Was Scott Peterson Wrongfully Convicted?

[JustMyOpinion]

Hi JMO,

Love your posts. As for the above, and all the other silly theories tossed out there, I equate it all to this: If I had a DVD movie that my friends had never seen, I could sit them down and just show pieces of it, manipulating it to appear as I would like. We could argue back and forth about each bite, about what it meant, how it looked, etc. Chances are pretty darn good however, that if I just hit play and we watched it all the way through, everyone's opinion would change. They'd now have the whole story, from beginning to end. It would be crystal clear.

That's what happen's here, IMO. The NG's chew on a bite of the whole, making no sense, in the whole. Hence, everyone's frustration because everyone's already seen the whole picture.

I realize I'm getting a bit deep, poetic even, but it's late and stormy here on the e. coast, seems fitting, LOL!!! :rolleyes: :tongue:

Hi TG, enjoy your posts as well. I have my own opinions about this case but I didn't sit through the trial, watch & listen to every witness, or deliberate with eleven others who did. I agree with you that it is impossible to know what a juror felt or thought or how they all deliberated by parsing a few of their statements. I think some people project their own stuff onto others. JMO

[Miss Bootsie]

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!!!

In your opinion.

Could you elaborate on how her characterization of her days in Court being nightmares,indicates she made up her mind about Scott being guilty, etc. :confused:
How could you possibly know this?

[Otter]

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?

Oh for crying out loud, did she change her will leaving everything to Sharon? She's speaking allegorically -- about how she felt for Sharon and the loss of her daugher.

It was a DREAM!!! She felt compassion and empathy. She's probably a mother and sympathized greatly. Maybe she's the mother of a married daughter and so empathized she couldn't stand the thought of her own SIL murdering her daughter and almost hung the trial. Were you in the jury room?

Stop speculating and holding onto such thin, tenuous threads. The rope of CE against SP can't be broken. IMO.

[Wudge]

: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.


I sum up my feelings Otter. I think Scott's jury represents an appellate attorney's wet dream.

[Otter]

Do stealth jurors and double jeopardy go together?


No. And besides, prove stealth juror. Can't do it. Until you can read someone's mind, can't prove a thing. But you think you're the little train who could, I think I can, I think I can ...

Knock yourself out.

[One2Snoop]

I sum up my feelings Otter. I think Scott's jury represents an appellate attorney's wet dream.

eeewwwwwwww :eek: Wudge! Do you think we could leave such grotesque thoughts out of this? Thank you.

[Otter]

I sum up my feelings Otter. I think Scott's jury represents an appellate attorney's wet dream.

As a woman of a certain age with sensitive feelings, the analogy is a bit offensive, but I wasn't speaking of your logic Wudge. Your reasoning I can appreciate and enjoy reading and discussing. I'll say no more on this post. :seeya:

[enlightenme]

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.


This just says you can't be influenced by them, during deliberations. It doesn't mean that people can't HAVE them (sympathy, sentiment, and passion, esp)!

[JustMyOpinion]

I sum up my feelings Otter. I think Scott's jury represents an appellate attorney's wet dream.

Disgusting objectification,IMO. The jurors empaneled to hear Scott's case are human beings.

[enlightenme]

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?


You do understand the difference between dreams and reality, don't you?

She did not "become a Rocha family member". That's ridiculous!

[Wudge]

Disgusting objectification,IMO. The jurors empaneled to hear Scott's case are human beings.

But one juror said they became a Rocha family member during the trial. Would you not expect this to be looked at hard as a significant appeal issue?

[Wudge]

eeewwwwwwww :eek: Wudge! Do you think we could leave such grotesque thoughts out of this? Thank you.

(change it to greatest thrill ............. salute)

[Anne2719]

But one juror said they became a Rocha family member during the trial. Would you not expect this to be looked at hard as a significant appeal issue?
Not at all. She imagined herself at family gatherings with a young woman who is now dead. As a mother of a dead child, she related to another mother of a dead child. She didn't say anything about who caused the death; her dreams or fancies were of the life of Laci, and not her death. You are really reaching if you think this is an appellate issue.

[Wudge]

Not at all. She imagined herself at family gatherings with a young woman who is now dead. As a mother of a dead child, she related to another mother of a dead child. She didn't say anything about who caused the death; her dreams or fancies were of the life of Laci, and not her death. You are really reaching if you think this is an appellate issue.

I don't know how this could be ignored upon appeal. "Every single night since July or August, every night when I go to bed, I am part of the Rocha family."

If this was your son who had been convicted, would you not consider this to represent, at the very least, an existing bias inside the jury?

[attorneywan2be]

Let's think about what Mylett said this way..

Let's say that at the jury selection stage she told the judge, defense and prosecution that she was having dreams about being part of the Rocha family...do you honestly think she would have been selected to sit on the jury?

[accordn2me]

But one juror said they became a Rocha family member during the trial. Would you not expect this to be looked at hard as a significant appeal issue?
"....every night when I go to bed...."

Is that during the trial?

[accordn2me]

Not at all. She imagined herself at family gatherings with a young woman who is now dead. As a mother of a dead child, she related to another mother of a dead child. She didn't say anything about who caused the death; her dreams or fancies were of the life of Laci, and not her death. You are really reaching if you think this is an appellate issue.Is this the juror that accidentally ran over her child with the van?

I've often wondered if that some how, some way contributed to the surprising verdict of guilty of murder one for Laci, murder two for Conner.

[One2Snoop]

Is this the juror that accidentally ran over her child with the van?

I've often wondered if that some how, some way contributed to the surprising verdict of guilty of murder one for Laci, murder two for Conner.

Yes, she would be the one. Sounds like she was an emotional wreck. I wonder why they ever allowed her to be a juror in the first place?

http://www.crimenews2000.com/lacipeterson/who/who6.htm#jurors

[attorneywan2be]

"....every night when I go to bed...."

Is that during the trial?


Yes..if you read the rest of her statement, you would see that she was clearly referring to having those dreams during the trial...!

[accordn2me]

Yes..if you read the rest of her statement, you would see that she was clearly referring to having those dreams during the trial...! OK. Let's do it together.

Juror 10: "[I]Every single night since July or August, every night when I go to bed, I am part of the Rocha family," Mylett said.When she goes to bed....do you suppose she's sleeping in the Rocha's house, or in one of their beds? "I was at Laci's baby shower. Actually, she wasn't. I was there for Christmas, for their graduations. No, neither event was Juror 10 actually there.When I dream at night, I'm part of their family.When she does what?

"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.Laci is dead. "My nightmares were during the day (in court), and the dreams helped me heal at night."What helped Juror 10 heal?

[Toggie]

I remember hearing that there was a juror that was related to the Rocha's.
I never knew it was during the trial, but it still seems that this woman should not have been on this jury panel. Is one of the questions, are you related to any of the family members? Is another do you know any of these parties?

I just can't imagine one wanting to be a member of the Rocha family and also finding Scott innocent.

Also, I had wondered how it was they come to this decission. Didn't the prosecution use the theory that Scott no longer wanted to be married or be a father?

IN my opinion, but it seems to me that maybe it wasn't Laci he wanted dead and that his mission was not to have a baby, but because Laci was looking good to be given birth at any time, he decided to end Conner's life and in order to do this, he would have to kill Laci to get to Conner.

It would then seem Conner would have been first degree and Laci second.

However, if he didn't want either one, then it seems both would have been first degree. It only makes sense that if you kill a pregnant woman, you will kill the baby as well.

I do not mean to sound so crude, but I often see one ask another to have respect. I have all of the respect in the world, but it is sometimes hard not to use crude words in trying to learn of what might have happened.

Sassie, the juror wasn't related, related. It was just her way of describing her feelings in her mind. IMO

Wasn't there another guy on the jury who knew Scott because of The Shack?

[JustMyOpinion]

Sassie, the juror wasn't related, related. It was just her way of describing her feelings in her mind. IMO

Wasn't there another guy on the jury who knew Scott because of The Shack?


I've never read that he "knew" Scott.
http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/052804_jurors_ap.html
Alternate 3

A retired white man in his 50s or 60s whose future son-in-law owns The Shack, the San Luis Obispo restaurant once owned by Scott and Laci Peterson. The man is an avid boater, but said he is not very familiar with the Berkeley Marina, where prosecutors say Scott took Laci's body to dump it. He said he had not followed the case, and believed there was no direct evidence against Scott.
http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/052804_jurors_ap.html

[Wudge]

Yes, she would be the one. Sounds like she was an emotional wreck. I wonder why they ever allowed her to be a juror in the first place?

http://www.crimenews2000.com/lacipeterson/who/who6.htm#jurors


I would agree that the Modesto Bee article well establishes that she was too emotionally involved with the Rochas. No one would have thought that she would have become a Rocha family member midway through the trial.

When he swore the jury in, Judge Delucchi preinstructed the jurors: "You must not be influenced by pity for the defendant, or by prejudice against him. You must not be biased against the defendant because he has been arrested for this offense, charged with a crime or brought to trial. None of these circumstances is evidence of guilt, and you must not infer or assume from any or all them that he is more likely to be guilty than not guilty. During the guilt phase of this trial, you must not be influenced by mere sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, public opinion or public feeling.

She was obligated to tell Judge Delucchi that she had come to consider herself a Rocha family member. Her conflicted mindset would have had to be considered a clear and present danger to Scott's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. At that point, I see little choice but for Judge Delucchi to think he had a manifest necessity to replace her with an alternative juror.

[JustMyOpinion]

I would agree that the Modesto Bee article well establishes that she was too emotionally involved with the Rochas. No one would have thought that she would have become a Rocha family member midway through the trial.

When he swore the jury in, Judge Delucchi preinstructed the jurors: "You must not be influenced by pity for the defendant, or by prejudice against him. You must not be biased against the defendant because he has been arrested for this offense, charged with a crime or brought to trial. None of these circumstances is evidence of guilt, and you must not infer or assume from any or all them that he is more likely to be guilty than not guilty. During the guilt phase of this trial, you must not be influenced by mere sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, public opinion or public feeling.

She was obligated to tell Judge Delucchi that she had come to consider herself a Rocha family member. Her conflicted mindset would have had to be considered a clear and present danger to Scott's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. At that point, I see little choice but for Judge Delucchi to think he had a manifest necessity to replace her with an alternative juror.

It is your interpretation of her comments that form your own opinion that she had a conflicted mindset which would be a clear and present danger to Scott's right to fair trial by impartial jury. This is not established fact. Why do you consistently disrespect the rules of this forum by refusing to post your own conclusions as only your opinion ( instead of posting them as fact)?

[JustMyOpinion]

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?


Mary Mylett never said she had converted into a Rocha family member. This must be your own interpretation of her remarks, IMO.

