She testified to that on Thursday, those were not the pants.

[Wudge]

Yoo Whoo, just like old times Hey Paula!!! :tongue:

Welcome Scampi.

:patriot:

[JustMyOpinion]

The Court said otherwise.

June 7th testimony.

Judge: I think she testified those were not the pants.

GERAGOS: Yeah.

Judge D: She testified to that on Thursday, those were not the pants.
If you could post Amy's testimony it would clarify the issue far more than a snippet of what The Court & Geragos said. I recall Amy did not remember certain styling details about the slacks, that she could not therefore, be certain they were the same.

[Invrdv8]

I agree there probably would be consequences if he got caught in a boat he failed to register - a ticket - a fine. How is that relevant to the murder case?
It's not, but it goes to say he had the boat in the water illegally. Just because he didn't get caught doesn't make it right. This goes to Scott "never having a problem with the law" in the past. Probably, IMO, there's nothing on record, except for a couple of traffic tickets, because he just never got caught.

[accordn2me]

Greetings to all,:seeya:

Where I can find the expert's testimony about the environment required to form the mineral deposits on Laci's pants? TIA

[Invrdv8]

In the South, sometimes people have double names....animals too...like my cat Samantha June....we call her Sam for short....but when she's bad....we call her SAMANTHA JUNE! So when you're frustrated, instead of giving someone a nickname....it's more effective if you use both names...or their whole name....like you were in serious trouble if you heard your first, middle, and last name....better RUN! LionRun...:D

you really need the benefit of sound for this one...

That doesn't happen only in the south. When my Mom used my first and middle name to get my attention I knew she was angry and I was in a heap of trouble.:lol:

[Scampi]

It's not, but it goes to say he had the boat in the water illegally. Just because he didn't get caught doesn't make it right. This goes to Scott "never having a problem with the law" in the past. Probably, IMO, there's nothing on record, except for a couple of traffic tickets, because he just never got caught.

I always thought that he had been in trouble as a kid,
but that ole Chief managed to get him out of it.

[Invrdv8]

Distaso had very little in the way of probative evidence upon which to adduce motive, and, in turn, prove premeditation. As such, there had to be a reason why Distaso never stated, claimed or argued that Scott had not registered the boat.

Moreover, the fact that the jury agreed on a verdict absent motive means the jury did not consider the alleged "secret" boat to have established motive, nor did the jury consider Scott saying he "lost" his wife to have established motive either.

The jury found no motive. Therefore, looking at the best path for "registration or not" shows it leads absolutely no where.
You're absolutely right whether or not the boat was registered is moot. That's why I can't understand why the NG's are so insistant that he did register the boat. We all know lawyers will play on words to get the answers they want. Whether or not the boat was registered IMO means nothing because even if the boat had been registered it doesn't mean Scott's family and friends would know about the boat. IMO, that means he was keeping the boat a secret from his family and friends and he did that for a reason and it wasn't to surprise Ron G.

[Invrdv8]

Hi packy! :seeya:

Yes, he made one anchor. My point is if he needed multiple anchors to weigh a body, why not buy them? Why save "one" and risk it matching the others?
Why mix cement for a sinister purpose, and then not clean it up?
Yet he gets rid of every other speck of evidence?
Plus no anchors were found, any where....

pic of boat and anchor here:
http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/May06FF.html
Why didn't he buy one anchor instead of going to all the trouble to make just one? Who was ever in the warehouse besides Scott? Even if someone did go to the warehouse would they really notice cement dust on things?

[Invrdv8]

I always thought that he had been in trouble as a kid,
but that ole Chief managed to get him out of it.
I'm sure he was too, but IMO there was nothing on record because it was all "taken care" of before it got to that point.

[Hey Paula]

You're absolutely right whether or not the boat was registered is moot. That's why I can't understand why the NG's are so insistant that he did register the boat. We all know lawyers will play on words to get the answers they want. Whether or not the boat was registered IMO means nothing because even if the boat had been registered it doesn't mean Scott's family and friends would know about the boat. IMO, that means he was keeping the boat a secret from his family and friends and he did that for a reason and it wasn't to surprise Ron G.

My opinion of Scott not registering the boat, in addition to keeping it secret from everyone, is that I believe Scott didn't intend to keep that boat. I feel the boat had a sole purpose, and once that was accomplished, it would have been an evidentiary liability.

IMO

[Scampi]

My opinion of Scott not registering the boat, in addition to keeping it secret from everyone, is that I believe Scott didn't intend to keep that boat. I feel the boat had a sole purpose, and once that was accomplished, it would have been an evidentiary liability.

IMO

I agree Paula. He didn't even have new tags for the
trailer or insurance. Yep, a one or two times to the bay was all he
intended. imo

[accordn2me]

We don't care about the boat. You are trying to say he did the impossible - used it to dump a body - and that it was a secret. We are just pointing out the only people who didn't know about it were the Rochas - you know, the people who broke into his house and stole all of his property. I guess he thought they might steal that too.
He must have thought his daddy would steal it too.

[Beebee]

I believe Laci was wearing the same pants she wore to the salon on 12/23, despite Amy's uncertainness.

Re the burglary: LOL, yes, of course the Medina's left at 10:30AM on 12/24. I apologize for that error and attributing any delay to the burglary. I believe the burglary occurred in the wee hours of 12/26, as Pearce had explained he'd previously drove by and noted the house appeared to be empty, and later returned, staying in the house for several hours. I've never believed the burglary occurred on the morning of 12/24, as it defies logic, IMO.

Re the anchors: I don't know how long it takes for the cement to adequately dry.

A pregnant LE member, of the same size and stature as Laci, fit between the seat and the floor of the boat.

Despite its intended use, I think Scott could have used the boat cover, during transporation to the Bay, resourcefully securing it, even though Bruce Peterson never did.

IMO


Do you think Laci wore baby jane shoes with capris? Come on Paula... http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/id29.html

So why do you think Scott's trip was delayed :confused: You said he was delayed?

Don't you think it is important to know that info if it is part of your evidence?

No, the member of LE crawled into the toolbox..... never the boat. Maybe take another look at the boat?

Check out the boat cover-- scroll down, you can see the dinky tabs:
http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/May06FF.html

[Beebee]

I always thought that he had been in trouble as a kid,
but that ole Chief managed to get him out of it.


Hi Scampi :seeya:

What kind of trouble as a kid?

Good to see you :)

[attorneywan2be]

Greetings to all,:seeya:

Where I can find the expert's testimony about the environment required to form the mineral deposits on Laci's pants? TIA

Preliminary Hearings - ME's testimony:

14 A. What I saw in the trousers that have been more or
15 less reduced to thread down around the upper legs, there
16 were round, smooth, round to oval deposits of stone.
17 I'm not a mineralogist, I'm not an anthropologist, but
18 it was quite heavy --
19 MR. GERAGOS: Objection. No foundation.
20 THE COURT: Overruled.
21 THE WITNESS: These were discrete deposits.
22 Again, as I tried to consider what possible mechanism
23 might have been involved there, I thought about, again, how
24 a body acts in the water, how it tends to submerge and then
25 resurface. And I think if this happened over a period of
26 time, with alternate layers of wetting and drying, it could
27 have account -- it could account for minerals building up as
28 I saw here.


Trial - The ME's testimony :

94. The crotch portion of the trousers was shredded, and had been basically reduced to a number of tangled fibers. To my eye, within these fibers, were a number of round to oval stony deposits, mineral deposits. These were materials that I also saw on the x-rays. So that was actually within the fibers remaining of the pants. The front of the panties was also intact. As I said, the rear portion was missing. The front was still intact, along with the bands around the legs. And that was basically it in terms of clothing.

Then he explained the mineralization process:

21 Q. Okay. What do you mean by mineralization?
22 A. There was a material that I talked about in the
23 pants, in the fibers of the pants, and it looked like rocks.
24 They were smooth. But looked like stones basically
25 intermeshed within the fibers.
26 Q. And did you also talk about that, that there was

17503

1 some process by which you felt that that could have occurred,
2 this mineralization?
3 A. Sure. My thinking is, it may have had to do with
4 the body being alternately exposed and submerged, and maybe
5 as water and salts were deposited and then dried, that
6 material could be laid down.
7 Again, I would never claim to be a geologist. But
8 that was my thinking at table side at the time when we talked
9 about that.
10 Q. Okay. When you say that it was submerged, meaning
11 at some point underwater, at some point out of the water, or
12 at least not exposed to water, correct?
13 A. Or maybe on the surface of the water
.

Conclusion per MG's closing statement:

His testimony was that you would normally expect the body to be laying with the appendages down. If that was the case, how do you explain the fact there was mineralization in the front, and the stones were in the front, unless that body was somewhere else, somewhere else

[Hey Paula]

Do you think Laci wore baby jane shoes with capris? Come on Paula... http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/id29.html

So why do you think Scott's trip was delayed :confused: You said he was delayed?

Don't you think it is important to know that info if it is part of your evidence?

No, the member of LE crawled into the toolbox..... never the boat. Maybe take another look at the boat?

Check out the boat cover-- scroll down, you can see the dinky tabs:
http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/May06FF.html

Yes, why not?

I mentioned a few times that I thought perhaps the cement anchors hadn't set/adequately dried, and that might have caused a delay.

The boat too, BB!!! The pregnant woman worked in one of LE's offices, IIRC. In any event, here is an excerpt re the demo:

EXCERPT:

GOMEZ: Well, here's the interesting part. Two weeks ago the jury got to see some pretty amazing demonstrations of a woman Laci's size, pregnant at the time, who fit into the tool box and also in different sections of Scott Peterson's boat. So, Geragos on cross- examination said, I know that you were there during that demonstration. But did they actually put someone in the boat, in the water, to see if someone could be thrown over the boat without it tipping over? Anything like to? And Hendee says, well, not to my knowledge, but I know it can be done.

LINK:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/20/ltm.03.html

[Hey Paula]

What sort of delay?

Concrete/mortar will take months to reach its full strength however after about 24 hours it should be fairly hard and after 4 or 5 days, the strength should be enough to stand up to normal punishment.

Did he make the unfindable weights one at a time or all at once?

As per your post: Although the concrete would have hardened fairly within 24 hours, it would take several days to reach sufficient strength to withstand normal punishment.

I don't think Scott made those achors too far in advance for fear they might be discovered. I believe he might have made them sometime on 12/23 before leaving the warehouse. So, I still maintain my belief that the setting of the anchors might very well have caused the delay.

IMO

[Anne2719]

Did he make them all at once or over time? How long? He would need about 40 or more to hold the body down. At two days each that would take 80 days - he'd have to start 4th Oct or before.
40 or more anchors? How do you figure?? The size of bathroom Dixie cups? If that's the case, why couldn't he line up 40 Dixie cups and make them all at once?

[accordn2me]

Don't be silly.

Laci was 153 lb. A body in water bloats up to 3 times the size typically. 3 times 153 lb is 459 lb; less her weight (153) means 306 lb to achieve neutral buoyancy. Add 50 lb to hold it down and you need 350 lb of weights.

Show me any testimony that less would suffice.I have a friend of a friend who knows this guy who posts on a message board. He has been fishing before. He said it would take about 40 pounds to weight Laci's body down. He wrote a paper. I believe him.

Show me any testimony that you would need more.

[Anne2719]

Don't be silly.

Laci was 153 lb. A body in water bloats up to 3 times the size typically. 3 times 153 lb is 459 lb; less her weight (153) means 306 lb to achieve neutral buoyancy. Add 50 lb to hold it down and you need 350 lb of weights.

Show me any testimony that less would suffice.
Please provide links as to how a body bloats up to 3 times the size. I've never heard any such thing.

[Wudge]

40 or more anchors? How do you figure?? The size of bathroom Dixie cups? If that's the case, why couldn't he line up 40 Dixie cups and make them all at once?

Anne, as regards necessary submerging weight, the position of a submerged body will matter far more than what it weighs.

For burial at sea, the body is prepared for burial assuming horizontal displacement and they add, at a minimum, double the body weight.

[One2Snoop]

http://www.dundee.ac.uk/forensicmedicine/notes/water.pdf

Sinking, putrefaction and refloating

A body in water will usually sink but because the specific gravity of a body is
very close to that of water then small variations e.g. air trapped in clothing have a considerable effect on buoyancy. Having sunk to the bottom the body will remain there until putrefactive gas formation decreases the specific gravity of the body and creates sufficient buoyancy to allow it to rise to the surface and float. Heavy clothing and weights attached to the body may delay but will not usually prevent the body rising. Putrefaction proceeds at a slower rate in water than in air, in sea water than in fresh water and in running water than in stagnant water. The principal determinant is the temperature of the water so that in deep very cold
water e.g. the North American Great Lakes or the ocean the body may never
resurface.

[One2Snoop]

Also thought this was interesting.....

Bay's complex makeup keeps objects in area

BY DAVID W. HILL
BEE BUSINESS EDITOR
Last Updated: April 21, 2003, 03:33:54 PM PDT

For those who know the complex tides and currents of San Francisco Bay, it comes as no surprise that things can be submerged in those waters for weeks or months before coming to the surface or the shore.
Richard Jepsen, chief executive officer for Berkeley Marina-based OCSC sailing school and a longtime bay sailor, is one of those people.

Jepsen, who helped create his school's training program, said the bay is a "unique body of water" in this region because of the massive flows that move in and out each day.

He said the entire bay is a study in fluid dynamics, with its contours and currents creating complicated patterns. Jepsen said even those complex patterns can change depending on the phase of the moon, spring runoff, wind direction and rain.

From late December until just last week, he said, conditions on the bay had been relatively mild. "But the last 2 1/2 days, the wind has been blowing very hard from the west into Berkeley," Jepsen said Monday night.

With the shallow water -- about 6 feet or less in many places -- from the Berkeley Marina north to Richmond, Jepsen said secondary currents and circular flows can hold objects in the area.
It might take something like the recent storms to drive those items on shore, he added. Snip.....

http://www.modbee.com/reports/laci/story/6559001p-7500482c.html

[Wudge]

If you put it down in deep water it will never come up. The pressure down there will prevent the gases from lifting it. However Scott is supposed to have dumped the body in water shallower than his own swimming pool! :no:

The Russian Mafia tried to dispose of bodies in deep, fresh water lakes around Modesto and those bodies were found, so if they can't do it, how the hell could Scott? He's smarter than they are?