[Wudge]

It is your interpretation of her comments that form your own opinion that she had a conflicted mindset which would be a clear and present danger to Scott's right to fair trial by impartial jury. This is not established fact. Why do you consistently disrespect the rules of this forum by refusing to post your own conclusions as only your opinion ( instead of posting them as fact)?

I don't recall any controversy over a "confliicted" mind. And my post agreed with the other post.

Mylett by day. Rocha by night. Why am I reminded of a Count Dracula from Transylvania?

[Wudge]

Mary Mylett never said she had converted into a Rocha family member. This must be your own interpretation of her remarks, IMO.

Was that not a question?

(come on...really)

[JustMyOpinion]

I don't recall any controversy over a "confliicted" mind. And my post agreed with the other post.

Mylett by day. Rocha by night. Why am I reminded of a Count Dracula from Transylvania?

You ( as usual) avoided answering my question. ( about your own unwillingness to state your opinions as such, instead of posting them as fact. IMO)
I have no idea why a female juror who admitted having nighttime dreams of Laci's wedding, Laci's baby shower,seeing a happy, living Laci etc. reminds you of Count Dracula.

[Wudge]

You ( as usual) avoided answering my question. ( about your own unwillingness to state your opinions as such, instead of posting them as fact. IMO)
I have no idea why a female juror who admitted having nighttime dreams of Laci's wedding, Laci's baby shower,seeing a happy, living Laci etc. reminds you of Count Dracula.

In all honesty, I responded in agreement to a post that said: "She sounds like an emotional wreck". I don't know that any Court ruled or psychiatrist found that she was an emotional wreck. However, I think, at the very least, that was an acceptable and reasonable interpretation, which for the purposes of this forum is more than acceptable and reasonable.

Moreover, conflicts come in a variety of ways: internal conflict (Rocha versus Mylett), conflict of interest, juror versus bias, juror versus sympathy. juror versus prejudice, juror versus oath, and other conflicts of interest or similar.

I really do not think there is any controvery that Mary was troubled ("emotional wreck" I did not disagree with) and, as a result, one or more conflicts would necessarily exist.

[enlightenme]

I would agree that the Modesto Bee article well establishes that she was too emotionally involved with the Rochas. No one would have thought that she would have become a Rocha family member midway through the trial.

When he swore the jury in, Judge Delucchi preinstructed the jurors: "You must not be influenced by pity for the defendant, or by prejudice against him. You must not be biased against the defendant because he has been arrested for this offense, charged with a crime or brought to trial. None of these circumstances is evidence of guilt, and you must not infer or assume from any or all them that he is more likely to be guilty than not guilty. During the guilt phase of this trial, you must not be influenced by mere sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, public opinion or public feeling.

She was obligated to tell Judge Delucchi that she had come to consider herself a Rocha family member. Her conflicted mindset would have had to be considered a clear and present danger to Scott's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. At that point, I see little choice but for Judge Delucchi to think he had a manifest necessity to replace her with an alternative juror.

What if she, or another juror, were dreaming every night about being in the Peterson family? Or of being Scott's lover? Golf or fishing buddy? They wouldn't need to report that because that would be in the defendant's favor, right?

Until there is jury instructions that you have to report your dreams to the judge, this will not be an appellate issue.

IMO

[One2Snoop]

In all honesty, I responded in agreement to a post that said: "She sounds like an emotional wreck". I don't know that any Court ruled or psychiatrist found that she was an emotional wreck. However, I think, at the very least, that was an acceptable and reasonable interpretation, which for the purposes of this forum is more than acceptable and reasonable.

Moreover, conflicts come in a variety of ways: internal conflict (Rocha versus Mylett), conflict of interest, juror versus bias, juror versus sympathy. juror versus prejudice, juror versus oath, and other conflicts of interest or similar.

I really do not think there is any controvery that Mary was troubled ("emotional wreck" I did not disagree with) and, as a result, one or more conflicts would necessarily exist.

:eek: GASP! After tossing and turning and having nightmares all night last night after I made that post re: "emotional wreck", I kept thinking to myself, I certainly opened a can of worms by saying that didn't I? My bad. :punch:

[Wudge]

:eek: GASP! After tossing and turning and having nightmares all night last night after I made that post re: "emotional wreck", I kept thinking to myself, I certainly opened a can of worms by saying that didn't I? My bad. :punch:

Point was made, felt and accepted. I really do not think it is controversial that Mary was troubled. There's no need to sharpen the point of a needle.

[attorneywan2be]

What if she, or another juror, were dreaming every night about being in the Peterson family? Or of being Scott's lover? Golf or fishing buddy? They wouldn't need to report that because that would be in the defendant's favor, right?

Until there is jury instructions that you have to report your dreams to the judge, this will not be an appellate issue.

IMO

Of course they still have to report it to the judge..

As far as I know, both the state and the defendant are entitled to an impartial jury that would remain so until a verdict is reached...!

[accordn2me]

Of course they still have to report it to the judge..

As far as I know, both the state and the defendant are entitled to an impartial jury that would remain so until a verdict is reached...!Please link to the jury instruction saying they have to report dreams to the judge.

Kindly recall the second Juror 5 that told the judge he could "no longer fairly weigh the evidence." SIIs think that is grounds for a mistrial with jeopardy attached!:eek:

[enlightenme]

Of course they still have to report it to the judge..

As far as I know, both the state and the defendant are entitled to an impartial jury that would remain so until a verdict is reached...!

Like I said, there is no jury instructions regarding dreams.

This is so ridiculous, IMO! Individual jurors, while listening to the testimony may be thinking guilty or not guilty at different times during the trial. That is why they wait until all testimony by both sides is complete before beginning or even discussing evidence until deliberations.

Do you think the jurors should report to the judge their thoughts during each part of the trial?

"Judge, at this point in the trial, my thoughts are leaning towards guilty (or not guilty) so I do not think I can be impartial."

I'll be waiting for jury instructions that say that jurors cannot think, cannot dream, cannot even HAVE a mind or thought until deliberations.

JMO

[cookiewench]

In all honesty, I responded in agreement to a post that said: "She sounds like an emotional wreck". I don't know that any Court ruled or psychiatrist found that she was an emotional wreck. However, I think, at the very least, that was an acceptable and reasonable interpretation, which for the purposes of this forum is more than acceptable and reasonable.

Moreover, conflicts come in a variety of ways: internal conflict (Rocha versus Mylett), conflict of interest, juror versus bias, juror versus sympathy. juror versus prejudice, juror versus oath, and other conflicts of interest or similar.

I really do not think there is any controvery that Mary was troubled ("emotional wreck" I did not disagree with) and, as a result, one or more conflicts would necessarily exist.


Everyone involved in this case was "an emotional wreck" by the end of it. Everyone except for Scott and perhaps his attorney.

There is no conflict of interest there. The rule is that a decision should not be made by a juror based on MERE emotion, not that the jurors aren't "allowed" to have any emotions concerning the crime, the victim(s) or the defendent.

[accordn2me]

Everyone involved in this case was "an emotional wreck" by the end of it. Everyone except for Scott and perhaps his attorney.

There is no conflict of interest there. The rule is that a decision should not be made by a juror based on MERE emotion, not that the jurors aren't "allowed" to have any emotions concerning the crime, the victim(s) or the defendent.Yeah! What cookiewench said.

I remember hearing or reading that some jurors burst into tears and sobbed during the trial. Were they supposed to be replaced?

It's been too long for me now but to some of you who have followed since the beginning.....aren't some of these very jurors that SIIs are now slamming for their comments the very jurors that the defense was jumping with glee over having been selected in the first place? It seems like the media painted "strawberry shortcake" as very favorable to the defense before the verdict came back. Is that right for just one example? Another is the second Juror 5...didn't the defense want him off now they want a mistrial because he "could no longer fairly weigh the evidence" and reported this to the judge?:shrug:

[Wudge]

SNIP

There is no conflict of interest there. The rule is that a decision should not be made by a juror based on MERE emotion, not that the jurors aren't "allowed" to have any emotions concerning the crime, the victim(s) or the defendent.


How about sentiment and/or sympathy?

Pre-trial instruction included

"You must not be influenced by pity for the defendant, or by prejudice against him. You must not be biased against the defendant because he has been arrested for this offense, charged with a crime or brought to trial. None of these circumstances is evidence of guilt, and you must not infer or assume from any or all them that he is more likely to be guilty than not guilty. During the guilt phase of this trial, you must not be influenced by mere sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, public opinion or public feeling.

[One2Snoop]

How about sentiment and/or sympathy?

Pre-trial instruction included

"You must not be influenced by pity for the defendant, or by prejudice against him. You must not be biased against the defendant because he has been arrested for this offense, charged with a crime or brought to trial. None of these circumstances is evidence of guilt, and you must not infer or assume from any or all them that he is more likely to be guilty than not guilty. During the guilt phase of this trial, you must not be influenced by mere sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, public opinion or public feeling.

Is there a link for this? I'd like to read the rest of it, if there is more. Thank you.

[Wudge]

Is there a link for this? I'd like to read the rest of it, if there is more. Thank you.

I have the trial transcript. A link exists on SII I am told.

I will just post more of the the pre-trial instruction.

24 THE COURT: Okay. What I am going to do this
25 morning, I'm going to preinstruct you with respect to certain
26 issues during this trial that you would be called on to

8413
1 resolve. And you will hear these all over again. These are
2 only part of the instructions, but they are very important.
3 And I wanted to instruct you now about some of the evidence
4 that you are going to hear first of all.
5 Members and alternate members of the jury, you have
6 been selected and sworn as jurors and alternate jurors. I
7 shall now instruct you as to your basic functions, duties,
8 and conduct. At the conclusion of the case I will give you
9 further instructions on the law. All of the Court's
10 instructions, whether given before, during or after the
11 taking of testimony are of equal importance.
12 You must base the decision you make on the facts
13 and the law. First, you must determine the facts from the
14 evidence received in the trial, and not from any other
15 source.
16 A fact is something proved by the evidence or by a
17 stipulation.
18 A stipulation is an agreement between the attorneys
19 regarding the facts.
20 Second, you must apply the law that I state to you
21 to the facts as you determine them, and in this way arrive at
22 your verdict and any finding you are instructed to include in
23 your verdict. You must accept and follow the law as I state
24 it to you regardless of whether you agree with it or not.
25 If anything concerning the law said by the
26 attorneys in their arguments or at any other time during the

8414
1 trial conflicts with my instructions on the law, you must
2 follow my instructions.
3 You must not be influenced by pity for the
4 defendant, or by prejudice against him. You must not be
5 biased against the defendant because he has been arrested for
6 this offense, charged with a crime or brought to trial. None
7 of these circumstances is evidence of guilt, and you must not
8 infer or assume from any or all them that he is more likely
9 to be guilty than not guilty.
10 During the guilt phase of this trial, you must not
11 be influenced by mere sentiment, conjecture, sympathy,
12 passion, prejudice, public opinion or public feeling.
13 Both the people and the defendant have a right to
14 expect that you will conscientiously consider and weigh the
15 evidence, apply the law, and reach a just verdict regardless
16 of the consequences.
17 Statements made by the attorneys during the trial
18 are not evidence. However, if the attorneys stipulate or
19 agree to a fact, you must regard that fact as proven as to
20 the party or parties making the stipulation.
21 If an objection is sustained to a question, do not
22 guess what the answer might have been. Do not speculate as
23 to the reason for the objection. Do not assume to be true
24 any insinuation suggested by a question asked a witness. A
25 question is not evidence, and may be considered only as it
26 helps you to understand the answer.

8415
1 Do not consider for any purpose any offer of
2 evidence that is rejected, or any evidence that is stricken
3 by the Court. Treat it as though you had never heard of it.
4 You must not independently investigate the facts or
5 the law, or consider or discuss facts as to which there is no
6 evidence. This means, for example, that you must not, on
7 your own, visit the scene, conduct experiments, or consult
8 reference works or persons for additional information.
9 You must not converse among yourselves or with
10 anyone else on any subject connected with this trial except
11 when all the following conditions exist:
12 A, the case has been submitted to you for your
13 decision by the Court following arguments by counsel and jury
14 instructions;
15 B, you are discussing the case with an fellow
16 juror; and,
17 C all twelve jurors and no other persons are
18 present in the jury deliberating room.
19 You must not read or listen to any accounts or
20 discussions of the case reported by the newspapers or other
21 news media, including radio, television, internet, or any
22 other electronic source.
23 You have been given notebooks and pencils. Leave
24 them on your seat when you leave each day and at each
25 recess. You will be able to take them into the jury room
26 when you deliberate. A word of caution. You may take notes.

8416
1 However, you should not permit notetaking to distract you
2 from the ongoing proceedings. Remember, you are the judges
3 of the believability of the witnesses. Notes are only an aid
4 to memory, and should not take precedence over recollection.
5 A juror who does not take notes should rely on his
6 or her recollection of the evidence and not be influenced by
7 the fact that other jurors do take notes. Notes are for the
8 notetaker's own personal use in refreshing his or her
9 recollection of the evidence. Should a discrepancy exist
10 between a juror's recollection of the evidence and a juror's
11 notes, or between a juror's recollection and that of another,
12 you have a right to and may request that the reporter read
13 back the relevant testimony, which must prevail.
14 You will be permitted to separate at recesses. You
15 must return following recesses at such time as I instruct
16 you. During recesses you must not discuss with anyone any
17 subject connected with this trial.
18 As for the alternate jurors, you are bound by all
19 of those admonitions. You must not converse among
20 yourselves, or with anyone else on any subject connected with
21 this trial, or form or express any opinion upon it until the
22 case is submitted to you, which means until such time as you
23 are substituted in for one of the twelve jurors and begin
24 deliberating on this case.
25 This means that you must not decide how you would
26 vote if you were deliberating with the other jurors, and that

8417
1 you must not form or express an opinion about this case
2 unless and until you have been substituted in as a juror in
3 this case.
4 You must not visit or view the premises or place
5 where the crime or crimes charged were allegedly committed,
6 or any other premises or place mentioned or involved in this
7 case.
8 During the course of this trial, and before you
9 begin your deliberations, you must keep an open mind on this
10 case and upon all the of the issues that you will be asked to
11 decide. In other words, you must not form or express any
12 opinion on this case until the matter is finally submitted to
13 you.
14 Before and within ninety days of your discharge as
15 a juror in this matter, you must not request, accept, agree
16 to accept, or discuss with any person receiving or accepting
17 any payment or benefit in consideration for supplying any
18 information concerning the trial.
19 You must promptly report to the Court any incidents
20 within your knowledge involving an attempt by any person
21 either to improperly influence any member of in jury, or to
22 tell a juror his or her view of the evidence of the case.


More is available still, but the essence is largely as posted.

[cookiewench]

How about sentiment and/or sympathy?

Pre-trial instruction included

"You must not be influenced by pity for the defendant, or by prejudice against him. You must not be biased against the defendant because he has been arrested for this offense, charged with a crime or brought to trial. None of these circumstances is evidence of guilt, and you must not infer or assume from any or all them that he is more likely to be guilty than not guilty. During the guilt phase of this trial, you must not be influenced by mere sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, public opinion or public feeling.

And where is your evidence that anything such as described above, occured?

It didn't - you are just conjecturing that because the jurors had empathy, that their decision on guilt was influenced by that emotion.

There is no evidence that it was.

[Wudge]

And where is your evidence that anything such as described above, occured?

It didn't - you are just conjecturing that because the jurors had empathy, that their decision on guilt was influenced by that emotion.

There is no evidence that it was.


"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.

[accordn2me]

"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.

(chuckle) Here's how it should be highlighted:

"Every single night since July or August, every night when I go to bed, I [dream] 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 [dreaming I'm] part of their family."

*note for Sassie: Mylett was not actually at Laci's baby shower. Mylett never actually attended Rocha family Christmas celebrations or any of their graduations.

:eek: I KNOW!!!!! Maybe Laci's spirit actually jumped into Mylett's body and it was Laci who sat on Scott's jury. Now that would be justice at it's finest!

[One2Snoop]

(chuckle) snip

:eek: I KNOW!!!!! Maybe Laci's spirit actually jumped into Mylett's body and it was Laci who sat on Scott's jury. Now that would be justice at it's finest!

http://i11.tinypic.com/4g9b18i.gif http://i11.tinypic.com/4g9b18i.gif

[Wudge]

http://i11.tinypic.com/4g9b18i.gif

http://i11.tinypic.com/4g9b18i.gif

(snicker ... invoking Laci's spirit .. omigod ...nuclear bias)

Isn't it enough that Mylett admitted a stealth family member of the Rochas deliberated Scott's guilt?

How much jeopardy do you wish to purchase today?

(chuckle)

[accordn2me]

(snicker ... invoking Laci's spirit .. omigod ...nuclear bias)

Isn't it enough that Mylett admitted a stealth family member of the Rochas deliberated Scott's guilt?

How much jeopardy do you wish to purchase today?

(chuckle)I'll take $2.00 worth, please.


WELLLLLLLLLL.....who called THIS one.................:lol:

[JustMyOpinion]

Point was made, felt and accepted. I really do not think it is controversial that Mary was troubled. There's no need to sharpen the point of a needle.

There's not enough known about the juror to conclude "she was troubled", IMO. It is apparent she had previously experienced significant tragedy in her own life ( from the juror profiles). http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121451,00.html
SNIP:Juror 10 — A white 40ish woman who suffered a series of personal tragedies so severe she was questioned about it in the judge's chambers. She spends much of her time with her husband and children. She said that because so much has happened to her, she has learned to tell the truth and honestly feels she can be fair. Asked about stealth jurors, she drew a laugh when she said, "I think they should get a life."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121451,00.html

[Wudge]

There's not enough known about the juror to conclude "she was troubled", IMO. It is apparent she had previously experienced significant tragedy in her own life ( from the juror profiles). http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121451,00.html
SNIP:Juror 10 — A white 40ish woman who suffered a series of personal tragedies so severe she was questioned about it in the judge's chambers. She spends much of her time with her husband and children. She said that because so much has happened to her, she has learned to tell the truth and honestly feels she can be fair. Asked about stealth jurors, she drew a laugh when she said, "I think they should get a life."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121451,00.html

How many hours a day would Judge Delucchi have allowed Mary Mylett to be a stealth family member of the Rochas? Would he have needed the defendant's consent if it was more than one nanosecond?

By not telling Judge Delucchi that she was a nighttime member of the Rocha family should that be considered a violaton of Scott's Constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.

If God grades on a curve, I will too.

[enlightenme]

I can't even respond to Wudge's "If God grades on a curve" post, so I won't. Wouldn't matter anyway, since he has me and many others on "ignore".

I am reminded tonight about some of the solutions that the SII's have come up with for trials to be fairer:

1. Professional jurors.
2. Jury deliberations taped.
3. Victim's family should be behind a curtain or two way mirror, so that jurors would not be influenced by them.
4. The prosecution should not be able to offer any evidence that is prejudiced against the defenant.

Okay, #4 is JMO. But I have read the other three, more than once!

[Otter]

I can't even respond to Wudge's "If God grades on a curve" post, so I won't. Wouldn't matter anyway, since he has me and many others on "ignore".

I am reminded tonight about some of the solutions that the SII's have come up with for trials to be fairer:

1. Professional jurors.
2. Jury deliberations taped.
3. Victim's family should be behind a curtain or two way mirror, so that jurors would not be influenced by them.
4. The prosecution should not be able to offer any evidence that is prejudiced against the defenant.

Okay, #4 is JMO. But I have read the other three, more than once!

In Star Trek or Star Wars (I get them confused), there were robot jurors. Infallible, however, not really one's peers. :D Eh, maybe in few hundred years. SP or any of us don't have that much time, so I guess our system will have to do.

[One2Snoop]

I believe it would have been star trek.

As we sit at our computers typing away there are people right now working on freeing Scott.

We may not even have to worry of a new trial. If we the people for Scott peterson find the missing pieces of puzzle, Scott will walk out a free man.

What sort of puzzle pieces are you looking for? :shrug:

[accordn2me]

I believe it would have been star trek.

As we sit at our computers typing away there are people right now working on freeing Scott.

We may not even have to worry of a new trial. If we the people for Scott peterson find the missing pieces of puzzle, Scott will walk out a free man.And the missing pieces can be found on which episode(s) of Star Trek?

[Wudge]

What sort of puzzle pieces are you looking for? :shrug:

In the weeks preceding Laci's disappearance, Scott bought a mortiser. He picked up the Delta Woodworking mortiser on December 20th. He was continuously on line the morning of 12/24 between 10:30AM and 10:56AM. His internet stops include the Delta Woodworking site and assembly instructions for the mortiser.

How did the State explain how the mortiser fit into an allegedly long thought out murder plan?

How do you assess the mortiser?

Exactly where was Laci's body when Scott was on the computer?

How did the jury assess the mortiser?

[JustMyOpinion]

In the weeks preceding Laci's disappearance, Scott bought a mortiser. He picked up the Delta Woodworking mortiser on December 20th. He was continuously on line the morning of 12/24 between 10:30AM and 10:56AM. His internet stops include the Delta Woodworking site and assembly instructions for the mortiser.

How did the State explain how the mortiser fit into an allegedly long thought out murder plan?

How do you assess the mortiser?

Exactly where was Laci's body when Scott was on the computer?

How did the jury assess the mortiser?

I don't think the mortiser fit into a "murder plan", I think it did fit into Scott's staging for his alibi. JMO I think Laci's body was somewhere inside the warehouse. I have no idea how the jury assessed the mortiser.