No one ever found a trace of him searching for "how to dump a body in water" on the net. :flamemad:


In a shallow bay upward force is the key thing. Just to sink the body, some factors need to be considered, such as how the body is positioned.

If it is 'up and down', then the density of the body assists additional weights in overcoming the buoyancy issue. It is the density of an object, not its weight that determines displacement of the surrounding liquid.

When you lay the body out flat, horizontally, the density factor is decreased as the same amount of weight is spread over more area. This causes a body to float easier because buoyancy is helping to raise it up.

Anyone in Crime Library who doubts this can easily can test the theory (please, without weights attached). Just step into a swimming pool feet first in a depth over your head, and you will sink beneath the water (without using either your arms or legs to introduce “propulsion” into the equation). Then lay out flat in the same pool, and you will float.

This is not because you have air in your lungs and a deceased person doesn't, because even when you stepped into the pool feet first, you still had air in your lungs. This is not because you weigh more standing up than you do lying down, because you weigh the same in either situation

Now, regarding buoyancy in general, Archimedes Principle says: "Any object, wholly or partly immersed in a fluid, is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object." Repeat: Any object, wholly or partly immersed in a fluid, is buoyed up by a FORCE equal to the WEIGHT of the FLUID displaced by the OBJECT. And upward FORCE = the weight of the fluid.

The fluid in this case is water. The weight of water is 62.4 lbs. per cubic foot, or 8.5 lbs. per gallon.

The object in this case is Laci's body. A human body typically (size and shapes vary) will displace 1.5 cu. ft. of water in a vertical position and 4 to 5 cu. ft. of water in a horizontal position.

Returning to our experiment. If you weigh 150 lbs. and step into the water, displacing 1.5 cu. ft. of water when you do, you will be buoyed upwards 93.6 lbs.. Since you weigh 150 lbs., you then subtract 93.6 from 150 to obtain a negative buoyancy of 56.4 lbs., meaning: You sink.

If you were lying down and displacing 4 cu. ft. of water, your buoyancy factor increases. 62.4 * 4 = 249.6 - 150 = 99.6 lbs of positive buoyancy, meaning you float.

Given those simple physics as calculated, it would take roughly 50 lbs of weight to cause a person to sink if the weight were tied to their feet, and roughly 100 lbs. to sink the same body if the weights were divided and were tied to each of the 4 limbs, and the body was horizontal.

Next step is to advance time and decomposition into the equation. As internal gasses expand within the decomposing body, the buoyancy factor will increase requiring more weight to hold the body down. A body is known to bloat to over 3 times its normal size, so now the displacement factor is not 4 cu. ft, but 12 cu. ft. and 62.4 * 12 = 748.8 lbs.

Obviously, Laci’s body did not surface with 748.8 lbs of weight attached to her. But neither did it surface with the 30 lbs. of allegedly unaccounted for cement that Distaso argued in his closing argument was what kept Laci from being found.

(Mom, can I punch his lights out now? Please? Please?)

[One2Snoop]

Obviously, Laci’s body did not surface with 748.8 lbs of weight attached to her. But neither did it surface with the 30 lbs. of allegedly unaccounted for cement that Distaso argued in his closing argument was what kept Laci from being found.

Yes but you also need to take into consideration the temp and type of water equals the slower rate of putrefaction plus the conditions of this particular area of the bay, as stated by Richard Jepsen in the article I posted above.

Also, They never found her arms, legs or head either so there's no way to know if weights were attached to her or not.

[Wudge]

Yes but you also need to take into consideration the temp and type of water equals the slower rate of putrefaction plus the conditions of this particular area of the bay, as stated by Richard Jepsen in the article I posted above.

Also, They never found her arms, legs or head either so there's no way to know if weights were attached to her or not.

Brackish saltwater would increase buoyancy by approx 5%. I tried to keep it simple so as to make Distaso's argument look less stupid. Believe me, that's hard to do.

(snicker)

[One2Snoop]

Brackish saltwater would increase buoyancy by approx 5%. I tried to keep it simple so as to make Distaso's argument look less stupid. Believe me, that's hard to do.

(snicker)

Are you allowed to (snicker) LOL. J/K. I'm not an expert at this by any means but common sense tells me there was a reason Laci's limbs and head were missing - minus the obvious lack of "cut marks" as noted by the medical examiner, so the only reasonable conclusion I can come to is that her body was weighted.

I will do more homework when time permits. I promise. :patriot:

[One2Snoop]

Hiya Snoops, good to see you! :D IMO, the fact that Laci didn't have her limbs/head combined with the fact that there were not cut marks on her, made it pretty obvious she was weighted down.

Hi TG, yes ITA. :patriot:

[One2Snoop]

Except no weights were made or found, no criminal makes weights ahead of time when he can buy cement blocks and not finding the other body parts may mean they were disposed of elsewhere.


Thats your opinion but I'd never say never to your criminal never does this or that.
And on a second note - maybe he bought cement blocks and we just don't know about it, maybe no one knows about them?! :shrug: :eek:

[Wudge]

Are you allowed to (snicker) LOL. J/K. I'm not an expert at this by any means but common sense tells me there was a reason Laci's limbs and head were missing - minus the obvious lack of "cut marks" as noted by the medical examiner, so the only reasonable conclusion I can come to is that her body was weighted.

I will do more homework when time permits. I promise. :patriot:


I seldom use emoticons. I use smile, snicker, chuckle, and double chuckle. They're milder and lower volume than: LOL or LMAO or ROFL.

(smile)

[accordn2me]

Thats your opinion but I'd never say never to your criminal never does this or that.
And on a second note - maybe he bought cement blocks and we just don't know about it, maybe no one knows about them?! :shrug: :eek:You know there is a missing umbrella stand......

[accordn2me]

I seldom use emoticons. I use smile, snicker, chuckle, and double chuckle. They're milder and lower volume than: LOL or LMAO or ROFL.

(smile)my speakers must not work:shrug:

[Anne2719]

. . .
Bloating occurs because the microorganisms of decomposition
produce gas, mostly methane, and this gas, lacking an escape route, collects both in the tissues and in the body cavities. In some cases, the gas causes the body to expand to three times its normal size. (Incidentally, it's virtually impossible to dispose of a corpse in water unless it's first thoroughly gutted. The expansion of gases within the corpse will lift several times the weight of the corpse to the surface.)

If I remember my basic science correctly, gas weighs much less than mass. Expanding a body with gas does not mean the same thing as tripling the weight of a body.

Scott has not shown himself to be as smart as he thinks he is. It would be an easy assumption to make that a body could be weighted down with weights equaling far less than three times the body's weight. Not something most people would Google, in my opinion.

[One2Snoop]

You know there is a missing umbrella stand......

Oh thank you, I forgot. :read:

[thinkaboutit]

You know there is a missing umbrella stand......

Are you sure about that?

[Anne2719]

Except no weights were made or found, no criminal makes weights ahead of time when he can buy cement blocks and not finding the other body parts may mean they were disposed of elsewhere.

Evelyn Hernandez was completely skeletonized in 84 days or less. No reason it would take more than 111 days for Laci - so she was only in the bay for a day or two.
In your opinion.

[Wudge]

Oh thank you, I forgot. :read:

A missing umbrella stand is but more mythology.

[One2Snoop]

I know of no case ever where a criminal made such weights. Even the so called 'cement shoes' is apparently a Hollywood invention - no case known that I can find.

No case that you can find. Sorry but I just have a really hard time excepting that terminology. IMO you'd have to spend an inordinate amount of time researching this. If you do find something would you mind posting it here? TIA

[Anne2719]

I know of no case ever where a criminal made such weights. Even the so called 'cement shoes' is apparently a Hollywood invention - no case known that I can find.If he had, wouldn't the MPD have found out about it? And how would he get 350 lb of them in the boat along with everything else?
I've seen cement blocks lying around on construction sites that would be very easy to steal. No paper trail. And you assume that Scott had the knowledge of how much weight is required to keep a body down. In my opinion, there's a pretty good argument for not enough weights having been used, if the body surfaced.

[Wudge]

I've seen cement blocks lying around on construction sites that would be very easy to steal. No paper trail. And you assume that Scott had the knowledge of how much weight is required to keep a body down. In my opinion, there's a pretty good argument for not enough weights having been used, if the body surfaced.


Missing concrete blocks and missing bricks were also rumours, again, mythology.

[packy]

Gebler, the defense expert, testified that Scott put the cement mix on dry and watered it or waited for rain. Judge Delucchi had to have him explain that. This theory is not reasonable.

Judge Delucchi: I just have a question. I may missed it. I missed it. The concrete that contains the pea gravel, was that put on, if you have an opinion, was it as likely to be put on wet as it is put on dry, and then it got rained on?

Steven Gebler: The way the appearance of the concrete and the softness of the surface is more likely that it was placed on dry and then rainwater worked on it.

Judge Delucchi: If I walked out there, and I had a half bag of concrete, and I just emptied the bag on top of the aggregate, and then it rained on it, it would end up like that?

Steven Gebler: Over time it would.

Judge Delucchi: Okay. Because this, you can't hardly call that finished concrete, can you?

Steven Gebler: And that's one of the things we said in our report. There was no trowel finish, like if I was doing a sidewalk or a driveway, you would finish it off here. It was just laying right down. Plus it got eroded away with the surface not being consolidated and densified, then the rainwater, and the elements, the rest,

Judge Delucchi: Rainwater, even a hose?

Steven Gebler: Well, yeah, it could do that.

Thanks, Enlightenme. If I understand right, nothing really tells us it was a different batch of cement that is in fact on the Peterson driveway.

[accordn2me]

Are you sure about that?I inferred it.

:read:

Why would someone search for one from the home computer Dec. 24th were it not missing or about to be missing?

[cookiewench]

SLPETE1 was the e-mail address being checked that morning - not SPETE1.

Let's be reasonable - there was no wordplay here. Geragos asked Buehler if Servas told him that SLPETE1 was the address she used to communicate with both Laci AND Scott and Buehler said "that's correct" and yes - it does indicate that Laci used this e-mail address. There is no other interpretation for the answer - "that's correct". Why do you assume that this was only Scott's e-mail address? How do you know the L in SLPETE1 does not stand for Laci? I realize that Scott's middle name is Lee - but there is no proof that the L did not stand for Laci.

SLPETE1 was the same e-mail address Scott used to communicate with Shawn Sibley.

So it is not certain, as you say that Laci didn't know about this e-mail address.

I don't think it's reasonable to point out the obvious typo of an O instead of an L. Anyone familiar with the transcripts of the testimony knows there are MANY typos - in addition to it being a possible typo - in a courtroom - the letter L when spoken could easily sound like O.

Wordplay, indeed. Geragos made sure he asked if it was the address she used TO communicate with them both with, and not if THEY ever communicated with HER through it.

I absolutely don't believe that there is "no other interpretation" of this statement.

Servas may have sent information meant for both Scott & Laci to this email address, but that does not mean that Laci has access to the account on her own.

The fact that this is the same account Scott used to communicate with Sibley indicates to me that Laci definitely DIDN'T have her own access to this account.

[accordn2me]

Wordplay, indeed. Geragos made sure he asked if it was the address she used TO communicate with them both with, and not if THEY ever communicated with HER through it.

I absolutely don't believe that there is "no other interpretation" of this statement.

Servas may have sent information meant for both Scott & Laci to this email address, but that does not mean that Laci has access to the account on her own.

The fact that this is the same account Scott used to communicate with Sibley indicates to me that Laci definitely DIDN'T have her own access to this account.Solidifies it for me. ty cookiewench

[A_seeker]

Wordplay, indeed. Geragos made sure he asked if it was the address she used TO communicate with them both with, and not if THEY ever communicated with HER through it.

I absolutely don't believe that there is "no other interpretation" of this statement.

Servas may have sent information meant for both Scott & Laci to this email address, but that does not mean that Laci has access to the account on her own.

The fact that this is the same account Scott used to communicate with Sibley indicates to me that Laci definitely DIDN'T have her own access to this account.

Excellent point...I think you hit the nail on the head! I know of at least one couple personally who receive mail at the same address, but only one accesses it or uses it for out-going communication.

[thinkaboutit]

I agree Paula. He didn't even have new tags for the
trailer or insurance. Yep, a one or two times to the bay was all he
intended. imo


Invrdv8 - this should answer your question as to why the NG's argue about the registration of the boat.

[thinkaboutit]

Wordplay, indeed. Geragos made sure he asked if it was the address she used TO communicate with them both with, and not if THEY ever communicated with HER through it.

I absolutely don't believe that there is "no other interpretation" of this statement.

Servas may have sent information meant for both Scott & Laci to this email address, but that does not mean that Laci has access to the account on her own.

The fact that this is the same account Scott used to communicate with Sibley indicates to me that Laci definitely DIDN'T have her own access to this account.

That's an interesting interpretation of the questions and the testimony. Instead of arguing with you - I'll agree to disagree - and post the actual testimony for everyone else to form their own opinion:

Mark Geragos: Now, she also told you that she would communicate with Laci and Scott via an e-mail site called SOPETE1, correct?

Jon Buehler: That's correct.

Mark Geragos: That's what she knew Laci and Scott's MSN Messenger e-mail site to be?

Jon Buehler: That's correct.

Mark Geragos: She knew that because she was involved in an internet group with other neighbors in the area; is that what she told you?

Jon Buehler: Yes.

[cookiewench]

Exactly. The email address that SHE would communicate with THEM at.

I find it to be unbelievable that a man who had multiple cell phones and multiple PO boxes would have only one email address, and would give his wife the password to the one he used to correspond with another woman who thought he wasn't married.

[A_seeker]

Well, remember, Scott was maintaining publicly that he had told Laci all about Amber and Laci wasn't particularly upset about it. Not that I believe that, but it is what he said.