[attorneywan2be]

I don't think the mortiser fit into a "murder plan", I think it did fit into Scott's staging for his alibi. JMO I think Laci's body was somewhere inside the warehouse. I have no idea how the jury assessed the mortiser.

You know that according to the warehouse layout..his truck must have been parked in the driveway...the boat and the trailer were inside the warehouse..there was no room for the truck...so do you think he was working at his computer while Laci's body was in the truck?

[Wudge]

You know that according to the warehouse layout..his truck must have been parked in the driveway...the boat and the trailer were inside the warehouse..there was no room for the truck...so do you think he was working at his computer while Laci's body was in the truck?

...Exactly.

[JustMyOpinion]

You know that according to the warehouse layout..his truck must have been parked in the driveway...the boat and the trailer were inside the warehouse..there was no room for the truck...so do you think he was working at his computer while Laci's body was in the truck?

No, I think Laci's body was inside the warehouse. ( as I stated in my OP)

[attorneywan2be]

No, I think Laci's body was inside the warehouse. ( as I stated in my OP)

I know what you said..but my question is..:

According to the prosecution ,he transferred Laci's body in his truck..there is no room to park the truck in the warehouse..so please elaborate on what do you think Scott did as to Laci's body when he arrived at the warehouse..

[JustMyOpinion]

I know what you said..but my question is..:

According to the prosecution ,he transferred Laci's body in his truck..there is no room to park the truck in the warehouse..so please elaborate on what do you think Scott did as to Laci's body when he arrived at the warehouse..


At some point after 8:30 p.m. on 12/23, Scott transported Laci in his truck to the warehouse, and carried her inside, IMO. He attached the anchors to her while inside the warehouse, IMO.

[Wudge]

At some point after 8:30 p.m. on 12/23, Scott transported Laci in his truck to the warehouse, and carried her inside, IMO. He attached the anchors to her while inside the warehouse, IMO.

Who testified the diameter of the anchors fit the diameter of the alleged circles found on Scott's trailer?

Testimony established how many anchors were made?

Testimony established the weight of each anchors was?

Who testified the total of that weight was sufficient to keep Laci's body submerged?

Testimony established how many rebars were missing?

Testimony established how much rope or wire was missing?

Who testified that Laci's body had been submerged?

Who testified that Laci's body had been submerged by concrete anchors?

[attorneywan2be]

At some point after 8:30 p.m. on 12/23, Scott transported Laci in his truck to the warehouse, and carried her inside, IMO. He attached the anchors to her while inside the warehouse, IMO.

The prosecution did NOT present evidence that he went to the warehouse the night before..according to them, he went to the warehouse after 10:00 am..

You believe the jury reached a just verdict, right?, they can only work with the evidence presented in court..so please explain a scenario based on the prosecution's theory...!

[Miss Bootsie]

I know what you said..but my question is..:

According to the prosecution ,he transferred Laci's body in his truck..there is no room to park the truck in the warehouse..so please elaborate on what do you think Scott did as to Laci's body when he arrived at the warehouse..

I am aware you addressed this question to jmo, but I would like to give my opinion.
Because I have always leaned towards the two trip theory being a possibility, Scott didn't have a body in his truck to transfer or hide when he arrived at the warehouse on the 24th.

[attorneywan2be]

I am aware you addressed this question to jmo, but I would like to give my opinion.
Because I have always leaned towards the two trip theory being a possibility, Scott didn't have a body in his truck to transfer or hide when he arrived at the warehouse on the 24th.

Please see my previous post..thanks

There was no evidence presented about a 2 trip theory..

[JustMyOpinion]

The prosecution did NOT present evidence that he went to the warehouse the night before..according to them, he went to the warehouse after 10:00 am..

You believe the jury reached a just verdict, right?, they can only work with the evidence presented in court..so please explain a scenario based on the prosecution's theory...!

I agree there was evidence presented that Scott was inside the warehouse sometime after 10:00 a.m. the morning of 12/24. ( ie.Scott's own statements, computer usage) There was also evidence presented that the last time anyone ( besides Scott) spoke to a living, Laci Peterson, was approx. 8:30 p.m. the night before. It's entirely possible he transported her prior to his 12/24 morning visit to the warehouse, the State showed there was ample opportunity to do so..IMO.

[attorneywan2be]

I agree there was evidence presented that Scott was inside the warehouse sometime after 10:00 a.m. the morning of 12/24. ( ie.Scott's own statements, computer usage) There was also evidence presented that the last time anyone ( besides Scott) spoke to a living, Laci Peterson, was approx. 8:30 p.m. the night before. It's entirely possible he transported her prior to his 12/24 morning visit to the warehouse, the State showed there was ample opportunity to do so..IMO.


Nope!!..the prosecution did not present evidence that Scott went to the warehouse the night before..the jury CANNOT create their own evidence...!

[JustMyOpinion]

Who testified the diameter of the anchors fit the diameter of the alleged circles found on Scott's trailer?

Testimony established how many anchors were made?

Testimony established the weight of each anchors was?

Who testified the total of that weight was sufficient to keep Laci's body submerged?

Testimony established how many rebars were missing?

Testimony established how much rope or wire was missing?

Who testified that Laci's body had been submerged?



Who testified that Laci's body had been submerged by concrete anchors?

I think ( based on testimony about concrete residue in warehouse forming circular imprints & photo, concrete in truck bed, Scott's shifting statements about concrete, & the approx 8 lb anchor in evidence), 6 ft length rope in duffel bag, that Scott made more than one anchor. I think ( based on testimony from ME, from hydrologist, from petrographer) Laci's body was weighted down by concrete anchors ( at least four, IMO) I know nothing about testimony establishing missing rebars, missing rope, and I don't recall anyone testifying as to "how much weight it would take to keep Laci's body submerged."

[Wudge]

I think ( based on testimony about concrete residue in warehouse forming circular imprints & photo, concrete in truck bed, Scott's shifting statements about concrete, & the approx 8 lb anchor in evidence), 6 ft length rope in duffel bag, that Scott made more than one anchor. I think ( based on testimony from ME, from hydrologist, from petrographer) Laci's body was weighted down by concrete anchors ( at least four, IMO) I know nothing about testimony establishing missing rebars, missing rope, and I don't recall anyone testifying as to "how much weight it would take to keep Laci's body submerged."

What testimony established the existence of the alleged anchors in size, number, weight and submerging capability. In no such testimony was given, then any such conclusion(s) must necessarily be derived through speculated premises.

[Miss Bootsie]

Nope!!..the prosecution did not present evidence that Scott went to the warehouse the night before..the jury CANNOT create their own evidence...!

Scott had the opportunity to kill Laci and go to the warehouse at any time after 8:30 P.M., the night of the 23rd.
The prosecution proved Scott had the opportunity and the means to transport and dispose of the body in the Bay.

Distaso:
It's very simple. The defendant strangled or smothered Laci Peterson the night of February, January, December 23rd, or in the morning while she was getting dressed on the 24th. I can't tell you when he did it. I can't tell you if he did it at night. I can't tell you if he did it in the morning. I'm not going to try to convince you of something that I can't prove. I don't have to prove that to you. I only have to prove that he did it.

[attorneywan2be]

Scott had the opportunity to kill Laci and go to the warehouse at any time after 8:30 P.M., the night of the 23rd.
The prosecution proved Scott had the opportunity and the means to transport and dispose of the body in the Bay.

The jury cannot assume facts not in evidence..they have to only consider the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense...closing arguments are not evidence..!!

[JustMyOpinion]

The jury cannot assume facts not in evidence..they have to only consider the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense...closing arguments are not evidence..!!

It WAS a fact in evidence that nobody known spoke to a living Laci Peterson ( except Scott) after approx 8:30 p.m. on 12/23. Scott had ample opportunity to transport Laci via his truck to his warehouse anytime past this point, IMO. It was a fact in evidence that he claimed he loaded umbrellas wrapped in tarp into the truck on the morning of 12/24, ( and Brocchini testified saw them in the truck) I personally believe Scott transported Laci to the warehouse sometime the night of 12/23, or in early morning hours of 12/24. JMO

[attorneywan2be]

Toggie, thanks! I did not think this would have been aloud.

I was reading a ste last night on jurors and it said the words, I can be fair and impartial will get a person on the jury.

I don't know what site it was because I was doing a search on different things.

But it was her duty as a juror to inform the judge that she was too emotional to the point she became part of the Rochas family in her dreams..and it would have been up to judge to decide whether to keep her or remove her..

[JustMyOpinion]

But it was her duty as a juror to inform the judge that she was too emotional to the point she became part of the Rochas family in her dreams..and it would have been up to judge to decide whether to keep her or remove her..


It seems to be your opinion that she was too emotional, and I am not aware of any instruction requiring a juror to inform the judge of their nighttime dreams.

[Miss Bootsie]

The jury cannot assume facts not in evidence..they have to only consider the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense...closing arguments are not evidence..!!

Where did I state that closing arguments are evidence?

My point was,the prosecution did not have to prove the exact time Scott killed Laci. As Distaso stated, they only had to prove Scott did it.
Again, the prosecution proved Scott had a window of opportunity starting at 8:30 PM on the 23rd to kill Laci, and the means to dispose of the body.

[attorneywan2be]

It WAS a fact in evidence that nobody known spoke to a living Laci Peterson ( except Scott) after approx 8:30 p.m. on 12/23. Scott had ample opportunity to transport Laci via his truck to his warehouse anytime past this point, IMO. It was a fact in evidence that he claimed he loaded umbrellas wrapped in tarp into the truck on the morning of 12/24, ( and Brocchini testified saw them in the truck) I personally believe Scott transported Laci to the warehouse sometime the night of 12/23, or in early morning hours of 12/24. JMO


They cannot fill in what Scott could have done after 8:30 pm on Dec 23rd...it is like creating their own evidence..no way!!

The prosecution presented evidence that he went to the warehouse after 10:00 am on Dec 24th..they can only work with this evidence...

Please tell us what you think Scott did as to Laci's body based on the evidence ..based on the fact that he arrived at the warehouse after 10:00 am..

[JustMyOpinion]

They cannot fill in what Scott could have done after 8:30 pm on Dec 23rd...it is like creating their own evidence..no way!!

The prosecution presented evidence that he went to the warehouse after 10:00 am on Dec 24th..they can only work with this evidence...

Please tell us what you think Scott did as to Laci's body based on the evidence ..based on the fact that he arrived at the warehouse after 10:00 am..

The jury can utilize the facts to infer facts not in direct evidence, and they don't "have to" be restricted to one piece of evidence..IMO. Just because the prosecution established Scott drove to the warehouse after 10:00 a.m. on 12/24, it doesn't negate the fact they also established he had opportunity, means to go there anytime after 8:30 p.m. on the 23rd. ( or negate the fact he claimed he loaded umbrellas in the truck on the morning of 12/24, or the fact that Brocchini saw the umbrellas in the truck ) JMO
Again, it is MY OPINION that Scott took Laci to the warehouse in the dark, sometime after 8:30 p.m. on 12/23... it is MY OPINION that he attached anchors to her at the warehouse.