Yea I know soooo many pregnant ladies who are completely cool with their husbands screwing around, don't you? :rolleyes:

IMHO, Scott was stupid to even try to pass that off as truth.

[thinkaboutit]

It might be a good thing for everyone to remember that not everyone is the same.

We know that Laci forgave Scott once for having an affair.

I have provided trial testimony that says the next door neighbor - who was also a witness for the prosecution - said that she communicated with LACI AND Scott via the e-mail address he used to communicate with Shawn Sibley.

So if you choose to ignore trial testimony - so be it - but please do not roll your eyes at opinions that contradict yours.

Thank you.

[A_seeker]

It might be a good thing for everyone to remember that not everyone is the same.

We know that Laci forgave Scott once for having an affair.

I have provided trial testimony that says the next door neighbor - who was also a witness for the prosecution - said that she communicated with LACI AND Scott via the e-mail address he used to communicate with Shawn Sibley.

So if you choose to ignore trial testimony - so be it - but please do not roll your eyes at opinions that contradict yours.

Thank you.

I was rolling my eyes at Scott, actually. I don't want to be disrespectful to members of this board, but I don't feel the same need to respect Scott. After all, he has been convicted in a court of law for murdering his wife and son.

[enlightenme]

It might be a good thing for everyone to remember that not everyone is the same.

We know that Laci forgave Scott once for having an affair.

I have provided trial testimony that says the next door neighbor - who was also a witness for the prosecution - said that she communicated with LACI AND Scott via the e-mail address he used to communicate with Shawn Sibley.

So if you choose to ignore trial testimony - so be it - but please do not roll your eyes at opinions that contradict yours.

Thank you.

I'm not ignoring the testimony but it might be a good thing for everyone to remember that we don't all "interpret" it the same.

For instance, there was testimony that Laci knew about a previous affair but that's not the same as "forgave". Maybe she threw it back in his face a lot. It is said she didn't tell ANYONE about the affair with Janet Isle but friends of Laci and Scott heard them arguing and Laci told her friend that Scott was "not acting like a married man."

It doesn't matter what email address the neighbor used, it matters who checked it. Laci may not have had the password and it was Scott who always checked that account and told Laci the plans or message. We just do not have proof of who was on the computer the morning of 12/24/02.

JMO

[A_seeker]

Ya know, the more i think about it, the more ridculous it seems that anyone thinks Laci knew about Amber and didn't mind. If Laci and Scott had an "open marriage" there would be no need for him to keep his wife a secret from his lovers, IMO

I mean, imagine the absurdity of a conversation like this. "Laci honey, I'm seeing a new woman named Amber...but I don't want her to know about you. She might be upset that I have a wife and a baby on the way."

"OK, Scott darling. I'd sure hate to come between yours and Amber's complete fulfillment, so I'll just lay low and pretend I don't exist. Enjoy!"

[cookiewench]

Is there a link to some kind of confirmation that there is actually a typo in the transcripts concerning the "SO" instead of "SL" in that email address?

[cookiewench]

There are scans of the printouts of Scott's emails with Shawn, on the SII site - but they're too small to see what Scott's email address was - at least on my monitor.

[thinkaboutit]

Ya know, the more i think about it, the more ridculous it seems that anyone thinks Laci knew about Amber and didn't mind. If Laci and Scott had an "open marriage" there would be no need for him to keep his wife a secret from his lovers, IMO

I mean, imagine the absurdity of a conversation like this. "Laci honey, I'm seeing a new woman named Amber...but I don't want her to know about you. She might be upset that I have a wife and a baby on the way."

"OK, Scott darling. I'd sure hate to come between yours and Amber's complete fulfillment, so I'll just lay low and pretend I don't exist. Enjoy!"

Yes - I'm sure that is a realistic version of what may have happened.

[thinkaboutit]

There are scans of the printouts of Scott's emails with Shawn, on the SII site - but they're too small to see what Scott's email address was - at least on my monitor.

Not mine - I can see it clear as day. Did you try running your cursor over the document until a box pops up in the lower right hand corner - when you click on it - the document gets bigger.

[Anne2719]

There are scans of the printouts of Scott's emails with Shawn, on the SII site - but they're too small to see what Scott's email address was - at least on my monitor.
They are to slpete01 and not sopete01.

(I'm able to click on the image -- not the thumbnail, the actual image -- and get a much bigger one.)

[accordn2me]

That's an interesting interpretation of the questions and the testimony. Instead of arguing with you - I'll agree to disagree - and post the actual testimony for everyone else to form their own opinion:

tai...who is "she" in "she also told you...."

[thinkaboutit]

tai...who is "she" in "she also told you...."

Karen Servas - the next door neighbor.

[thinkaboutit]

They are to slpete01 and not sopete01.

(I'm able to click on the image -- not the thumbnail, the actual image -- and get a much bigger one.)

Yes - but do you agree that in court if Geragos was saying slpete1 that the court reporter could have thought he said sopete1?

[thinkaboutit]

I'm not ignoring the testimony but it might be a good thing for everyone to remember that we don't all "interpret" it the same.

For instance, there was testimony that Laci knew about a previous affair but that's not the same as "forgave". Maybe she threw it back in his face a lot. It is said she didn't tell ANYONE about the affair with Janet Isle but friends of Laci and Scott heard them arguing and Laci told her friend that Scott was "not acting like a married man."

It doesn't matter what email address the neighbor used, it matters who checked it. Laci may not have had the password and it was Scott who always checked that account and told Laci the plans or message. We just do not have proof of who was on the computer the morning of 12/24/02.

JMO


Just to clarify - I am not arguing that Scott told Laci about Amber and she was fine with it.

My only argument is regarding the e-mail address. A poster said there is no way Laci had access to that e-mail address - I disagree.

[Anne2719]

Yes - but do you agree that in court if Geragos was saying slpete1 that the court reporter could have thought he said sopete1?
Definitely possible.

[enlightenme]

Definitely possible.

I have found quite a few errors in the transcripts. At one point the court reporter has Delucchi saying "Jesus" and it's obviously the wrong word. I can't remember where it was now but I think it was in one of the motions to dismiss the trial.

[JustMyOpinion]

Scott is innocent, i think there was kidnappers that took Laci.

Scott is no longer legally innocent, he's been convicted and sentenced. Who do you think these kidnappers are, when did they take her, why did they take her, and why did they transport her body 90 miles away from Modesto near where Scott claimed he was fishing, in your opinion? What evidence did defense bring which supports your theory?

[Toggie]

Scott is innocent, i think there was kidnappers that took Laci.

Hi sara! Don't you think it's kind of odd the kidnapper(s) never called or attempted to collect a ransom?

I thought about Todd/Pearce but IIRC, a CI turned them in for the Medina burglary. If they were turned in for that, I would imagine that if anyone in their circle of friends knew anything relating to Laci, they would have talked.

IMO

[Anne2719]

Wow. Poor Scott. All those evil people getting together to conspire against him? He didn't stand a chance. An innocent victim, huh?

Sheesh.

[JustMyOpinion]

Not all kidnappers ask for money. You do not have to ask for anything if you are out to kill what you took from someone.

Most of the time the people do these ransom calls, their victim is alrady dead.

Everyone that kidnaps usually has a reason. What this reason is, we do not know, but I think in Laci's case, we can guess it was not for money. Otherwise Brocchini would not have went out of his way to try and prove Scott's moting in the beginning was money.

Now if one were to stop and look at all of the other possible suspects, you all would see there were others that had motive. I know, motive was not needed to prove guilt, but it certainly would not help.

Amber, her motive plain and simple was she gets what she wants and if she don't well her past speaks for it's self.

Ron, if he didn't do anything to Laci as a child, then he protected his son Darrin.

Amy, Laci out of the way most certainly would have had all of daddies attention. One would think money, but this was only icing on the cake for her.

Anne, who did she dislike more? Scott or laci?

Distasso, what reasons did he have for aiding falsely accusing Scott? Could it perhaps be a vote towards his becoming a judge? In this case, the entire city of Modesto. He won the trial of the century for Modesto.

What about Brocchinin, was he tired of kissing butt for all his hard work? Perhaps he would get a better position.

These all are my opinion of course.

The mistakes are starting to show and on national tv at this. How many saw investigators Monday ebening.

The lies that were told. mmm mmm mmm If your going to tell a lie, you better take notes so you don't ever forget what was said. If your teling the truth well all you need is yourself.

I wonder what the temp. was of the hot water they put themselves in. I do hope it was extremely hot.


Scott had opportunity, access, means & the State showed evidence of possible motive. Of course he was the person of interest early on,and he couldn't be excluded as their investigation progressed ( others were excluded, IMO) He almost got away with these crimes, and wasn't arrested until the bodies washed ashore/were found. Are you saying it's your opinion Scott didn't take enough notes to remember the lies he told? He did put himself in hot water, and despite his family's best efforts to assist him in getting away with it, justice prevailed, IMO. To implicate Laci's family member or Amber seems contrary to any evidence and rather desperate, IMO.

[enlightenme]

Not all kidnappers ask for money. You do not have to ask for anything if you are out to kill what you took from someone.

Most of the time the people do these ransom calls, their victim is alrady dead.

Everyone that kidnaps usually has a reason. What this reason is, we do not know, but I think in Laci's case, we can guess it was not for money. Otherwise Brocchini would not have went out of his way to try and prove Scott's moting in the beginning was money.

Now if one were to stop and look at all of the other possible suspects, you all would see there were others that had motive. I know, motive was not needed to prove guilt, but it certainly would not help.

Amber, her motive plain and simple was she gets what she wants and if she don't well her past speaks for it's self.

Ron, if he didn't do anything to Laci as a child, then he protected his son Darrin.

Amy, Laci out of the way most certainly would have had all of daddies attention. One would think money, but this was only icing on the cake for her.

Anne, who did she dislike more? Scott or laci?

Distasso, what reasons did he have for aiding falsely accusing Scott? Could it perhaps be a vote towards his becoming a judge? In this case, the entire city of Modesto. He won the trial of the century for Modesto.

What about Brocchinin, was he tired of kissing butt for all his hard work? Perhaps he would get a better position.

These all are my opinion of course.

The mistakes are starting to show and on national tv at this. How many saw investigators Monday ebening.

The lies that were told. mmm mmm mmm If your going to tell a lie, you better take notes so you don't ever forget what was said. If your teling the truth well all you need is yourself.

I wonder what the temp. was of the hot water they put themselves in. I do hope it was extremely hot.


Am I allowed to just say :confused: ???

MOO

[margaritaville]

The Medical examiner estimated Conner's age to be 9 months based on his examination of the body..that surely was not only based on Conner's size, but it was also based on the stage of his development..he considered him a full term baby..that means he was fully developed...it's utterly impossible for Conner to have been fully developed at 32 weeks gestational age...that was his estimated age when Laci disappeared..also, there is no way Laci's doctor was 6 weeks off...

Full term means that had Connor been born at that time he would have lived. He was only a three pound baby we all know that is a very low birth weight for a 9 month or 40 week pregnancy. When the first due date is given it is taken from the date of the last missed period and adding 40 weeks. knowing there is approximately 2 weeks before pregnancy.

With my 1st son my first due date given was May 11th after his ultra sound was performed at approx. 22 weeks the Dr. changed it to May 17th. I had him on May 31st and he weighed just over 9lbs..

So the Dr. said he was full term all his organs were developed enough for him to live outside of his mothers body at that time..But it doesn't mean he was 40 weeks....

[accordn2me]

JMO - I agree. I have an uncle who retired badge #1 after 38 years on the police force. He never shot/killed anyone, and he was never harmed (close though!). He is a man of honor, a man of his word. Doesn't drink, smoke, never did drugs - he's old school character. I'd stake my life on his word.

Naturally, regarding this case, I have picked his brain endlessly. He said success on the force, i.e., capturing the bad guy and protecting your own life comes down to ONE thing which is hammered into them via professional, intense training: INTUITION

Is it reasonable to believe a killer would be telling the truth? Police are trained to listen, not to words, but to many, many variables: body lauguage, emotion, consistency and a whole host of things we would not be privy too.

Yes, btw, he believes ISP is a "classic" case/murderer. He would not say so unless he believed that. Agreeing with me, to make me happy, is the last thing he'd consider doing.

After HUGE rewards, private detectives, a million dollar + defense, a hungry puplic wanting the truth, all road continue to lead to one man and no one else. He was the ONLY one who had means, motive, and the arrogance to think he'd get away with it. He showed from day one that he has zero integrity, the inability to tell the truth, no character what-so-ever, no concern for ANYONE, not even the ability to fake rational behavior/responses.

He cruise through his whole life doing what he wanted, taking what he wanted, thinking of nobody but himself. There is a pattern of deceit, selfishness, theft, adultry, pathological lying, and the disinterest/inability to care about others. From fake dimplomas, to getting fired for stealing, kicked off the golf team, affairs, etc., refusal to acknowledge his own son, refusal for his mother-in-law to have her murdered daughters belongings, to selling her car, trying to sell the house FURNISHED.

Anyone who suggests that this was a man with no previous record, therefore, he couldn't have done this is, IMO, brain dead.

He is a shell of a human being. I don't have anyone in my life/world with these defects. Suggesting his affair was harmless, eveyone does it, etc., is twisted. He is pure skank. Always was........since the day he hit earth.I wish you'd just tell us how you really feel. :tongue:

[One2Snoop]

My apologies to everyone - I did not see this post until just now when it was pointed out on another thread.

Sassie - this post is inappropriate and has been reported to FW. Bashing of the families, detectives and other posters is against TOS.

Just a reminder, IMO/JMO should be noted unless you have testimoney, links etc... to back up what you say.

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?t=281098



Not all kidnappers ask for money. You do not have to ask for anything if you are out to kill what you took from someone.

Most of the time the people do these ransom calls, their victim is alrady dead.

Everyone that kidnaps usually has a reason. What this reason is, we do not know, but I think in Laci's case, we can guess it was not for money. Otherwise Brocchini would not have went out of his way to try and prove Scott's moting in the beginning was money.

Now if one were to stop and look at all of the other possible suspects, you all would see there were others that had motive. I know, motive was not needed to prove guilt, but it certainly would not help.