[attorneywan2be]

Where did I state that closing arguments are evidence?

My point was,the prosecution did not have to prove the exact time Scott killed Laci. As Distaso stated, they only had to prove Scott did it.
Again, the prosecution proved Scott had a window of opportunity starting at 8:30 PM on the 23rd to kill Laci, and the means to dispose of the body.


In order for a jury to decide whether a defendant did or did not do the crime..they have to work with the evidence presented..they cannot create their own evidence..

So in this case, in order for the jury to evaluate the possibility of Scott committing this crime..they have to examine the evidence as presented..for example, they have to ask questions like these: is it reasonable to believe that Scott transported her body to the warehouse after 10:00 am..worked non-stop on his computer between 10:30 and 10:56 while his wife's body was decomposing? is it reasonable to believe that Laci's body was in the truck during the time he spent at his warehouse? is it reasonable to believe that he had the time to handle Laci's body, work on the computer, hook the boat..and arrive at Berkeley marina at 12:54 pm?

[Wudge]

The jury can utilize the facts to infer facts not in direct evidence, and they don't "have to" be restricted to one piece of evidence..IMO. Just because the prosecution established Scott drove to the warehouse after 10:00 a.m. on 12/24, it doesn't negate the fact they also established he had opportunity, means to go there anytime after 8:30 p.m. on the 23rd. ( or negate the fact he claimed he loaded umbrellas in the truck on the morning of 12/24, or the fact that Brocchini saw the umbrellas in the truck ) JMO
Again, it is MY OPINION that Scott took Laci to the warehouse in the dark, sometime after 8:30 p.m. on 12/23... it is MY OPINION that he attached anchors to her at the warehouse.

The level of proof is the same for both a guilty verdict and facts a guilty verdict would have relied upon; i.e., "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

Juries cannot assume facts not in evidence.

[JustMyOpinion]

In order for a jury to decide whether a defendant did or did not do the crime..they have to work with the evidence presented..they cannot create their own evidence..

So in this case, in order for the jury to evaluate the possibility of Scott committing this crime..they have to examine the evidence as presented..for example, they have to ask questions like these: is it reasonable to believe that Scott transported her body to the warehouse after 10:00 am..?

They can examine ALL of the evidence presented, IMO. If they didn't think it was "reasonable" that Scott transported her body to the warehouse after 10:00 a.m., they could determine whether evidence showed he had opportunity & means to do it earlier ( i.e. sometime after 8:30 p.m. 12/23, the last time anyone spoke to a living Laci Peterson) And, to explore IF the claim he made that he loaded umbrellas wrapped in tarp in the morning ( & Brocchini's testimony he saw the umbrellas in the truck) would support he may have loaded/transported Laci prior to the trip w/ the umbrellas, IMO.

[Wudge]

They can examine ALL of the evidence presented, IMO. If they didn't think it was "reasonable" that Scott transported her body to the warehouse after 10:00 a.m., they could determine whether evidence showed he had opportunity & means to do it earlier ( i.e. sometime after 8:30 p.m. 12/23, the last time anyone spoke to a living Laci Peterson) And, to explore IF the claim he made that he loaded umbrellas wrapped in tarp in the morning ( & Brocchini's testimony he saw the umbrellas in the truck) would support he may have loaded/transported Laci prior to the trip w/ the umbrellas, IMO.

No evidence was presented to support Scott having been at the warehouse the night before.

Juries cannot simply hypothesize "could" into "fact". Juries are triers of "fact". Juries are not triers of "could".

You are entering territory in fallacious logic known as argumentum ad ignorantiam (petito principii) . Representatively, it would be similar to a search party in the woods coming across muddled imprints in the forest ground, which they decide proves the existence of Bigfoot. In turn, they decide (reliably they think) that Bigfoot took the person they are searching for.

(why am I reminded of Distaso's anchor theory?....snicker )

[cookiewench]

No evidence was presented to support Scott having been at the warehouse the night before.

Juries cannot simply hypothesize "could" into "fact". Juries are triers of "fact". Juries are not triers of "could".

You are entering territory in fallacious logic known as argumentum ad ignorantiam (petito principii) . Representatively, it would be similar to a search party in the woods coming across muddled imprints in the forest ground, which they decide proves the existence of Bigfoot. In turn, they decide (reliably they think) that Bigfoot took the person they are searching for.

(why am I reminded of Distaso's anchor theory?....snicker )

Or in turn, they could decide that a burglary that happened on the 26th "could have" occured on the 24th, and that those burglars "could have" broken into a house and gotten a safe out of it within a half-hour of the owners of the house leaving - and that the burglars "could have" had a van that they didn't have, and that Laci left her dog outside in the street with his leash on before the Medinas left their house and then came back 45 mins. later and got herself kidnapped?

Kinda like that?

[JustMyOpinion]

No evidence was presented to support Scott having been at the warehouse the night before.

Juries cannot simply hypothesize "could" into "fact". Juries are triers of "fact". Juries are not triers of "could".

You are entering territory in fallacious logic known as argumentum ad ignorantiam (petito principii) . Representatively, it would be similar to a search party in the woods coming across muddled imprints in the forest ground, which they decide proves the existence of Bigfoot. In turn, they decide (reliably they think) that Bigfoot took the person they are searching for.

(why am I reminded of Distaso's anchor theory?....snicker )

Jurors can use facts in evidence to infer facts not in direct evidence. Your big-foot analogy doesn't compare to ALL of the evidence that came forward in this case, IMO. I think it's telling about your own inflated ego & grandiose personality that when you don't agree with someone, you "SNICKER" and infer they have "fallacious" logic.

[Wudge]

Jurors can use facts in evidence to infer facts not in direct evidence. Your big-foot analogy doesn't compare to ALL of the evidence that came forward in this case, IMO. I think it's telling about your own inflated ego & grandiose personality that when you don't agree with someone, you "SNICKER" and infer they have "fallacious" logic.


Jury Instruction 38

Further, each fact which is essential to complete a set of circumstances necessary to establish the defendant's guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, before an inference essential to establish guilt may be found to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, each fact or circumstance on which the inference necessarily rests must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

[attorneywan2be]

Jurors can use facts in evidence to infer facts not in direct evidence. .

True..but they cannot use available time to place Scott where they want to fit a theory..that would be assuming facts not in evidence..why? because there was no evidence he was at the warehouse the night before..

Let me give you an EXAMPLE:.

Let's create a scenario, a prosecution introduced into evidence the following facts:

1-A letter that was faxed to the defendant..
2-It was received at 11:00 pm on July 15 2005
3-the defendant had only one fax machine which was found in his store..
4-No one else worked at the defendant's store
5-That letter was found in the defendant's car

The jury can infer that the defendant was at his store at 11:00 pm on July 15 2005..but, if none of the above facts was presented to the jury, and the only set of fact they can work with was that he had no alibi between 9:00 pm and 6:00 am in the morning..the jury cannot simply place him at his store at 11:00 pm..period!

[JustMyOpinion]

True..but they cannot use available time to place Scott where they want to fit a theory..that would be assuming facts not in evidence..why? because there was no evidence he was at the warehouse the night before..

Let me give you an EXAMPLE:.

Let's create a scenario, a prosecution introduced into evidence the following facts:

1-A letter that was faxed to the defendant..
2-It was received at 11:00 pm on July 15 2005
3-the defendant had only one fax machine which was found in his store..
4-No one else worked at the defendant's store
5-That letter was found in the defendant's car

The jury can infer that the defendant was at his store at 11:00 pm on July 15 2005..but, if none of the above facts was presented to the jury, and the only set of fact they can work with was that he had no alibi between 9:00 pm and 6:00 am in the morning..the jury cannot simply place him at his store at 11:00 pm..period!

IMO, The State showed ample evidence that Scott had opportunity ( time) & means ( truck) to transport Laci to his rented warehouse. ( where he stored the boat & made anchors). That is all they needed to do, IMO.

[attorneywan2be]

IMO, The State showed ample evidence that Scott had opportunity ( time) & means ( truck) to transport Laci to his rented warehouse. ( where he stored the boat & made anchors). That is all they needed to do, IMO.


Sorry, you are totally incorrect...they cannot select the place and the time as pleased..there was no evidence he was at the warehouse at night..

Can you imagine the jurors debating where they could place Scott on the night of December 23rd..!!!.."let's put him at the warehouse"..or maybe let's put him in a remote area where he could have dismembered Laci..or let's put him in his boat dumping a body in the bay..etc..etc.."

[Wudge]

Sorry, you are totally incorrect...they cannot select the place and the time as pleased..there was no evidence he was at the warehouse at night..

Can you imagine the jurors debating where they could place Scott on the night of December 23rd..!!!.."let's put him at the warehouse"..or maybe let's put him in a remote area where he could have dismembered Laci..or let's put him in his boat dumping a body in the bay..etc..etc.."

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.

[JustMyOpinion]

Sorry, you are totally incorrect...they cannot select the place and the time as pleased..there was no evidence he was at the warehouse at night..

Can you imagine the jurors debating where they could place Scott on the night of December 23rd..!!!.."let's put him at the warehouse"..or maybe let's put him in a remote area where he could have dismembered Laci..or let's put him in his boat dumping a body in the bay..etc..etc.."

There was evidence he had opportunity ( time) from 8:30 p.m. on 12/23 until witnesses saw his truck in the driveway or he utilized his cell phone to check voice mail the next morning 12/24 ( 10:08) he had means ( truck, state showed a woman Laci's size fit into the toolbox,she could have fit into the bed as well) he had access ( to the warehouse). What does dismemberment of a body have to do with opportunity & means to transport Laci to the warehouse? What does the boat/dumping a body have to do with what opportunity & means he had to transport Laci to the warehouse?
Are you saying the jurors could not have used evidence Geragos tried to bring about the possible time of the burglary to determine if the burglars could have had opportunity? ( which, if they had believed , they could have applied to reasonable doubt)?

[Miss Bootsie]

Sorry, you are totally incorrect...they cannot select the place and the time as pleased..there was no evidence he was at the warehouse at night..

Can you imagine the jurors debating where they could place Scott on the night of December 23rd..!!!.."let's put him at the warehouse"..or maybe let's put him in a remote area where he could have dismembered Laci..or let's put him in his boat dumping a body in the bay..etc..etc.."

Hmmm, I am quite certain the Jurors placed Scott at home with possibly a dead body on his hands after 8:30 P.M.,the night of December 23rd.

[JustMyOpinion]

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.

I don't think it's conjecture when jurors utilize facts in evidence to logically deduct or reasonably infer other facts that are not in direct evidence. Are you saying jurors should not have utilized any evidence Geragos brought "for the truth" from the report about the 3 men/van Jackson reported were across the street at 11:40 a.m on 12/24 to infer or deduct that others could have had opportunity & means?

[Wudge]

I don't think it's conjecture when jurors utilize facts in evidence to logically deduct or reasonably infer other facts that are not in direct evidence. Are you saying jurors should not have utilized any evidence Geragos brought "for the truth" from the report about the 3 men/van Jackson reported were across the street at 11:40 a.m on 12/24 to infer or deduct that others could have had opportunity & means?


Based on evidence presented at trial, you agree that Diane Jackson saw three men and a van at 11:40 AM on the morning of 12/24. Three men and a van that LE never found. You do not believe Diane Jackson saw a safe on 12/24.

The prosecution established Scott (using Scott's own words) was at the warehouse the morning of 12/24. The prosecution did not present evidence at trial that a juror could use to conclude it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Scott was at the warehouse the night of 12/23.

[JustMyOpinion]

Based on evidence presented at trial, you agree that Diane Jackson saw three men and a van at 11:40 AM on the morning of 12/24. Three men and a van that LE never found. You do not believe Diane Jackson saw a safe on 12/24.

The prosecution established Scott (using Scott's own words) was at the warehouse the morning of 12/24. The prosecution did not present evidence at trial that a juror could use to conclude it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Scott was at the warehouse the night of 12/23.

I agree that State did not prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that he was at the warehouse the night of 12/24. They proved he had opportunity ( from approx 8:30 p.m. 12/23) to take Laci there, means to take Laci there, & access to the warehouse. ( where the boat was stored and he had made at least one anchor, and some other concrete object in a pitcher)
They also showed he had opportunity, means, access on the morning of the 24th, that he admitted being there,and that he was at his warehouse by at least the time he logged onto the computer, Lydell Wall testified that record showed he was logged on 26 minutes.
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=News&id=2078905
SNIP:Records also indicate that Peterson surfed Web sites on his warehouse computer for 26 minutes on the very morning police allege he disposed of his wife's body. Peterson stored his boat _ the one prosecutors allege he used to dump Laci Peterson's body into the bay _ at the warehouse.

"Whoever is on this computer is on this computer continuously?" Geragos asked.

"I can't tell if they're sitting behind the keyboard continuously," Wall said.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=News&id=2078905

[Wudge]

I agree that State did not prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that he was at the warehouse the night of 12/24.

SNIP



Thank you. That was what Attorneywan2be and I wanted you to understand.

[Miss Bootsie]

I agree that State did not prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that he was at the warehouse the night of 12/24. They proved he had opportunity ( from approx 8:30 p.m. 12/23) to take Laci there, means to take Laci there, & access to the warehouse. ( where the boat was stored and he had made at least one anchor, and some other concrete object in a pitcher)
They also showed he had opportunity, means, access on the morning of the 24th, that he admitted being there,and that he was at his warehouse by at least the time he logged onto the computer, Lydell Wall testified that record showed he was logged on 26 minutes.

Oh,I totally agree.

[Miss Bootsie]

Please forgive my legal ignorance, but wouldn't the reverse also be true? Should we imagine the jurors debating where to place Scott after 8:30 PM when Laci was last heard from...!!!!..."let's put him on the couch eating Dorito's"..or maybe "let's put a flashlight in his hand and have him outside pulling weeds...etc..etc.." :shrug:

TG, I had the same thoughts.

[attorneywan2be]

There was evidence he had opportunity ( time) from 8:30 p.m. on 12/23 until witnesses saw his truck in the driveway or he utilized his cell phone to check voice mail the next morning 12/24 ( 10:08) he had means ( truck, state showed a woman Laci's size fit into the toolbox,she could have fit into the bed as well) he had access ( to the warehouse). What does dismemberment of a body have to do with opportunity & means to transport Laci to the warehouse? What does the boat/dumping a body have to do with what opportunity & means he had to transport Laci to the warehouse?
Are you saying the jurors could not have used evidence Geragos tried to bring about the possible time of the burglary to determine if the burglars could have had opportunity? ( which, if they had believed , they could have applied to reasonable doubt)?

The fact that he had no alibi after 8:30 pm on Dec 23rd, could not be used alone to infer that he was at the warehouse that night..they must have another piece evidence that would place him at the warehouse during that time..short of that, the jury would be creating new evidence..

[JustMyOpinion]

The fact that he had no alibi after 8:30 pm on Dec 23rd, could not be used alone to infer that he was at the warehouse that night..they must have another piece evidence that would place him at the warehouse during that time..short of that, the jury would be creating new evidence..

That is not a fact that I utilize alone. There are other facts. ( i.e. last time anyone spoke to Laci, when witnesses saw truck in driveway the next morning, umbrellas in truck, his own statements, etc). It is not "creating new evidence" to conclude that Scott had opportunity, means and access to transport Laci to the warehouse anytime past 8:30 p.m. on the 24th. IMO. Determining the exact time that he transported her is not necessary in order for me to conclude that he did use the truck to do so, IMO.

[Wudge]

That is not a fact that I utilize alone. There are other facts. ( i.e. last time anyone spoke to Laci, when witnesses saw truck in driveway the next morning, umbrellas in truck, his own statements, etc). It is not "creating new evidence" to conclude that Scott had opportunity, means and access to transport Laci to the warehouse anytime past 8:30 p.m. on the 24th. IMO. Determining the exact time that he transported her is not necessary in order for me to conclude that he did use the truck to do so, IMO.

The reason that the dogs did not find Laci's scent in the truck bed or on the umbrellas or in the toolbox is?

[JustMyOpinion]

The reason that the dogs did not find Laci's scent in the truck bed or on the umbrellas or in the toolbox is?

I personally don't think the umbrellas were utilized in the actual transport of Laci to the warehouse ( although, I think they could have been) I don't have an explanation on the dogs, I personally discounted all of the dog tracking/scenting evidence. ( I don't think it's reliable)

[enlightenme]

The reason that the dogs did not find Laci's scent in the truck bed or on the umbrellas or in the toolbox is?


The reason that dogs did not find Jessica Lundford's trail when she was 150 yards away (or feet, I'm not sure) is?

I don't think dog tracking evidence is 100% reliable, which is why all of it wasn't admitted into court.

The only time its' 100% reliable is when the dogs actually find a person, IMO.

[Lili007]

The reason that the dogs did not find Laci's scent in the truck bed or on the umbrellas or in the toolbox is?

Fertilizer. It's as kind as I can put it. :D

JMO

[Miss Bootsie]

The fact that he had no alibi after 8:30 pm on Dec 23rd, could not be used alone to infer that he was at the warehouse that night..they must have another piece evidence that would place him at the warehouse during that time..short of that, the jury would be creating new evidence..

Okay, let me get this straight. You think if evidence had not been presented that Scott was at the warehouse after 8:30 P.M., the Jury could not use the fact that he had the opportunity.

[enlightenme]

Okay, let me get this straight. You think if evidence had not been presented that Scott was at the warehouse after 8:30 P.M., the Jury could not use the fact that he had the opportunity.

I don't think they should be able to deliberate about that unless there was evidence presented in court. Such as a neighbor noticed his truck was gone in the middle of the night or a traffic cam caught a pic of him driving around.

They might mull over that thought in their own minds but they can't deliberate about it.

JMO

[JustMyOpinion]

I don't think they should be able to deliberate about that unless there was evidence presented in court. Such as a neighbor noticed his truck was gone in the middle of the night or a traffic cam caught a pic of him driving around.

They might mull over that thought in their own minds but they can't deliberate about it.

JMO

They could deliberate the evidence of opportunity, means, timeline, access, but they couldn't deliberate any direct evidence that Scott was at the warehouse at night ( as you point out,there were no witnesses who testified they saw him that night) and there was no circumstantial evidence proving he was there at night ( such his own statements about morning visit or the log on to warehouse computer showing he was there at that time in the morning)
IMO.

[attorneywan2be]

Okay, let me get this straight. You think if evidence had not been presented that Scott was at the warehouse after 8:30 P.M., the Jury could not use the fact that he had the opportunity.

Of course not..that would be nothing more that creating new evidence that he was at the warehouse at that time..they need another piece of evidence placing him at the warehouse..

EXAMPLE:

(1) A defendant had no alibi between 9:00 pm July 15 2005 and 5:00 am July 16 2005 + (2) at 6:00 am on July 16 2005, the police found at his place of work a store receipt time stamped 10:00 pm July 15 2005 + (3) it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the time on the receipt was correct + (4) it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the receipt did indeed belong to the defendant-----> then the jury can infer that the defendant was at his place of work sometime after 10:00 pm on July 15 2005 and before 5:00 am July 16 2005..

Based on # (1) alone the jury cannot place him at his place of work..

[weezer]

I believe people are selected to sit on a jury to bring common sense and life experiences into the equation in order to conclude guilt or innocence. It is fantasy to believe that a jury erases everything else from their own lives and only focuses on what is testified to or admitted in the trial.

[enlightenme]

I believe people are selected to sit on a jury to bring common sense and life experiences into the equation in order to conclude guilt or innocence. It is fantasy to believe that a jury erases everything else from their own lives and only focuses on what is testified to or admitted in the trial.

You certainly can't control what people THINK, unless someone invents mind control. But if I were on that jury and someone said, "Maybe Scott went to the warehouse in the middle of the night.", if would have told them that we can't consider that because no testimony was presented in court to that.

Do I think a mistrial should be called because a juror mentioned this? No, of course not! Anyone who thinks that has never been on a jury and part of deliberations. That's why there are 12 of them, for checks and balances.

JMO

[weezer]

You certainly can't control what people THINK, unless someone invents mind control. But if I were on that jury and someone said, "Maybe Scott went to the warehouse in the middle of the night.", if would have told them that we can't consider that because no testimony was presented in court to that.

Do I think a mistrial should be called because a juror mentioned this? No, of course not! Anyone who thinks that has never been on a jury and part of deliberations. That's why there are 12 of them, for checks and balances.

JMO

I don't believe this to be correct. I do believe that you can (and should) use your own common sense and life experiences to evalute testimony/evidence. The fact that no one saw scott transport Laci's body means that the theory that was presented -- that it was in the morning -- is no better than my theory that it was the night before. The argument is that it was in the morning because there are cell phone and computer records reflecting that scott was in fact at the warehouse that next morning. But as a logical, pragmatic person, I would consider the fact that simply because he did not call anyone or use the computer the night before, does not mean he wasn't at the warehouse. And, it would have been safer for him to transport her body at nighttime. And, he would have had time to work on his anchors. JMOO

[Miss Bootsie]

They could deliberate the evidence of opportunity, means, timeline, access, but they couldn't deliberate any direct evidence that Scott was at the warehouse at night

Right, this is what I meant.

[Miss Bootsie]

Of course not..that would be nothing more that creating new evidence that he was at the warehouse at that time..they need another piece of evidence placing him at the warehouse..