Amber, her motive plain and simple was she gets what she wants and if she don't well her past speaks for it's self.

Ron, if he didn't do anything to Laci as a child, then he protected his son Darrin.

Amy, Laci out of the way most certainly would have had all of daddies attention. One would think money, but this was only icing on the cake for her.

Anne, who did she dislike more? Scott or laci?

Distasso, what reasons did he have for aiding falsely accusing Scott? Could it perhaps be a vote towards his becoming a judge? In this case, the entire city of Modesto. He won the trial of the century for Modesto.

What about Brocchinin, was he tired of kissing butt for all his hard work? Perhaps he would get a better position.

These all are my opinion of course.

The mistakes are starting to show and on national tv at this. How many saw investigators Monday ebening.

The lies that were told. mmm mmm mmm If your going to tell a lie, you better take notes so you don't ever forget what was said. If your teling the truth well all you need is yourself.

I wonder what the temp. was of the hot water they put themselves in. I do hope it was extremely hot.

[accordn2me]

My apologies to everyone - I did not see this post until just now when it was pointed out on another thread.

Sassie - this post is inappropriate and has been reported to FW. Bashing of the families, detectives and other posters is against TOS.

Just a reminder, IMO/JMO should be noted unless you have testimoney, links etc... to back up what you say.

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?t=281098

Thank you.

[accordn2me]

Please back up your accusations with links please. Stand by what you say "if you are going to lie", which is what you appear to be doing all over the net. Your hatred towards Ron & Amber make you blind to the facts. How can you state these are you opinions when you've been stating these same lies for years now? The only one who got himself in hotwater was Scott who killed his wife and child.

:shrug:AND...another one bites the dust.

SPANKS
Banned

[accordn2me]

But the one that posted that disgusting diatribe:

Sassie
Member

I'd shrug if I actually didn't understand. But I do.Spanks made it around here all of 15 posts. I think today was his/her first day. Her post about placing someone on ignore made me (chuckle). I'm going to share an experience in her honor.

When 5-year olds start bickering with each other, a frequent retaliation that I (and everyone else in the room) hear is: "YOU'RE NOT INVITED TO MY BIRTHDAY PARTY!" It is one of the most serious retributions one 5-year old can deal to another. Almost always it is met with audible gasps throughout the room. The recipient is ususally remorse-stricken and spends the rest of the day "making nice." Discussions abound about the impending party and how the disinvite will be dealt with. Here's how one little boy dealt:

DeAndre to Ray'von: "YOU'RE NOT INVITED TO MY BIRTHDAY PARTY!"

(In my opinion Ray'von did not deserve an invitation, and if he got one, his behavior calendar definitely indicated he did not deserve to go.)

Ray'von: My momma's gonna bring me anyway! (And she did.)

(Monday morning) Teacher: Good morning, DeAndre. Did you have a good birthday party?

DeAndre: Yes! Ray'von came. We had so much fun!

(A few minutes later Ray'von saunters over to the teacher.) Ray'von: It's good thing I went too. It wasn't hardly anybody there. I guess he told too many people they couldn't come.

Teacher: I'm glad y'all had a good time.

Ray'von: Yeah. He's lucky I went or his party would have been boring!

Teacher: Ray'von, let's not focus on that.

Ray'von: I won't say it again.

(And he didn't.)

[One2Snoop]

Freshwater is the admin who makes the decision over whose banned - whether it's temporary or permenant.

I don't believe its appropriate for the FL or for Freshwater to have to explain why someone was banned although I can honestly say there had to be a very good reason for Freshwater to take such measures.

Back to.....

Was Scott Peterson Wrongfully convicted?

[accordn2me]

I was not bashing family members. I was pointing out that there could have been other people that might have had a theory.

It is only my opinion and I have said this and I did not mean it as fact.

Bashing to me is when I call the family members names or something like this. If you read back, you will see how I have defended Sharon for people that have put her down.Do not try to insult my intelligence. You wrote: "Ron, if he didn't do anything to Laci as a child, then he protected his son Darrin." If insinuating that Ron might have done something "to Laci as a child," or "he protected his son Darrin,"(implying that he did something to her) is not bashing, nothing is!

You want me to read back so I can see how you have defended Sharon? Do you even know where you are?

It appears that you have the words motive and theory (among other things) confused.

[accordn2me]

I know Scott lied about a few things, but how is it he lied to Amber about being the first to tell her the truth about Laci and him being married and that she was missing?Scott was far from the first person that told Amber about Laci, or that Scott was married. She had to practically drag it out of him. He was still lying about who he was, where he was going, what he had done, long after Amber and the police knew the truth.

[Anne2719]

I know Scott lied about a few things, but how is it he lied to Amber about being the first to tell her the truth about Laci and him being married and that she was missing?
I don't even know what this sentence means.

[Anne2719]

Do not try to insult my intelligence. You wrote: "Ron, if he didn't do anything to Laci as a child, then he protected his son Darrin." If insinuating that Ron might have done something "to Laci as a child," or "he protected his son Darrin,"(implying that he did something to her) is not bashing, nothing is!

You want me to read back so I can see how you have defended Sharon? Do you even know where you are?

It appears that you have the words motive and theory (among other things) confused.
Thank you. I realize I was way too subtle last night, and her statements did need to be pointed out as being hateful.

[accordn2me]

Thank you. I realize I was way too subtle last night, and her statements did need to be pointed out as being hateful.You are welcome. And thank you for posting this, Anne.

[lilmiss1960]

I was not bashing family members. I was pointing out that there could have been other people that might have had a theory.

It is only my opinion and I have said this and I did not mean it as fact.

Bashing to me is when I call the family members names or something like this. If you read back, you will see how I have defended Sharon for people that have put her down.

Hello Sassie, don't worry about it. I was also told not to bring Ron's name into the discussion. It happens to be my opinion and if I want to look at who else can be suspect, then I have the right to speak my opinion. No one has to like it or agree with it, but I do have the right state my opinion.

JMHO.

[Anne2719]

Just watch out for the thin ice.

[Just Jules]

Hello Sassie, don't worry about it. I was also told not to bring Ron's name into the discussion. It happens to be my opinion and if I want to look at who else can be suspect, then I have the right to speak my opinion. No one has to like it or agree with it, but I do have the right state my opinion.

JMHO.

Why would Ron murder Laci and Conner and remove them from Sharon's life?

Ron loves Sharon, why on earth would he do that to the woman he loves?

[accordn2me]

Hello Sassie, don't worry about it. I was also told not to bring Ron's name into the discussion. It happens to be my opinion and if I want to look at who else can be suspect, then I have the right to speak my opinion. No one has to like it or agree with it, but I do have the right state my opinion.

JMHO.Who told you not to bring Ron's name into the discussion? Why would someone tell you not to bring Ron's name into the discussion?

I have to wonder IF someone told you that, did they really mean to tell you not to bring useless, asinine comments into the discussion whether they are merely your opinion or not.

[JustMyOpinion]

I was not bashing family members. I was pointing out that there could have been other people that might have had a theory.

It is only my opinion and I have said this and I did not mean it as fact.

Bashing to me is when I call the family members names or something like this. If you read back, you will see how I have defended Sharon for people that have put her down.


So you were pointing out that Ron Grantski or his son Darren might have had a theory about who murdered Laci? That is not how your post "read" to me.
It seemed you were expressing your own theory that Ron or Darren did something to Laci when she was a child. Since there is not one shred of evidence or any testimony or investigatorial finding which indicates any such thing, it seems you feel malice toward the victims in this case, enough so that you will post vile and baseless gossip about a murdered woman and her family members, but that's JMO.

[thinkaboutit]

Scott had opportunity, access, means & the State showed evidence of possible motive. Of course he was the person of interest early on,and he couldn't be excluded as their investigation progressed ( others were excluded, IMO) He almost got away with these crimes, and wasn't arrested until the bodies washed ashore/were found. Are you saying it's your opinion Scott didn't take enough notes to remember the lies he told? He did put himself in hot water, and despite his family's best efforts to assist him in getting away with it, justice prevailed, IMO. To implicate Laci's family member or Amber seems contrary to any evidence and rather desperate, IMO.


I agree Scott had opportunity, access and means to kill Laci. I disagree that the State showed evidence of any reasonable possible motive. But if this is all it takes for the MPD to focus on someone and ignore all other possible leads - which is exactly what they did in my opinion - then everyone in America better beware if their spouse goes missing. Because every spouse has opportunity, access, means and POSSIBLE motive to kill their spouse.

If everyone was investigated and excluded in your opinion, how do you explain the lead detectives of this case not knowing that Ron Grantski was also fishing on the 24th until the trial? How do you explain witnesses that claimed to have seen Laci - who called the Laci tipline NUMEROUS times - not being called back let alone interviewed until the trial started?

And do you know why Scott was not arrested until those bodies were found? Because they had no other evidence against him (IMO). Otherwise you can bet - his butt would have been in jail.

Even if you think Scott is guilty - imo you should not be defending this investigation. No one should ever condone tunnelvision or failure to investigate other possible leads, no matter what LE's "gut instincts" tell them. IMO

[enlightenme]

I agree Scott had opportunity, access and means to kill Laci. I disagree that the State showed evidence of any reasonable possible motive. But if this is all it takes for the MPD to focus on someone and ignore all other possible leads - which is exactly what they did in my opinion - then everyone in America better beware if their spouse goes missing. Because every spouse has opportunity, access, means and POSSIBLE motive to kill their spouse.

If everyone was investigated and excluded in your opinion, how do you explain the lead detectives of this case not knowing that Ron Grantski was also fishing on the 24th until the trial? How do you explain witnesses that claimed to have seen Laci - who called the Laci tipline NUMEROUS times - not being called back let alone interviewed until the trial started?

And do you know why Scott was not arrested until those bodies were found? Because they had no other evidence against him (IMO). Otherwise you can bet - his butt would have been in jail.

Even if you think Scott is guilty - imo you should not be defending this investigation. No one should ever condone tunnelvision or failure to investigate other possible leads, no matter what LE's "gut instincts" tell them. IMO


Until I've read the 40,000 pages of LE reports and the, what was it, 5,000 plus tips, I'll reserve judgement about "tunnelvision". Speaking of tunnelvision though, I believe I've seen the same phenomenon on message boards.

[court~critic1®]

I agree Scott had opportunity, access and means to kill Laci. I disagree that the State showed evidence of any reasonable possible motive. But if this is all it takes for the MPD to focus on someone and ignore all other possible leads - which is exactly what they did in my opinion - then everyone in America better beware if their spouse goes missing. Because every spouse has opportunity, access, means and POSSIBLE motive to kill their spouse.

If everyone was investigated and excluded in your opinion, how do you explain the lead detectives of this case not knowing that Ron Grantski was also fishing on the 24th until the trial? How do you explain witnesses that claimed to have seen Laci - who called the Laci tipline NUMEROUS times - not being called back let alone interviewed until the trial started?

And do you know why Scott was not arrested until those bodies were found? Because they had no other evidence against him (IMO). Otherwise you can bet - his butt would have been in jail.

Even if you think Scott is guilty - imo you should not be defending this investigation. No one should ever condone tunnelvision or failure to investigate other possible leads, no matter what LE's "gut instincts" tell them. IMO



The only ones I see going on "gut instincts" here, or when it was happening were, and are the ones that can not accept the fact that IMSP is on death row. The LE did NOT need a body to prove their case. They knew where sp was at all times. There was a gps on his vechicle. The LE gave him enough rope to hang himself, which imoo he did quite well. IMOHOO and facts.

[Miss Bootsie]

I agree Scott had opportunity, access and means to kill Laci. I disagree that the State showed evidence of any reasonable possible motive. But if this is all it takes for the MPD to focus on someone and ignore all other possible leads - which is exactly what they did in my opinion - then everyone in America better beware if their spouse goes missing. Because every spouse has opportunity, access, means and POSSIBLE motive to kill their spouse.

If everyone was investigated and excluded in your opinion, how do you explain the lead detectives of this case not knowing that Ron Grantski was also fishing on the 24th until the trial? How do you explain witnesses that claimed to have seen Laci - who called the Laci tipline NUMEROUS times - not being called back let alone interviewed until the trial started?

And do you know why Scott was not arrested until those bodies were found? Because they had no other evidence against him (IMO). Otherwise you can bet - his butt would have been in jail.

Even if you think Scott is guilty - imo you should not be defending this investigation. No one should ever condone tunnelvision or failure to investigate other possible leads, no matter what LE's "gut instincts" tell them. IMO

So, what you are saying is, you agree it is possible Scott killed Laci, but you don't think he received a fair trial.

May I ask-Were you fighting for the cause of the wrongfully convicted before you knew there was a Scott Peterson?

[thinkaboutit]

Until I've read the 40,000 pages of LE reports and the, what was it, 5,000 plus tips, I'll reserve judgement about "tunnelvision". Speaking of tunnelvision though, I believe I've seen the same phenomenon on message boards.

You are telling me!! I see it on these boards too!

You reserve judgement of LE because you don't have all the facts. I wish you would do the same for Scott Peterson.

[thinkaboutit]

The only ones I see going on "gut instincts" here, or when it was happening were, and are the ones that can not accept the fact that IMSP is on death row. The LE did NOT need a body to prove their case. They knew where sp was at all times. There was a gps on his vechicle. The LE gave him enough rope to hang himself, which imoo he did quite well. IMOHOO and facts.

Who isn't accepting the fact that Scott is on death row? We get reminded all the time on this message board with the references to DRISP and IMSP not to mention WAH's very telling signature line. Some people seem to like to gloat about it. I can't imagine finding pleasure in that.

IMO knowing where SP was doesn't support your opinion that they didn't need a body to prove their case. The jury said themselves that without those bodies turning up in the bay - the verdict would have been different (in so many words).

[thinkaboutit]

So, what you are saying is, you agree it is possible Scott killed Laci, but you don't think he received a fair trial.

May I ask-Were you fighting for the cause of the wrongfully convicted before you knew there was a Scott Peterson?

Not what I am saying at all.