EXAMPLE:

(1) A defendant had no alibi between 9:00 pm July 15 2005 and 5:00 am July 16 2005 + (2) at 6:00 am on July 16 2005, the police found at his place of work a store receipt time stamped 10:00 pm July 15 2005 + (3) it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the time on the receipt was correct + (4) it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the receipt did indeed belong to the defendant-----> then the jury can infer that the defendant was at his place of work sometime after 10:00 pm on July 15 2005 and before 5:00 am July 16 2005..

Based on # (1) alone the jury cannot place him at his place of work..

I think you are missing my point AW, or maybe I didn't make my post clear.:shrug:

I totally agree with JMO's opinion that:
the Jury can deliberate the evidence of opportunity, means, timeline, access, but they couldn't deliberate any direct evidence that Scott was at the warehouse at night.

[attorneywan2be]

I think you are missing my point AW, or maybe I didn't make my post clear.:shrug:

I totally agree with JMO's opinion that:

You quoted this:

"the Jury can deliberate the evidence of opportunity, means, timeline, access, but they couldn't deliberate any direct evidence that Scott was at the warehouse at night."

So you agree that the jury CAN NOT deliberate that he could have taken Laci's body to the warehouse the night of the 23rd...?

[JustMyOpinion]

You quoted this:

"the Jury can deliberate the evidence of opportunity, means, timeline, access, but they couldn't deliberate any direct evidence that Scott was at the warehouse at night."

So you agree that the jury CAN NOT deliberate that he could have taken Laci's body to the warehouse the night of the 23rd...?

They can deliberate evidence of opportunity, means, timeline, access If these facts reasonably inferred to them facts not in direct evidence ( when/how he transported Laci to warehouse), they could deliberate about it, IMO. Establishing precise time he transported her to the warehouse, precise space she occupied in the truck isn't necessary to conclude he had the means, opportunity to transport her to the place he had access to, where he had previously made at least one concrete "anchor", and evidence showed he made one other concrete object in pitcher, stored the boat, etc) IMO

[Miss Bootsie]

lol...AW, I never suggested any of the Juror's ever leaned towards the two trip theory in the first place.

I stated that, I, myself have leaned towards the two trip theory being a possibility.

Whether the Jurors could or couldn't,we are not Jurors here and this is not a Court-room.

There was a window of opportunity for Scott to kill Laci any time after 8:30 on the 23rd.
That window of opportunity remained open for Scott to transport the body. He had the means to transport the body.
So again, I lean towards the two trip theory being a possibility.

[Wudge]

You quoted this:

"the Jury can deliberate the evidence of opportunity, means, timeline, access, but they couldn't deliberate any direct evidence that Scott was at the warehouse at night."

So you agree that the jury CAN NOT deliberate that he could have taken Laci's body to the warehouse the night of the 23rd...?



I'm not sure that we can be sure what the jury did. Belmeisseiri said the jury speculated.

Larry King Show 12-14-04


BELMESSIERI: Well, there was some speculation, but we tried to stay to the facts, because the facts are what we needed to weigh. Sure, you know, you take into consideration what she was wearing the night before. One may conclude that perhaps she met her demise the evening when they came home after speaking with Sharon Rocha.

I wonder if Belmeissier will have an appeal issues with his name on it?

[JustMyOpinion]

I'm not sure that we can be sure what the jury did. Belmeisseiri said the jury speculated.

Larry King Show 12-14-04


BELMESSIERI: Well, there was some speculation, but we tried to stay to the facts, because the facts are what we needed to weigh. Sure, you know, you take into consideration what she was wearing the night before. One may conclude that perhaps she met her demise the evening when they came home after speaking with Sharon Rocha.

I wonder if Belmeissier will have an appeal issues with his name on it?

There was evidence pertaining to what she was wearing the night before.
There was evidence nobody ( except Scott) spoke with Laci Peterson after she hung up the phone from Sharon. This is not speculation, IMO. This snip of a quote from one juror isn't grounds for appeal., just because he used the word "speculation"..IMO.

[enlightenme]

There was evidence pertaining to what she was wearing the night before.
There was evidence nobody ( except Scott) spoke with Laci Peterson after she hung up the phone from Sharon. This is not speculation, IMO. This snip of a quote from one juror isn't grounds for appeal., just because he used the word "speculation"..IMO.


Wudge thinks EVERY juror that spoke after the verdict might have "an appeal named after them". Wudge's track record on predicting outcomes isn't great, IMO. He predicted a hung jury or aquittal for Scott Peterson. I know he thought Michael Peterson innocent as well.

He doesn't HAVE to put "In my opinion" after his statements because, in my opinion, the SIIs regard him as intelligent and HOPE he is right on some or all aspects of Scott's chances at freedom or new trial.

JMO

[Wudge]

There was evidence pertaining to what she was wearing the night before.
There was evidence nobody ( except Scott) spoke with Laci Peterson after she hung up the phone from Sharon. This is not speculation, IMO. This snip of a quote from one juror isn't grounds for appeal., just because he used the word "speculation"..IMO.

Maybe it will be clear to appellate jurists. It's not to me. Belmeissieri said the jury "tried" to stay to the facts. "Tried" is just not very inspiring to me. It kind of has that old ring to me of: We did our best, but ... (confession time).

Belmeissiei even admitted there was some speculation. Sounds to me like speculation could well have influenced the jury.

[JustMyOpinion]

JMO - the dogs also didn't pick up Laci's sent in the park, on the property of the home that was burglarized, around the block (where other *witness* claimed they saw her, etc.

I always wondered why ISP asked the LE if they were going to use Calvadar dogs. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought they were used only to find dead people, so why would he ask such a thing?

Anyhow, I never knew what they were or what they were used for prior to this case.

Yes, cadaver dogs are trained to detect scent of death/decay. I don't know why he asked either ( most loved ones of those presumed abducted couldn't think that word much less bring it up within hours of the kidnapping)IMO. I suspect Scott wanted to know if dogs were being utilized that could detect scent on items at the home or warehouse, but that's JMO.

[accordn2me]

Yes, cadaver dogs are trained to detect scent of death/decay. I don't know why he asked either ( most loved ones of those presumed abducted couldn't think that word much less bring it up within hours of the kidnapping)IMO. I suspect Scott wanted to know if dogs were being utilized that could detect scent on items at the home or warehouse, but that's JMO.Were the dogs that were used cadaver dogs, or trailing dogs?

[JustMyOpinion]

Were the dogs that were used cadaver dogs, or trailing dogs?

Hi A2M
IIRC, they used one scent dog, one cross-trained dog, one cadaver dog.

[Anne2719]

I'm just wondering if he said "cadaver dogs" instead of "scent" or "trailing" because that was the term that was in the news a lot after 9/11? Trying to give the benefit of the doubt here. In other words, I don't think I could convict him on that.

[JustMyOpinion]

It was Scott referring to Laci, so I don't think "loved one" applies unless your definition of love includes infidelity and dishonesty.

Yep, I agree.

[attorneywan2be]

I'm just wondering if he said "cadaver dogs" instead of "scent" or "trailing" because that was the term that was in the news a lot after 9/11? Trying to give the benefit of the doubt here. In other words, I don't think I could convict him on that.


You're absolutely right..

Allen Brocchini: He wanted to know how the search was going in Dry Creek.
Rick Distaso: And what did you tell him?
Allen Brocchini: I told him that we had a team of officers in there that searched all night, did a grid search all night, we brought in fresh officers in the morning and redid the ne 23 whole search of the park, grid search in the daytime. We had three dog teams in there. We had used a helicopter with a FLIR, which is like a heat sensor, to look in there. We also had horses coming in.
Rick Distaso: Okay. And what was Mr. Peterson's response?
Allen Brocchini: He wanted to know if we were using cadaver dogs.


If he was guilty and he dumped his wife's body in the bay...then why would he be concerned about their search in Dry Creek park? and why would he be concerned if they were using Cadaver dogs at the park?..on the other hand, being innocent, he would definitely be interested in the status of the search in Dry Creek..and he would be concerned if the police were already using cadaver dogs..!!

[Otter]

It was Scott referring to Laci, so I don't think "loved one" applies unless your definition of love includes infidelity and dishonesty.

Some people include that in their definition. I don't. Laci had served her purpose to him. It was time to move on to greener pastures. Hey, she and a baby would be an inconvenience. However, never forget that lying about an affair is admirable. Protecting Amber because he's such a gentleman. Gag me. :rolleyes: MOO.

[enlightenme]

You're absolutely right..

Allen Brocchini: He wanted to know how the search was going in Dry Creek.
Rick Distaso: And what did you tell him?
Allen Brocchini: I told him that we had a team of officers in there that searched all night, did a grid search all night, we brought in fresh officers in the morning and redid the ne 23 whole search of the park, grid search in the daytime. We had three dog teams in there. We had used a helicopter with a FLIR, which is like a heat sensor, to look in there. We also had horses coming in.
Rick Distaso: Okay. And what was Mr. Peterson's response?
Allen Brocchini: He wanted to know if we were using cadaver dogs.


If he was guilty and he dumped his wife's body in the bay...then why would he be concerned about their search in Dry Creek park? and why would he be concerned if they were using Cadaver dogs at the park?..on the other hand, being innocent, he would definitely be interested in the status of the search in Dry Creek..and he would be concerned if the police were already using cadaver dogs..!!


I don't know. Who can read Scott's mind? He seems so bizaare, JMO. Maybe he was thinking that they would eventually end up at his house and he's have to take care of that boat cover.

JMO

[Otter]

You're absolutely right..

Allen Brocchini: He wanted to know how the search was going in Dry Creek.
Rick Distaso: And what did you tell him?
Allen Brocchini: I told him that we had a team of officers in there that searched all night, did a grid search all night, we brought in fresh officers in the morning and redid the ne 23 whole search of the park, grid search in the daytime. We had three dog teams in there. We had used a helicopter with a FLIR, which is like a heat sensor, to look in there. We also had horses coming in.
Rick Distaso: Okay. And what was Mr. Peterson's response?
Allen Brocchini: He wanted to know if we were using cadaver dogs.


If he was guilty and he dumped his wife's body in the bay...then why would he be concerned about their search in Dry Creek park? and why would he be concerned if they were using Cadaver dogs at the park?..on the other hand, being innocent, he would definitely be interested in the status of the search in Dry Creek..and he would be concerned if the police are already using cadaver dogs..!!

Ummm, they weren't using cadaver dogs. It was SP who asked about them, to maybe, no pun intended, cover his tracks, assuage his guilt and anxiety.

Where are cadaver dogs mentioned in the testimony you copied from anyone other than SP? They're looking for Laci for crying out loud! With horses!

Another ummmm ... he was putting on an act by looking "concerned"? Sounding concerned? He knew exactly where Laci was. He put her there.

I don't want to sound rude, but do you read the testimony you post?


Allen Brocchini: He wanted to know if we were using cadaver dogs.