Before I answer your question - mind telling me where you are going with it? Not really sure why it matters?

[accordn2me]

I agree Scott had opportunity, access and means to kill Laci. I disagree that the State showed evidence of any reasonable possible motive. But if this is all it takes for the MPD to focus on someone and ignore all other possible leads - which is exactly what they did in my opinion - then everyone in America better beware if their spouse goes missing. Because every spouse has opportunity, access, means and POSSIBLE motive to kill their spouse.

If everyone was investigated and excluded in your opinion, how do you explain the lead detectives of this case not knowing that Ron Grantski was also fishing on the 24th until the trial? How do you explain witnesses that claimed to have seen Laci - who called the Laci tipline NUMEROUS times - not being called back let alone interviewed until the trial started?

And do you know why Scott was not arrested until those bodies were found? Because they had no other evidence against him (IMO). Otherwise you can bet - his butt would have been in jail.

Even if you think Scott is guilty - imo you should not be defending this investigation. No one should ever condone tunnelvision or failure to investigate other possible leads, no matter what LE's "gut instincts" tell them. IMOThere it is again! Are you kidding? Do NGs really consider Ron Grantski a possible suspect? That's absurd! Please! I can not believe it. I'm nearly speechless. IF one can entertain such an asinine idea for more than a split second, shouldn't their paranoid suspicions soon turn to....oh, let's say Jackie and/or Lee? I mean they had WAY more motive than burglars (who had none) even. It's been said, I think by Jackie's own daughter, that Jackie was...is jealous of the term she used... or was it irritated by...Laci and her attention to detail. After all, Laci took their "golden child" away from them, right? Sounds fatuous doesn't it....

[thinkaboutit]

AND...another one bites the dust.

SPANKS
Banned

But the one that posted that disgusting diatribe:

Sassie
Member

I'd shrug if I actually didn't understand. But I do.



And if either of you actually feel that Spanks should actually have been allowed to stay on this board - well - then you certainly don't have any right in accusing anyone else of being biased - that's for sure. Anyone who is familiar with this person would not be posting anything in her honor, imo. Adnoid, may I ask, is she still allowed to be a member on the board you are admin of?

Interesting that after the first banning (of an SII) no one cried foul.

You can scream biased all you want. You can blame the SII's for the other SII's not being admonished - that's fine. The fact is...there are 5 moderators on this board. 2 SIG's - 1 Neutral - 2 SII's. The SII's naturally are going to be more sensitive to the things that the SIG's say. The SIG's are naturally going to be more sensitive to the things that the SII's say. When one of us is bothered by a post - we discuss it - and if necessary we take action. Sometimes this takes some time - as we are not all always on the board at the same time.

I'd also like to point out that the two SII F/L's were not even posting on this thread when Sassie made that post. IMO, although Sassie's post should have been addressed (and may I point out it was after it was brought to the attention of the forum leaders) - her post does not compare to Spanks' posts.

Once again ....if you have a problem with a post - do not address it on the board - don't assume/insinuate the F/L's are ignoring it. PM a forum leader.

If you have a problem with a forum leader. PM another forum leader. Don't start bashing the forum leaders on the board.

[thinkaboutit]

There it is again! Are you kidding? Do NGs really consider Ron Grantski a possible suspect? That's absurd! Please! I can not believe it. I'm nearly speechless. IF one can entertain such an asinine idea for more than a split second, shouldn't their paranoid suspicions soon turn to....oh, let's say Jackie and/or Lee? I mean they had WAY more motive than burglars (who had none) even. It's been said, I think by Jackie's own daughter, that Jackie was...is jealous of the term she used... or was it irritated by...Laci and her attention to detail. After all, Laci took their "golden child" away from them, right? Sounds fatuous doesn't it....


Where did I say that I consider Ron Grantski was a possible suspect? PLEASE - stop accusing me of saying things I did not say.

Ask any good detective. ALL family members should be considered suspects until cleared. Obviously - no one even asked Ron Grantski where he was that day. My point was this and only this - the investigation was extremely inadequate IMO!!!!

What is your definition of motive? The burglars had no motive? How do you know that?

[accordn2me]

And if either of you actually feel that Spanks should actually have been allowed to stay on this board - well - then you certainly don't have any right in accusing anyone else of being biased - that's for sure. Anyone who is familiar with this person would not be posting anything in her honor, imo. Adnoid, may I ask, is she still allowed to be a member on the board you are admin of?

Interesting that after the first banning (of an SII) no one cried foul.

You can scream biased all you want. You can blame the SII's for the other SII's not being admonished - that's fine. The fact is...there are 5 moderators on this board. 2 SIG's - 1 Neutral - 2 SII's. The SII's naturally are going to be more sensitive to the things that the SIG's say. The SIG's are naturally going to be more sensitive to the things that the SII's say. When one of us is bothered by a post - we discuss it - and if necessary we take action. Sometimes this takes some time - as we are not all always on the board at the same time.

I'd also like to point out that the two SII F/L's were not even posting on this thread when Sassie made that post. IMO, although Sassie's post should have been addressed (and may I point out it was after it was brought to the attention of the forum leaders) - her post does not compare to Spanks' posts.
Once again ....if you have a problem with a post - do not address it on the board - don't assume/insinuate the F/L's are ignoring it. PM a forum leader.

If you have a problem with a forum leader. PM another forum leader. Don't start bashing the forum leaders on the board.

Well, you are right about Sassie's vile attack not comparing to Spanks' posts. If an unbiased person did compare the two, I think they would probably come to the conclusion that Sassie should be banned especially if given the knowledge that Earth Goddess (can't compare her posts as they were erased) and Spanks were. BTW, I'm not familiar with Spanks.

Your accusation that Adnoid and I are bashing forum leaders is unfounded. I don't think we were "blaming" anyone either. Just making an observation, with comments. Speaking only for myself, I don't understand why EG and Spanks were banned when the likes of Sassie is not. If it's not my right to an explanation, so be it. I think an explanation would help clear the air between the Gs, many of whom feel they are discriminated against, and the NGs. However, I'm well aware that's not my call.

Don't address it on the board? I really don't understand this. Is it a rule?

[thinkaboutit]

IMO, this comment is rude and uncalled for, particularly by a FL.



If you read FW's Introduction, you will see there are 6 FL's, not 5. However, one of the SIG FL is rarely here, so perhaps that is why it seems to be biased.

First of all - it was a question - not a comment - do you mind elaborating on why it's rude? It's just a question.

SO SORRY - you're right 6 FL's.

[accordn2me]

Where did I say that I consider Ron Grantski was a possible suspect? PLEASE - stop accusing me of saying things I did not say.

Ask any good detective. ALL family members should be considered suspects until cleared. Obviously - no one even asked Ron Grantski where he was that day. My point was this and only this - the investigation was extremely inadequate IMO!!!!

What is your definition of motive? The burglars had no motive? How do you know that?I would say the burglars had no reason, or motive to abduct Laci. I've seen the theory that it was for the baby. Well, the baby is dead. That wasn't it. Just to frame Scott? Too much risk for no gain.

If you say that Ron should have been investigated and excluded, isn't that saying he should have been on the list of possible suspects? If that's not what you meant, please accept my apology.

[thinkaboutit]

Well, you are right about Sassie's vile attack not comparing to Spanks' posts. If an unbiased person did compare the two, I think they would probably come to the conclusion that Sassie should be banned especially if given the knowledge that Earth Goddess (can't compare her posts as they were erased) and Spanks were. BTW, I'm not familiar with Spanks.

Your accusation that Adnoid and I are bashing forum leaders is unfounded. I don't think we were "blaming" anyone either. Just making an observation, with comments. Speaking only for myself, I don't understand why EG and Spanks were banned when the likes of Sassie is not. If it's not my right to an explanation, so be it. I think an explanation would help clear the air between the Gs, many of whom feel they are discriminated against, and the NGs. However, I'm well aware that's not my call.

Don't address it on the board? I really don't understand this. Is it a rule?

Yes reporting a problem is addressed in the CL rules.

[thinkaboutit]

This is from the Rules: Use forum to ask Leaders to clarify points for you (if you are SIG don’t ask a SII – leave the debate where it belongs).

IMO, this means to use the forum, not PM. What do you think, A2Me?

Try looking under reporting a problem

[accordn2me]

This is from the Rules: Use forum to ask Leaders to clarify points for you (if you are SIG don’t ask a SII – leave the debate where it belongs).

IMO, this means to use the forum, not PM. What do you think, A2Me?That's exactly what I need Sun, clarification.

I don't want to report a problem. I want to discuss it. In my lowly opinion, I believe FLs should be willing and able to publicly stand behind their decisions.

[Anne2719]

That's exactly what I need Sun, clarification.

I don't want to report a problem. I want to discuss it. In my lowly opinion, I believe FLs should be willing and able to publicly stand behind their decisions.
For one thing, FLs don't make the decisions. We bring things to Freshwater's attention, and she makes the decisions. Please keep in mind that there are sometimes additional things that come into play that aren't seen on the forum. Abusive PMs, for example.

[JustMyOpinion]

I agree Scott had opportunity, access and means to kill Laci. I disagree that the State showed evidence of any reasonable possible motive. But if this is all it takes for the MPD to focus on someone and ignore all other possible leads - which is exactly what they did in my opinion - then everyone in America better beware if their spouse goes missing. Because every spouse has opportunity, access, means and POSSIBLE motive to kill their spouse.

If everyone was investigated and excluded in your opinion, how do you explain the lead detectives of this case not knowing that Ron Grantski was also fishing on the 24th until the trial? How do you explain witnesses that claimed to have seen Laci - who called the Laci tipline NUMEROUS times - not being called back let alone interviewed until the trial started?

And do you know why Scott was not arrested until those bodies were found? Because they had no other evidence against him (IMO). Otherwise you can bet - his butt would have been in jail.

Even if you think Scott is guilty - imo you should not be defending this investigation. No one should ever condone tunnelvision or failure to investigate other possible leads, no matter what LE's "gut instincts" tell them. IMO

I see no evidence that MPD put their sole focus on Scott and ignored all possible leads, that must be your own opinion. JMO
I do see evidence that MPD suspected Scott from the first night, and that he became a primary person of interest after warrants were executed & Amber Frey contacted police. JMO
As for Ron Grantski, I don't think he was ever a suspect ( nor do I believe "everyone" in the world was a suspect or "everyone" was investigated or excluded) JMO
As for witnesses who called that you claim weren't called back or interviewed by MPD until later, there were over 10,000 tips IIRC. I would think it had to do with how credible the tip was. JMO
As for spouses in general, I agree they typically would have access, opportunity & means to commit homicide, I disagree that many have motive or a means of disposal. But, part of why Scott was suspected early -on by trained police has to do with statistics on domestic homicide & Laci's victim profile, IMO
Scott was arrested after the bodies were found because there would be enough evidence to convict him at that point, IMO. Obviously they had other evidence, it was brought forward at trial. Had they arrested him prior to the bodies being found, he could have invoked his right to speedy trial and although it's not impossible, homicide is difficult to prove without bodies, IMO.
I don't appreciate you instructing me on what I "SHOULD" be doing or not doing, who do you think you are? I think the MPD did a great job with their investigation, and it appears you disagree. JMO

[accordn2me]

For one thing, FLs don't make the decisions. We bring things to Freshwater's attention, and she makes the decisions. Please keep in mind that there are sometimes additional things that come into play that aren't seen on the forum. Abusive PMs, for example.
Thank you for the clarification, Anne.

I've read the rules now. I don't foresee having a problem so severe that I would have to contact Freshwater. I trust the FLs to step-in if need be.

Hopefully, anyone who has a problem with any of my posts will call me on it on the board rather than notify a forum leader before trying to work it out with me. That's the approach I will be taking.

[JustMyOpinion]

[QUOTE=thinkaboutit;8841026]
Ask any good detective. ALL family members should be considered suspects until cleared. Obviously - no one even asked Ron Grantski where he was that day. My point was this and only this - the investigation was extremely inadequate IMO!!!!

QUOTE]

Which detective told you this? Laci was an adult, married woman who had lived away from Sharon's home for years, she resided with Scott. Police were conducting a paralell investigation based on the facts of this case, IMO. Stranger abduction/assault/killing while walking the dog vs domestic homicide. IMO. They interviewed transients, paroled criminals, etc.. known to live around the area and followed up on tips. Are you saying you think they had reason to suspect that Laci's stepfather abducted her while she was walking the dog? Why, IYO?

[Miss Bootsie]

Not what I am saying at all.

Before I answer your question - mind telling me where you are going with it? Not really sure why it matters?

This is your comment thinkaboutit.
I agree Scott had opportunity, access and means to kill Laci. I disagree that the State showed evidence of any reasonable possible motive.

If you agree Scott had opportunity, access and means to kill Laci, apparently you are aware he may not be innocent.

I just asked a simple question - Were you involved in the cause against wrongful convictions before you were aware there was a Scott Peterson.

I have no idea why you would object to merely answering the question.
However, if for some reason you have a problem with the question, forget I asked.

[court~critic1®]

Who isn't accepting the fact that Scott is on death row? We get reminded all the time on this message board with the references to DRISP and IMSP not to mention WAH's very telling signature line. Some people seem to like to gloat about it. I can't imagine finding pleasure in that.

IMO knowing where SP was doesn't support your opinion that they didn't need a body to prove their case. The jury said themselves that without those bodies turning up in the bay - the verdict would have been different (in so many words).


After watching a doc. on this very case 2 nights ago, I can say they didn't need Lacis' body to prove their case. They were ready to go to trial. Sorry, I have read just about everything written on this case, and no where have I ever read what you stated as fact, about the jury would have voted different.

Have you ever read, seen ,or heard, about any case that has been tried without a body???? I have. One right here where I live.

Yes it gives me great pleasure to call sp CIMSP He didn't get away with murder. imohoo

[Lili007]

Who isn't accepting the fact that Scott is on death row? We get reminded all the time on this message board with the references to DRISP and IMSP not to mention WAH's very telling signature line. Some people seem to like to gloat about it. I can't imagine finding pleasure in that.

IMO knowing where SP was doesn't support your opinion that they didn't need a body to prove their case. The jury said themselves that without those bodies turning up in the bay - the verdict would have been different (in so many words).

Do you realize that "those bodies" you refer to are actually the remains of Laci Peterson and her unborn baby boy Conner?

I don't for a split second think that anyone on that jury would have ignored "those bodies", let alone ever referring to them as such.

Would they have returned a different verdict without habeas corpus? NO. I don't believe that would have ever happened even in the defense's wildest dreams.

I realise you have a strong stance on this case. So do I.

But there's no excuse for you to refer to the murder victims as "those bodies" in an attempt to infer the jury was wrong and the murderer not guilty. That's your thing - that's fine, to a point.

Please remember that Laci and Conner were the victims and try to show a modicum of respect. Let me put it this way: how would you like any of your loved ones being referred to as "those bodies"? I don't think Laci's family and friends care for that at all.

You're a forum leader. Behave like one.

JMO

[enlightenme]

And what kind of grandmother would ever refer to her missing grandson as "Laci's baby?"

Oh - nevermind.

And what kind of a father, even a cheating, lying one, doesn't admit that his own son is his? Why wouldn't Scott admit to Amber that Conner was his?

"I'll tell you everything when I see you. I can't tell you everything right now as it would hurt too many people."

I think, and this is pure speculation on my part, but I wouldn't put it past the guy, that Scott was planning on telling Amber that Laci was having an affair and the baby wasn't his. He might convince her that she ran away with her lover or something. IF the bodies were never found, he might have been able to pull that off, I don't know.

Why else would he keep lying to Amber after she already knew the scoop? :shrug:

[Unperson1984]

I just read about this forum...it's like a class reunion. :seeya:

:)

[JustMyOpinion]

And what kind of a father, even a cheating, lying one, doesn't admit that his own son is his? Why wouldn't Scott admit to Amber that Conner was his?

"I'll tell you everything when I see you. I can't tell you everything right now as it would hurt too many people."

I think, and this is pure speculation on my part, but I wouldn't put it past the guy, that Scott was planning on telling Amber that Laci was having an affair and the baby wasn't his. He might convince her that she ran away with her lover or something. IF the bodies were never found, he might have been able to pull that off, I don't know.

Why else would he keep lying to Amber after she already knew the scoop? :shrug:

This is certainly possible, IMO. It would fit with his "There are other kinds of loss" statement. IMO. I think it's possible Scott continued to say & do many things in an attempt to manipulate Amber's perception of reality, & paint himself as a suffering victim who was entitled to her love & trust. JMO It is very telling ( to me) that he downloaded map- quest directions to her place of employment on the same day he was arrested, IMO.

[enlightenme]

I just read about this forum...it's like a class reunion. :seeya:

:)

Hello Unperson! Who might you be, or was, or are now? :seeya:

[Unperson1984]

Hello Unperson! Who might you be, or was, or are now? :seeya:

I was Unperson 1984 during the Peterson trial. It's great to see so many old friends.

:)

[One2Snoop]

I was Unperson 1984 during the Peterson trial. It's great to see so many old friends.

:)

Welcome to the forum Unperson1984 ~ :seeya:

[Lily Rose]

I would say the burglars had no reason, or motive to abduct Laci. I've seen the theory that it was for the baby. Well, the baby is dead. That wasn't it. Just to frame Scott? Too much risk for no gain.

If you say that Ron should have been investigated and excluded, isn't that saying he should have been on the list of possible suspects? If that's not what you meant, please accept my apology.

I have always thought that it was too much of a co-incidence that two major crimes happened in houses opposite one another on the same street, on the same day for those two crimes not to be connected.

The burglars actually had a very good reason to abduct/harm Laci if she caught them in the act of that burglary. They were three-strikers. Of course that all changed the moment the cops offered them a deal if they came forward and said that they had seen something happening at Scott and Laci's house that day.

[JustMyOpinion]

I have always thought that it was too much of a co-incidence that two major crimes happened in houses opposite one another on the same street, on the same day for those two crimes not to be connected.

The burglars actually had a very good reason to abduct/harm Laci if she caught them in the act of that burglary. They were three-strikers. Of course that all changed the moment the cops offered them a deal if they came forward and said that they had seen something happening at Scott and Laci's house that day.

I don't think evidence proved the burglary occured on 12/24, and I saw no evidence that they were connected.
I don't think "burglars" would abduct her or murder her, & I don't think their informant would ignore a half-million dollar reward.
Can you link to any documentation that Pearce & Todd were "three strikers"? And, police got a tip from informant, where do you get information the men were "approached with a deal"?
http://www.ktvu.com/news/2744674/detail.html
Todd, 36, was arrested along with Donald Glenn Pearce, 44, on Jan. 2, 2003, after police received a tip. The men admitted to breaking into a home in the Peterson's neighborhood the morning after Christmas. Todd told authorities the men broke into the home about 4 a.m.

Pearce pleaded no contest in February to a reduced charge of receiving stolen property and was sentenced to 180 days in jail. Meanwhile, Todd pleaded guilty to one burglary count in February and was sentenced to eight years and eight months in prison for the Covina burglary and several others.

Detective George Stough told the Modesto Bee in January that Todd and Pearce were far more cooperative than suspects usually are with police. But it has not been disclosed if the men were casing the neighborhood on Christmas Eve -- the day Laci Peterson disappeared from her home.

"It was bad luck on their part," Stough said. "(Steven Todd) said he was scared that he was going to be associated with Laci's disappearance."
http://www.ktvu.com/news/2744674/detail.html

[cookiewench]

I have always thought that it was too much of a co-incidence that two major crimes happened in houses opposite one another on the same street, on the same day for those two crimes not to be connected.

The burglars actually had a very good reason to abduct/harm Laci if she caught them in the act of that burglary. They were three-strikers. Of course that all changed the moment the cops offered them a deal if they came forward and said that they had seen something happening at Scott and Laci's house that day.


And what would be the motivation for LE to want to help these 3-strikers get away with murder, while pinning it on Scott?

[Lily Rose]

I don't think evidence proved the burglary occured on 12/24, and I saw no evidence that they were connected.
I don't think "burglars" would abduct her or murder her, & I don't think their informant would ignore a half-million dollar reward.
Can you link to any documentation that Pearce & Todd were "three strikers"? And, police got a tip from informant, where do you get information the men were "approached with a deal"?
http://www.ktvu.com/news/2744674/detail.html
Todd, 36, was arrested along with Donald Glenn Pearce, 44, on Jan. 2, 2003, after police received a tip. The men admitted to breaking into a home in the Peterson's neighborhood the morning after Christmas. Todd told authorities the men broke into the home about 4 a.m.

Pearce pleaded no contest in February to a reduced charge of receiving stolen property and was sentenced to 180 days in jail. Meanwhile, Todd pleaded guilty to one burglary count in February and was sentenced to eight years and eight months in prison for the Covina burglary and several others.

Detective George Stough told the Modesto Bee in January that Todd and Pearce were far more cooperative than suspects usually are with police. But it has not been disclosed if the men were casing the neighborhood on Christmas Eve -- the day Laci Peterson disappeared from her home.

"It was bad luck on their part," Stough said. "(Steven Todd) said he was scared that he was going to be associated with Laci's disappearance."
http://www.ktvu.com/news/2744674/detail.html

There was a report in the Modbee, written by Patrick Giblin that I only have on a word doc on this computer. I would have to look on my old computer for the link, but the report said,

Quote:
Detectives said it seemed less likely that a burglary across the street from Peterson's home had anything to do with her disappearance. The timing does not seem to fit, detectives said. The burglary occurred some time between 10:30 a.m. Dec 24 and 4 p.m. Dec. 26.
Witnesses reported that they saw three suspicious-looking people in front of the home at about 11:40 a.m. Dec. 24, Detective George Stough said. That sighting was more than an hour after a neighbor found Peterson's dog -- with leash attached -- wandering in the neighborhood.
Still, police said they could not discount a connection, and they again announced a $1,000 reward for information leading to suspects in the burglary.
Police described the possible burglars as short, dark-skinned men. They were seen in an older, full-size van, either tan or light brown, with one or two doors in the rear.
Detectives especially want to know if the burglars were not involved in Peterson's disappearance. "If we got a call from the suspects saying that they saw something happening over there but they are afraid to come in, we might be able to work out a deal," Stough said.

end quote.

I will look for the link, but probably won't have time before the weekend.

Have you ever known cops to make an offer like that before?

[Lily Rose]

And what would be the motivation for LE to want to help these 3-strikers get away with murder, while pinning it on Scott?

Obviously to get rid of a witness who could put them in prison for a very long while, and the cops were already concentrating their investigation on Scott so the burglars had a ready made patsy all set up and waiting for them. IMO

[JustMyOpinion]

There was a report in the Modbee, written by Patrick Giblin that I only have on a word doc on this computer. I would have to look on my old computer for the link, but the report said,

Quote:
Detectives said it seemed less likely that a burglary across the street from Peterson's home had anything to do with her disappearance. The timing does not seem to fit, detectives said. The burglary occurred some time between 10:30 a.m. Dec 24 and 4 p.m. Dec. 26.
Witnesses reported that they saw three suspicious-looking people in front of the home at about 11:40 a.m. Dec. 24, Detective George Stough said. That sighting was more than an hour after a neighbor found Peterson's dog -- with leash attached -- wandering in the neighborhood.
Still, police said they could not discount a connection, and they again announced a $1,000 reward for information leading to suspects in the burglary.
Police described the possible burglars as short, dark-skinned men. They were seen in an older, full-size van, either tan or light brown, with one or two doors in the rear.
Detectives especially want to know if the burglars were not involved in Peterson's disappearance. "If we got a call from the suspects saying that they saw something happening over there but they are afraid to come in, we might be able to work out a deal," Stough said.

end quote.

I will look for the link, but probably won't have time before the weekend.

Have you ever known cops to make an offer like that before?
Okay, I would prefer to read the ModBee article.,and I'd like to know the date of the article. I have seen other cases where police offer a reward for information about a crime, yes. I can't recall another specific case where an officer publically indicated a deal could be worked out. Again, what basis do you have for your assertion that Pearce & Todd were "three strikers"? TIA

[JustMyOpinion]

Obviously to get rid of a witness who could put them in prison for a very long while, and the cops were already concentrating their investigation on Scott so the burglars had a ready made patsy all set up and waiting for them. IMO

So, you are certain they were three strikers? Do you have proof of this? Do either of them have a known history of committing violent crimes? And the OP asked why the POLICE would ignore evidence against burglars to pin a crime on Scott? IYO?

[Wudge]

I have always thought that it was too much of a co-incidence that two major crimes happened in houses opposite one another on the same street, on the same day for those two crimes not to be connected.

The burglars actually had a very good reason to abduct/harm Laci if she caught them in the act of that burglary. They were three-strikers. Of course that all changed the moment the cops offered them a deal if they came forward and said that they had seen something happening at Scott and Laci's house that day.

I certainly support the thought that the burglars would have had means, motive and opportunity.

In counting strikes, I thought the conviction on the burglary was Steven Todd's second felony conviction. I don't recall what Donald Pierce's felony strike count was before the burglary

[cookiewench]

Obviously to get rid of a witness who could put them in prison for a very long while, and the cops were already concentrating their investigation on Scott so the burglars had a ready made patsy all set up and waiting for them. IMO

Huh? Witness? I asked why LE would want to frame Scott, and let the "real" murderers go free.

[accordn2me]

I have always thought that it was too much of a co-incidence that two major crimes happened in houses opposite one another on the same street, on the same day for those two crimes not to be connected.

The burglars actually had a very good reason to abduct/harm Laci if she caught them in the act of that burglary. They were three-strikers. Of course that all changed the moment the cops offered them a deal if they came forward and said that they had seen something happening at Scott and Laci's house that day.Lily Rose...I'm very interested in these burglars. If for no other reason, I can't get a straight story on them. You say they were 3-strikers. Others say they weren't. The burglars say they robbed the house 12/26/02. Scott supporters say they robbed the house 12/24/02. Some people say they had means to abduct Laci. Others say they were riding bicycles at the time. I wish I could get some facts on these burglars.

My opinion on the burglars, if they were the type to be so worried about doing time in jail for a burglary, they probably knew that abducting and killing a pregnant woman would substantially up the sentence from LWOP (if this would have in fact been their 3rd strike) to death by lethal injection. But let's say they thought they were smarter than most everyone else and could get away with murder. There is no explanation for them to greatly increase their risk by dumping her in the bay. That would have taken some planning on their part, and malice toward Scott. They would have had to hang onto her for at least a couple of days until they found out exactly where Scott was that day...golfing, or fishing. I could go on and on and on. It just doesn't work.

The coincidence that is too much for me is that two weeks before Laci was reported missing, Scott told at least two people that he had lost his wife. He told at least one of them that this would be his first Christmas without his wife. And it was.

[thinkaboutit]

I don't know the specifics of the three strike law in California. But here is Steven Wayne Todd's criminal record:

TODD STEVEN WAYNE D 11897 4/5/1995 CR MISDEM THE PEOPLE VS. TODD, STEVEN W. MUNI CLOSED

TODD STEVEN WAYNE D 14750 5/5/1995 CR INFRAC THE PEOPLE VS. TODD, STEVEN MUNI CLOSED

TODD STEVEN WAYNE D 42015 7/27/1995 CR INFRAC THE PEOPLE VS. TODD, STEVEN MUNI CLOSED

TODD STEVEN WAYNE D 47412 10/13/1995 CR INFRAC THE PEOPLE VS. TODD, STEVEN MUNI CLOSED

TODD STEVEN WAYNE D 49211 11/9/1995 CR INFRAC THE PEOPLE VS. TODD, STEVEN MUNI CLOSED

TODD STEVEN WAYNE D 51900 12/27/1995 CR FELONY THE PEOPLE VS. TODD, STEVEN SUPER CLOSED

TODD STEVEN WAYNE D 52778 1/9/1996 CR INFRAC THE PEOPLE VS. TODD, STEVEN MUNI CLOSED

TODD STEVEN WAYNE D 53267 1/19/1996 CR MISDEM THE PEOPLE VS. TODD, STEVEN MUNI CLOSED

TODD STEVEN WAYNE D 54863 2/16/1996 CR FELONY THE PEOPLE VS. TODD, STEVEN SUPER CLOSED

TODD STEVEN WAYNE D 60145 5/8/1996 CR FELONY THE PEOPLE VS. TODD, STEVEN SUPER PS

TODD STEVEN WAYNE D 127101 1/24/1997 CR MISDEM THE PEOPLE VS. TODD, STEVEN MUNI CLOSED

TODD STEVEN WAYNE D 128736 2/4/1997 CR FELONY THE PEOPLE VS. TODD, STEVEN WAYNE SUPER CLOSED

TODD STEVEN WAYNE D 200782 11/9/1998 CR MISDEM THE PEOPLE VS. TODD, STEVEN MUNI OPEN

TODD STEVEN WAYNE D 205587 3/11/1999 CR FELONY THE PEOPLE VS. TODD, STEVEN SUPER CLOSED

TODD STEVEN WAYNE D 233248 5/12/1999 CR MISDEM THE PEOPLE VS. TODD, STEVEN MUNI CLOSED

TODD STEVEN WAYNE D 1000207 11/30/1999 CR FELONY PEO VS TODD, STEVEN WAYNE SUPER CLOSED

TODD STEVEN WAYNE D 1033868 3/7/2002 CR FELONY PEO VS TODD, STEVEN SUPER CLOSED

TODD STEVEN WAYNE D 1049717 1/6/2003 CR FELONY PEO VS TODD, STEVEN SUPER CLOSED


The Medina burglary was Todd's eighth felony in eight years.

All of this info can be verified here:
http://www.stanct.org/case_index/index.html

[thinkaboutit]

So, you are certain they were three strikers? Do you have proof of this? Do either of them have a known history of committing violent crimes? And the OP asked why the POLICE would ignore evidence against burglars to pin a crime on Scott? IYO?

Why is a history of committing violent crimes relevant? Scott had no history of committing violent crimes.

[JustMyOpinion]

I don't know the specifics of the three strike law in California. But here is Steven Wayne Todd's criminal record:

TODD STEVEN WAYNE D 11897 4/5/1995 CR MISDEM THE PEOPLE VS. TODD, STEVEN W. MUNI CLOSED

TODD STEVEN WAYNE D 14750 5/5/1995 CR INFRAC THE PEOPLE VS. TODD, STEVEN MUNI CLOSED

TODD STEVEN WAYNE D 42015 7/27/1995 CR INFRAC THE PEOPLE VS. TODD, STEVEN MUNI CLOSED

TODD STEVEN WAYNE D 47412 10/13/1995 CR INFRAC THE PEOPLE VS. TODD, STEVEN MUNI CLOSED

TODD STEVEN WAYNE D 49211 11/9/1995 CR INFRAC THE PEOPLE VS. TODD, STEVEN MUNI CLOSED

TODD STEVEN WAYNE D 51900 12/27/1995 CR FELONY THE PEOPLE VS. TODD, STEVEN SUPER CLOSED

TODD STEVEN WAYNE D 52778 1/9/1996 CR INFRAC THE PEOPLE VS. TODD, STEVEN MUNI CLOSED

TODD STEVEN WAYNE D 53267 1/19/1996 CR MISDEM THE PEOPLE VS. TODD, STEVEN MUNI CLOSED

TODD STEVEN WAYNE D 54863 2/16/1996 CR FELONY THE PEOPLE VS. TODD, STEVEN SUPER CLOSED

TODD STEVEN WAYNE D 60145 5/8/1996 CR FELONY THE PEOPLE VS. TODD, STEVEN SUPER PS

TODD STEVEN WAYNE D 127101 1/24/1997 CR MISDEM THE PEOPLE VS. TODD, STEVEN MUNI CLOSED

TODD STEVEN WAYNE D 128736 2/4/1997 CR FELONY THE PEOPLE VS. TODD, STEVEN WAYNE SUPER CLOSED

TODD STEVEN WAYNE D 200782 11/9/1998 CR MISDEM THE PEOPLE VS. TODD, STEVEN MUNI OPEN

TODD STEVEN WAYNE D 205587 3/11/1999 CR FELONY THE PEOPLE VS. TODD, STEVEN SUPER CLOSED

TODD STEVEN WAYNE D 233248 5/12/1999 CR MISDEM THE PEOPLE VS. TODD, STEVEN MUNI CLOSED

TODD STEVEN WAYNE D 1000207 11/30/1999 CR FELONY PEO VS TODD, STEVEN WAYNE SUPER CLOSED

TODD STEVEN WAYNE D 1033868 3/7/2002 CR FELONY PEO VS TODD, STEVEN SUPER CLOSED

TODD STEVEN WAYNE D 1049717 1/6/2003 CR FELONY PEO VS TODD, STEVEN SUPER CLOSED


The Medina burglary was Todd's eighth felony in eight years.

All of this info can be verified here:
http://www.stanct.org/case_index/index.html

No, it cannot be "verified" unless a poster wishes to order and pay for these records ( if information on the site is accurate). Do you normally post a person's alleged criminal record on a public website?

[accordn2me]

I don't know the specifics of the three strike law in California. I don't know the specifics either. IIRC, we'd have to know the year the law went into effect, then we'd have to know if Todd or the others were convicted of these felonies committed after that date. From what I understand, 3 felony convictions after the 3-strikes law went into effect is a mandatory life sentence.

If the police can not show that these burlars were investigated and cleared, MG was extremely remiss in not exploiting this to the fullest extent possible. It's old news and can't be used as "new evidence" now. Seems to me 'the burglars did it' theory is washed up.

[One2Snoop]

I don't know the specifics either. IIRC, we'd have to know the year the law went into effect, then we'd have to know if Todd or the others were convicted of these felonies committed after that date. From what I understand, 3 felony convictions after the 3-strikes law went into effect is a mandatory life sentence.

If the police can not show that these burlars were investigated and cleared, MG was extremely remiss in not exploiting this to the fullest extent possible. It's old news and can't be used as "new evidence" now. Seems to me 'the burglars did it' theory is washed up.

The 3-strikes law was approved in 1994. Here's an interesting website that tells all about how it works....

http://www.silicon-valley.com/3strikes.html

[thinkaboutit]

No, it cannot be "verified" unless a poster wishes to order and pay for these records ( if information on the site is accurate). Do you normally post a person's alleged criminal record on a public website?


Actually - if you had clicked on the link I provided - you would have seen that this information is public record and available to everyone for FREE. If you don't want this information on a public website - then maybe you should complain to the Stanislaus County Court - as they have this information published on their public website.

[JustMyOpinion]

Why is a history of committing violent crimes relevant? Scott had no history of committing violent crimes.

From what I have read, Steven Todd has a history of being booked on similar crimes as the burglary. ( per Crier: Deadly Game, pp.156). Some people seem to believe the simple fact he is a felon shows high probability he would have committed this henious crime against Laci/Conner, but I disagree. Steven Todd took a polygraph ( according to Crier pp. 156). His willingness to do so indicates he had nothing to hide with regard to the crime against Laci...but that's JMO. I am not aware that Pearce had been booked for any crimes prior to assisting with the burglary, and he also took a polygraph by his own admission and according to Crier. As for Scott's known history, it's not that uncommon in domestic homicide cases that the spouse has no known history of violence, IMO. It's telling that these burglars took polygraphs, yet Scott refused to sit down and do so, IMO.

[thinkaboutit]

From what I have read, Steven Todd has a history of being booked on similar crimes as the burglary. ( per Crier: Deadly Game, pp.156). Some people seem to believe the simple fact he is a felon shows high probability he would have committed this henious crime against Laci/Conner, but I disagree. Steven Todd took a polygraph ( according to Crier pp. 156). His willingness to do so indicates he had nothing to hide with regard to the crime against Laci...but that's JMO. I am not aware that Pearce had been booked for any crimes prior to assisting with the burglary, and he also took a polygraph by his own admission and according to Crier. As for Scott's known history, it's not that uncommon in domestic homicide cases that the spouse has no known history of violence, IMO. It's telling that these burglars took polygraphs, yet Scott refused to sit down and do so, IMO.

Polygraphs don't mean anything to me. People who lie can pass them - and people who are telling the truth can fail them. Like I've said before - there is a reason they are not admissable in a court of law, IMO.

Yes - Pearce had been booked for other crimes prior to assisting with the burglar. You can find them on the website I provided, if you're interested.

Either a prior violent criminal record is relevant or not. IMO, you can't state that it's relevant that Todd had no prior violent criminal record but state that it's irrelevant that Scott had none.

From what I have read, Steven Todd has a history of being booked on similar crimes as the burglary. ( per Crier: Deadly Game, pp.156).

From the list provided by Adnoid of felonies that qualify under the 3 strikes law:

* Burglary of an inhabited dwelling, house or trailer coach as defined by the Vehicle Code or inhabited portion of any other building.

[JustMyOpinion]

Polygraphs don't mean anything to me. People who lie can pass them - and people who are telling the truth can fail them. Like I've said before - there is a reason they are not admissable in a court of law, IMO.

Yes - Pearce had been booked for other crimes prior to assisting with the burglar. You can find them on the website I provided, if you're interested.

Either a prior violent criminal record is relevant or not. IMO, you can't state that it's relevant that Todd had no prior violent criminal record but state that it's irrelevant that Scott had none.

I think polygraphs are an investigative tool. Their value is not simply in ruling someone in or out, IMO..I think they inform the investigation, which is why taking one administered by those who know the evidence in the case is important, IMO. I don't think it is easy to "pass" a polygraph, and I agree that they should not be admissable as evidence in a court of law. IMO, Scott wasn't willing to assist the MPD investigation into Laci's disappearance, Todd and Pearce were. And, I did not state that it's relevant that Todd had no prior record of violent crime, I stated I don't believe his simple status as a felon shows high probability that he would commit this henious crime against Laci. And again, IMO, it is not uncommon in domestic homicide cases that a spouse has no prior known history of violence. Please do not tell me what I "can" and "cannot" state, and please do not mis-state what I have posted.
Thank you.

[Otter]

Actually - if you had clicked on the link I provided - you would have seen that this information is public record and available to everyone for FREE. If you don't want this information on a public website - then maybe you should complain to the Stanislaus County Court - as they have this information published on their public website.

I clicked and it wanted me to pay to see the records. :shrug: You must have paid for them previously or something.

[thinkaboutit]

There is a significant difference in the crime of burglary if there are people in the building or not. Burglary when people are home is a big deal. Burglary on a house when the people are away (as was done with the Medinas) is not treated the same way, even if it is a felony. The former is a "strike", the latter is not.

I assume it is your interpretation of the word "inhabited" to mean people are at home? How do we know inhabited doesn't mean - lived in?

[thinkaboutit]

I clicked and it wanted me to pay to see the records. :shrug: You must have paid for them previously or something.


And I sincerely hope that everyone here clicks on the link I provided to see that you are not telling the truth - and I am. I never paid for these records. They are free to anyone who wants to view them.

[thinkaboutit]

So, you are certain they were three strikers? Do you have proof of this? Do either of them have a known history of committing violent crimes? And the OP asked why the POLICE would ignore evidence against burglars to pin a crime on Scott? IYO?

This is your post I was referring to in reference to the relevance of a violent crime history. You asked the question - I assumed you felt it was relevant.

I think polygraphs are an investigative tool. Their value is not simply in ruling someone in or out, IMO..I think they inform the investigation, which is why taking one administered by those who know the evidence in the case is important, IMO. I don't think it is easy to "pass" a polygraph, and I agree that they should not be admissable as evidence in a court of law. IMO, Scott wasn't willing to assist the MPD investigation into Laci's disappearance, Todd and Pearce were. And, I did not state that it's relevant that Todd had no prior record of violent crime, I stated I don't believe his simple status as a felon shows high probability that he would commit this henious crime against Laci. And again, IMO, it is not uncommon in domestic homicide cases that a spouse has no prior known history of violence. Please do not tell me what I "can" and "cannot" state, and please do not mis-state what I have posted.
Thank you.

[accordn2me]

And I sincerely hope that everyone here clicks on the link I provided to see that you are not telling the truth - and I am. I never paid for these records. They are free to anyone who wants to view them.
In general, I'm not a clicker. But I'm fixin' to go click because about 3 people have stated in order to view the records, they would have to pay for them. Sounds like they clicked. Sounds like you are saying they didn't. Now I'm curious....

If for some reason you can see people's criminal records (not saying you paid) and I can not....will you look some people up for me?

[One2Snoop]

In general, I'm not a clicker. But I'm fixin' to go click because about 3 people have stated in order to view the records, they would have to pay for them. Sounds like they clicked. Sounds like you are saying they didn't. Now I'm curious....

If for some reason you can see people's criminal records (not saying you paid) and I can not....will you look some people up for me?

I think there's some confusion here as to what you can see and can't see. I clicked on the link and you can see everything that TAI posted above about Todd - but you can't see what the felony actually was or the resolution, i.e. did he do jail time for the offense, etc...

[accordn2me]

Click on the link, this is the page you see:

CASE INDEX

Index is divided by date periods below, then alphabetical by Last Name.
Titles beginning with numbers or addresses can be found before the A section.

1900-1994 1995
1996 1997
1998-1999 2000-2001
2002 2003
2004 2005
2006 2007

Updated 02/28/07

Case Index Order Form
The Stanislaus County Superior Court Case Index is available alphabetically in a 2-CD set. The Case Index is updated quarterly and includes cases filed 1900-1999, and 2000-present day. The cost is $15.00 per each 2-CD set, which includes S&H.

You can click on a year and look up someone's last name and see just what thinkaboutit posted without paying. The website does not tell the specific crime or the outcome. Without knowing the specific crime or the outcome, this information is useless for what we want it for. Now, if I wanted to date a guy, it would be different.

[One2Snoop]

Click on the link, this is the page you see:

You can click on a year and look up someone's last name and see just what thinkaboutit posted without paying. The website does not tell the specific crime or the outcome. Without knowing the specific crime or the outcome, this information is useless for what we want it for. Now, if I wanted to date a guy, it would be different.

LOL - I just said that. :tongue: :cool:

[attorneywan2be]

And I sincerely hope that everyone here clicks on the link I provided to see that you are not telling the truth - and I am. I never paid for these records. They are free to anyone who wants to view them.

You are absolutely correct..I have been using this site for couple of years..it is public information...no need to pay..

[Otter]

My apologies tai. I didn't get past the:

Case Index Order Form
The Stanislaus County Superior Court Case Index is available alphabetically in a 2-CD set. The Case Index is updated quarterly and includes cases filed 1900-1999, and 2000-present day. The cost is $15.00 per each 2-CD set, which includes S&H.

A proverbial rush to judgment on my part. Sorry about that.

[thinkaboutit]

My apologies tai. I didn't get past the:

Case Index Order Form
The Stanislaus County Superior Court Case Index is available alphabetically in a 2-CD set. The Case Index is updated quarterly and includes cases filed 1900-1999, and 2000-present day. The cost is $15.00 per each 2-CD set, which includes S&H.

A proverbial rush to judgment on my part. Sorry about that.

Sorry - Otter - the past few days I've been accused of many things - I thought I was being called a liar again.

My sincere apologies for misunderstanding your post.

[Otter]

Sorry - Otter - the past few days I've been accused of many things - I thought I was being called a liar again.

My sincere apologies for misunderstanding your post.

No apology needed from you. I didn't bother to click on a year and assumed any info cost money. I misunderstood. We may never agree on the subject of the forum, but I'd never accuse you of that. Not without a link! :tongue:

[Lily Rose]

I don't know the specifics either. IIRC, we'd have to know the year the law went into effect, then we'd have to know if Todd or the others were convicted of these felonies committed after that date. From what I understand, 3 felony convictions after the 3-strikes law went into effect is a mandatory life sentence.

If the police can not show that these burlars were investigated and cleared, MG was extremely remiss in not exploiting this to the fullest extent possible. It's old news and can't be used as "new evidence" now. Seems to me 'the burglars did it' theory is washed up.

Oh well, that's alright then. Doesn't matter if they did it or not it's all water under the bridge now and who cares?

[Toggie]

I could never understand why Geragos didn't put Steven Todd or Glenn Pearce on the stand to clarify the burglary date. Talk about a missed opportunity....

[JustMyOpinion]

Perhaps because the clarification they would have provided wouldn't help his client?


I agree. The State had Steven Todd on their witness list and he was transferred in the event they decided to call him. I doubt Geragos pressed the issue too far, because he didn't want that to happen, IMO. Better to "imply" to the jury than have actual evidence come forward, IMO

http://www.ktvu.com/news/2744674/detail.html
MODESTO, Calif. -- One of the men who burglarized a home in Scott Peterson's neighborhood hours after Laci Peterson's Christmas Eve disappearance will be called as a witness by the prosecution in the upcoming double murder trial, according to court documents filed Tuesday.

Prosecutors filed a request and it was granted to have Steven Wayne Todd moved from the Deuel Vocational Institution in Tracy to the Stanislaus County jail for the duration of the Peterson trial. In its filing, prosecutors called Todd a 'necessary and material witness' in its case against Peterson.
http://www.ktvu.com/news/2744674/detail.html

[accordn2me]

Oh well, that's alright then. Doesn't matter if they did it or not it's all water under the bridge now and who cares?

Exactly. The burglars were cleared. Move on.

[Toggie]

Perhaps because the clarification they would have provided wouldn't help his client?

You know, I bet you're right.;)

Todd & Pearce were burglars....The local PD knew them as such, IMO. If LE thought for one split second these two clowns were involved, they would have taken them in, IMO. Why would the MPD want to give these two a pass if they thought they had kidnapped or worse, a missing pregnant woman? Doesn't make sense to me.:shrug:

[Wudge]

Stealth family juror?

Should Mary Mylett (Juror 10) have told Judge Delucchi that she became a Rocha family member midway through the trial?

"Every single night since July or August, every night when I go to bed, I am part of the Rocha family," Mylett said. "I was at Laci's baby shower. I was there for Christmas, for their graduations. When I dream at night, I'm part
of their family.

"They are all very nice dreams — there isn't a nightmare among them — and it's helped me a lot because Laci is always smiling and Sharon is always smiling," she continued. "My nightmares were during the day (in court), and the dreams helped me heal at night."

http://www.modbee.com/reports/peterson/trial/story/9634098p-10518507c.html

[Otter]

Stealth family juror?

Should Mary Mylett (Juror 10) have told Judge Delucchi that she became a Rocha family member midway through the trial?

"Every single night since July or August, every night when I go to bed, I am part of the Rocha family," Mylett said. "I was at Laci's baby shower. I was there for Christmas, for their graduations. When I dream at night, I'm part
of their family.

"They are all very nice dreams — there isn't a nightmare among them — and it's helped me a lot because Laci is always smiling and Sharon is always smiling," she continued. "My nightmares were during the day (in court), and the dreams helped me heal at night."

http://www.modbee.com/reports/peterson/trial/story/9634098p-10518507c.html

Hi Wudge. Have no idea if you can read this since all the G's seem to be on your iggy which lead to a terrific exchange of ideas. IMO.

You seem to think that jurors are robots IMO. They had seen pictures of Laci in life, that beautiful smile. They saw pictures of Laci in death. There was no head so no smile to see. You wouldn't be affected by that IMO, but most people are.

You think, though you state as fact, that her dreams are grounds for appeal. Nope. A jury's decision is sacred unless under the most egregious circumstances. This ain't one of them. In my opinion.

Lighten up. Until there's robot jurors, humans who sit on a jury will have feelings. But they will still weigh evidence deliberately as this jury did.

Is there something wrong with feeling sympathy for a grieving mother?

[attorneywan2be]

Stealth family juror?

Should Mary Mylett (Juror 10) have told Judge Delucchi that she became a Rocha family member midway through the trial?

"Every single night since July or August, every night when I go to bed, I am part of the Rocha family," Mylett said. "I was at Laci's baby shower. I was there for Christmas, for their graduations. When I dream at night, I'm part
of their family.

"They are all very nice dreams — there isn't a nightmare among them — and it's helped me a lot because Laci is always smiling and Sharon is always smiling," she continued. "My nightmares were during the day (in court), and the dreams helped me heal at night."

http://www.modbee.com/reports/peterson/trial/story/9634098p-10518507c.html

Exactly..! in addition to that, her characterization of her days in court being nightmares indicates that she made up her mind about Scott being guilty as early as July or August...BEFORE deliberations!!!

[JustMyOpinion]

Stealth family juror?

Should Mary Mylett (Juror 10) have told Judge Delucchi that she became a Rocha family member midway through the trial?

"Every single night since July or August, every night when I go to bed, I am part of the Rocha family," Mylett said. "I was at Laci's baby shower. I was there for Christmas, for their graduations. When I dream at night, I'm part
of their family.

"They are all very nice dreams — there isn't a nightmare among them — and it's helped me a lot because Laci is always smiling and Sharon is always smiling," she continued. "My nightmares were during the day (in court), and the dreams helped me heal at night."

http://www.modbee.com/reports/peterson/trial/story/9634098p-10518507c.html

I don't get your point? She didn't become a Rocha family member, she said she had dreams that she was part of their family. Some dreams ( it appears from this quote) where Laci was still alive. Why would she inform the Judge about dreams?

[Wudge]

Hi Wudge. Have no idea if you can read this since all the G's seem to be on your iggy which lead to a terrific exchange of ideas. IMO.

You seem to think that jurors are robots IMO. They had seen pictures of Laci in life, that beautiful smile. They saw pictures of Laci in death. There was no head so no smile to see. You wouldn't be affected by that IMO, but most people are.

You think, though you state as fact, that her dreams are grounds for appeal. Nope. A jury's decision is sacred unless under the most egregious circumstances. This ain't one of them. In my opinion.

Lighten up. Until there's robot jurors, humans who sit on a jury will have feelings. But they will still weigh evidence deliberately as this jury did.

Is there something wrong with feeling sympathy for a grieving mother?


I think it is fair to say: This is not good. I have to think that if Scott's appeal team sees influence and sentiment oozing here as I do, it will almost assuredly be considered for an appeal issue.

Jury Instruction #20

You must not be influenced by sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, public opinion, or public feeling. Both the people and the defendant have a right to expect that you will conscientiously consider and weigh the evidence, apply the law, and reach a just verdict regardless of the consequences.

[Wudge]

Exactly..! in addition to that, her characterization of her days in court being nightmares indicates that she made up her mind about Scott being guilty as early as July or August...BEFORE deliberations!!!


I'll simply say this: If Mary Mylett does not have her very own appeal issue, I think she should feel very lucky if not grateful.

[attorneywan2be]

I don't get your point? She didn't become a Rocha family member, she said she had dreams that she was part of their family. Some dreams ( it appears from this quote) where Laci was still alive. Why would she inform the Judge about dreams?

The point being that she identified with Sharon Rocha, we all know that Sharon believed that Scott killed Laci..therefore-----> Mylett was biased in favor of Sharon and against Scott..

From the same article:

And, Mary Mylett — formerly known to the world as Juror No. 10 — wants Rocha to know that for more than six months during Scott Peterson's trial, she watched her carefully from the jury box.

[JustMyOpinion]

I think it is fair to say: This is not good. I have to think that if Scott's appeal team sees influence and sentiment oozing here as I do, it will almost assuredly be considered for an appeal issue.

Jury Instruction #20

You must not be influenced by sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, public opinion, or public feeling. Both the people and the defendant have a right to expect that you will conscientiously consider and weigh the evidence, apply the law, and reach a just verdict regardless of the consequences.

The juror didn't say she engaged in conjecture, she said had dreams while she was sleeping. She did not say she was influenced by these dreams or by "sentiment, sympathy, prejudice, public opinion or public feeling". IMO, this quote is simply not basis for an appeal. There is no instruction that jurors advise the judge if they are experiencing dreams in their nighttime sleep during the trial! JMO

[JustMyOpinion]

Exactly..! in addition to that, her characterization of her days in court being nightmares indicates that she made up her mind about Scott being guilty as early as July or August...BEFORE deliberations!!!


I think it is impossible to glean that from this quote. She doesn't elaborate on the word "nightmare". I can well imagine this trial could have begun to feel like a nightmare, it went on too long, (IMO) some of the evidence photos were very graphic ( according to some of the jurors), and jurors couldn't discuss their day with anyone else. The juror said nothing about Scott at all!

[Otter]

I think it is fair to say: This is not good. I have to think that if Scott's appeal team sees influence and sentiment oozing here as I do, it will almost assuredly be considered for an appeal issue.

Jury Instruction #20

You must not be influenced by sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, public opinion, or public feeling. Both the people and the defendant have a right to expect that you will conscientiously consider and weigh the evidence, apply the law, and reach a just verdict regardless of the consequences.


Yes, that's the instruction. Nowhere does it say that she didn't follow the instruction. She felt empathy for the mother of a murdered daughter.

Are you saying that's wrong? Are you saying that even the juror's in OJ didn't feel something for the Goldmans and Browns? This juror showed human emotion, but still conscientiously considered the evidence. And found a just verdict. Not IMO, as it was unanimous by the only people who counted.

If anyone else has posted anything like this sorry, read this and quoted. And thanks Wudge for not having me on iggy. I look forward to further exchanges with you.

[JustMyOpinion]

Hi Wudge. Have no idea if you can read this since all the G's seem to be on your iggy which lead to a terrific exchange of ideas. IMO.

You seem to think that jurors are robots IMO. They had seen pictures of Laci in life, that beautiful smile. They saw pictures of Laci in death. There was no head so no smile to see. You wouldn't be affected by that IMO, but most people are.

You think, though you state as fact, that her dreams are grounds for appeal. Nope. A jury's decision is sacred unless under the most egregious circumstances. This ain't one of them. In my opinion.

Lighten up. Until there's robot jurors, humans who sit on a jury will have feelings. But they will still weigh evidence deliberately as this jury did.

Is there something wrong with feeling sympathy for a grieving mother?

I'm in agreement with your entire post. Who wouldn't feel sympathy for a grieving mother?

[Wudge]

The juror didn't say she engaged in conjecture, she said had dreams while she was sleeping. She did not say she was influenced by these dreams or by "sentiment, sympathy, prejudice, public opinion or public feeling". IMO, this quote is simply not basis for an appeal. There is no instruction that jurors advise the judge if they are experiencing dreams in their nighttime sleep during the trial! JMO

Wouldn't it be a conflict of interest if a Rocha family member (such as Mary Mylett admitted to being) was seated on the jury to objectively judge the evidence against Scott?

Is there not a Constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury?

If Mary Mylett had told Judge Delucchi that she had converted into a Rocha family member, would Judge Delucchi have a "manifest necessity" to replace her?

[Wudge]

Yes, that's the instruction. Nowhere does it say that she didn't follow the instruction. She felt empathy for the mother of a murdered daughter.

Are you saying that's wrong? Are you saying that even the juror's in OJ didn't feel something for the Goldmans and Browns? This juror showed human emotion, but still conscientiously considered the evidence. And found a just verdict. Not IMO, as it was unanimous by the only people who counted.

If anyone else has posted anything like this sorry, read this and quoted. And thanks Wudge for not having me on iggy. I look forward to further exchanges with you.

Do stealth jurors and double jeopardy go together?

[Otter]

The point being that she identified with Sharon Rocha, we all know that Sharon believed that Scott killed Laci..therefore-----> Mylett was biased in favor of Sharon and against Scott..

From the same article:

And, Mary Mylett — formerly known to the world as Juror No. 10 — wants Rocha to know that for more than six months during Scott Peterson's trial, she watched her carefully from the jury box.

:shrug: So? Wudge speaks much about logic, what does he/she have to say about this statement?

That's my opinion, although a bit subtlety sarcastic (sorry), so is your deduction IYO, forum rules you know. I hope so, its rather simplistic IMO.