You bolded this, I just bolded it more.

[attorneywan2be]

Some people include that in their definition. I don't. Laci had served her purpose to him. It was time to move on to greener pastures. Hey, she and a baby would be an inconvenience. However, never forget that lying about an affair is admirable. Protecting Amber because he's such a gentleman. Gag me. :rolleyes: MOO.

Who are you referring to? and are you saying that the people that you are referring to condone the killing of Laci and Conner?

Please make yourself clear..!

[attorneywan2be]

Ummm, they weren't using cadaver dogs. It was SP who asked about them, to maybe, no pun intended, cover his tracks, assuage his guilt and anxiety.

Where are cadaver dogs mentioned in the testimony you copied from anyone other than SP? They're looking for Laci for crying out loud! With horses!

Another ummmm ... he was putting on an act by looking "concerned"? Sounding concerned? He knew exactly where Laci was. He put her there.

I don't want to sound rude, but do you read the testimony you post?


Allen Brocchini: He wanted to know if we were using cadaver dogs.

You bolded this, I just bolded it more.


Rudeness is not allowed on this forum..make a note of it..

Please go back and read the post I replied to..you would understand why I posted this part of the TS..

[accordn2me]

Infidelity is the cardinal sin in a relationship as far as I'm concerned. Personally, I don't think I could get past it or trust my partner again. I know realtionships that have survived it. I know people who have been unfaithful but love each other. I know you can love more than one person. I have seen people cheat, lie, beg, plead, swear it won't happen again. They usually do it again. It goes to character. Either you're honest and don't cheat, or you're not and you do. The difference is....very, very few cheaters murder their spouses.

I read a good bit of Amber's testimony today. After her account of the conversations with Scott about birth control, him wanting a vasectomy, etc. I'm more convinced than ever Scott was ridding himself of Conner. I'll never understand the jury's verdict on Conner but it's not for me to judge those 12. They did they best they could do at the time.

The fact that Scott asked about cadaver dogs around the house leaves me with a sinking, horrifying feeling that maybe Laci wasn't dead at the house, in the truck. It's too horrible to dwell on....

[Otter]

Who are you referring to? and are you saying that the people that you are referring to condone the killing of Laci and Conner?

Please make yourself clear..!

I am referring to the murderer of Laci and Conner, Scott Peterson. Scott Peterson alone condoned their murder. Clear enough?

[Otter]

Rudeness is not allowed on this forum..make a note of it..

Please go back and read the post I replied to..you would understand why I posted this part of the TS..

I replied to your post. Where was I rude, please show me the error of my ways? Your tone is elevated, not mine. I don't do "rude". Make a note of it. :)

ETA: You're gone. Don't talk to me like I'm a child and then disappear. Sheesh. This is a forum leader. Yeah, when I grow up that's what I wanna be.

[attorneywan2be]

I replied to your post. Where was I rude, please show me the error of my ways? Your tone is elevated, not mine. I don't do "rude". Make a note of it. :)

ETA: You're gone. Don't talk to me like I'm a child and then disappear. Sheesh. This is a forum leader. Yeah, when I grow up that's what I wanna be.


I'm pointing you to your question to me---> "do you read the testimony you post?" I consider that rude..again, rudeness is not allowed on this forum..

In addition, you were wrong, since I posted that TS precisely to show that Scott asked if they were using cadaver dogs and NOT scent or trailing dogs...

[accordn2me]

I'm pointing you to your question to me---> "do you read the testimony you post?" I consider that rude..again, rudeness is not allowed on this forum..

In addition, you were wrong, since I posted that TS precisely to show that Scott asked if they were using cadaver dogs and NOT scent or trailing dogs...
I rest my case.

[Otter]

I'm pointing you to your question to me---> "do you read the testimony you post?" I consider that rude..again, rudeness is not allowed on this forum..

In addition, you were wrong, since I posted that TS precisely to show that Scott asked if they were using cadaver dogs and NOT scent or trailing dogs...

Yes, it was SP (I do not use his surname since I'm not on a first name basis with murderers) who inquired about cadaver dogs. YOUR post however, infers that cadaver dogs were already in use and SP was wondering why this was. As the testimony you posted shows, it was he that brought up cadaver dogs. When I asked if you read what you post was innocent (pardon the pun again) since you blew your point right out of the water. That's my opinion, if I misunderstood your post, I apologize, but I don't think I misunderstood. Not one little bit.

If he was guilty and he dumped his wife's body in the bay...then why would he be concerned about their search in Dry Creek park? and why would he be concerned if they were using Cadaver dogs at the park?..on the other hand, being innocent, he would definitely be interested in the status of the search in Dry Creek..and he would be concerned if the police were already using cadaver dogs..!!

HE brought up cadaver dogs. There were NO cadaver dogs at that point. He's guilty and at the time wanted to keep up the presumption that he was innocent. Of course he was interested in ANY search. Do the short trips to the Bay ring a bell? He was nervous. My opinion of course. BTW, I didn't know that until you pointed it out. TYVM.

[Otter]

Otter, those of us that have been posting with you forEVER know you would never be rude to anyone. Posting here is like walking on eggshells, I've never experienced mods (some) that are so quick to judge and ALWAYS in the negative. The g's that is. If they had rulers, most of us would have welts on our hands. :punch: Not appropriate IMO. :no:

Thank you TG! I try my best although its hard at times. I'm the first to admit if I need a reprimand, but this one is oy vey!

I heard stories about those nuns. Is that what's happening? And at my age? :D

[JustMyOpinion]

I'm just wondering if he said "cadaver dogs" instead of "scent" or "trailing" because that was the term that was in the news a lot after 9/11? Trying to give the benefit of the doubt here. In other words, I don't think I could convict him on that.


I don't think the question construed evidence that I could utilize to "convict" him, either.

[JustMyOpinion]

Infidelity is the cardinal sin in a relationship as far as I'm concerned. Personally, I don't think I could get past it or trust my partner again. I know realtionships that have survived it. I know people who have been unfaithful but love each other. I know you can love more than one person. I have seen people cheat, lie, beg, plead, swear it won't happen again. They usually do it again. It goes to character. Either you're honest and don't cheat, or you're not and you do. The difference is....very, very few cheaters murder their spouses.

I read a good bit of Amber's testimony today. After her account of the conversations with Scott about birth control, him wanting a vasectomy, etc. I'm more convinced than ever Scott was ridding himself of Conner. I'll never understand the jury's verdict on Conner but it's not for me to judge those 12. They did they best they could do at the time.

The fact that Scott asked about cadaver dogs around the house leaves me with a sinking, horrifying feeling that maybe Laci wasn't dead at the house, in the truck. It's too horrible to dwell on....

Are you saying it's too horrible to dwell on the possibility that Laci wasn't dead before he took her to the warehouse or put her in the Bay? ( clarifying)..? I agree it is a possibility, although I think it's more likely ( from the evidence that was presented) that she was.

[Wudge]

There was evidence pertaining to what she was wearing the night before.
There was evidence nobody ( except Scott) spoke with Laci Peterson after she hung up the phone from Sharon. This is not speculation, IMO. This snip of a quote from one juror isn't grounds for appeal., just because he used the word "speculation"..IMO.

It was Belmessierir who admitted that the jury "speculated".

Reposting what he said on Larry King's show

BELMESSIERI: Well, there was some speculation,


Further Belmessieri also confessed on the John and Ken Show that the jury speculated regarding: "how did he [Scott] transport the body?"

http://johnandkenshow.com/audio.php?pageID=44&per_page=


Given that Belmessieri also admitted on the John and Ken show that the jury speculated, we can be reliably assurred that his admission on the Larry King show was absolutely true.

There may well have been many evidentiary gaps that were plugged by speculation. We now know for sure that speculation was used by the jury. In turn, the use of speculation would explain the source of the alleged inculpatory evidence that the jury used to proof of intent, premeditation, deliberation and malice aforethought.

Thus, an appeal issue based on the jury's use of speculation could also support the "insufficient evidence" appeal issue.

It's always nice when one appeal issue provides direct support to another appeal issue.

[JustMyOpinion]

Some people include that in their definition. I don't. Laci had served her purpose to him. It was time to move on to greener pastures. Hey, she and a baby would be an inconvenience. However, never forget that lying about an affair is admirable. Protecting Amber because he's such a gentleman. Gag me. :rolleyes: MOO.

Hi Otter:
I agree with you that Laci had served her purpose ( making him appear "normal" to others, enhancing his "image" while providing cover for his real life, IMO), she was no longer useful to Scott. JMO He was a failing fertilizer salesman who had only met 16 percent of his sales quota IIRC, and if he waited for the baby to be born and "divorced her", he would have to split assets with her ( i.e. equity in home, golf club membership) and her jewelry might not have been considered community property. And there's no question he would have the additional burden of court-ordered child-support over 18 years time, IMO. Aside from financial gain if they were "gone", there are other ways I think he may have believed he could "profit" from creating a scenario where his family was "abducted", and he was a victim, JMO. The manner in which his parents reacted from the outset indicates how willing they are to financially/emotionally support him if he successfully paints himself as a victim, IMO. They appeared to expect very little of him, and Jackie was more than willing to offer explanations/excuses for his conduct, IMO.

[Otter]

Hi Otter:
I agree with you that Laci had served her purpose ( making him appear "normal" to others, enhancing his "image" while providing cover for his real life, IMO), she was no longer useful to Scott. JMO He was a failing fertilizer salesman who had only met 16 percent of his sales quota IIRC, and if he waited for the baby to be born and "divorced her", he would have to split assets with her ( i.e. equity in home, golf club membership) and her jewelry might not have been considered community property. And there's no question he would have the additional burden of court-ordered child-support over 18 years time, IMO. Aside from financial gain if they were "gone", there are other ways I think he may have believed he could "profit" from creating a scenario where his family was "abducted", and he was a victim, JMO. The manner in which his parents reacted from the outset indicates how willing they are to financially/emotionally support him if he successfully paints himself as a victim, IMO. They appeared to expect very little of him, and Jackie was more than willing to offer explanations/excuses for his conduct, IMO.

Good morning JMO! Well laid out. I believe, MOO, he was totally bored with the whole "young married" life. It was too normal for him and he had to share his spotlight with Laci, who shined much brighter than he ever would.

I never formed any sort of opinion as whether or not he even considered divorce. I believe, MOO, that he thought a search for Laci would last a few weeks and then everyone would lose interest. I base that on his comments to Amber about being able to be with her in late January and he'd have all sorts of time for her.

I wonder if he enjoyed sales at all, not just fertilizer, but any product. He worked with his father, and that didn't last long, he sold the company IIRC. Another thing I wonder, he seemed to be happy when he and Laci ran the restaurant, and it was quite successful (not an easy thing to do). I hate to think that if they kept The Shack all this would've turned out differently.

[JustMyOpinion]

Good morning JMO! Well laid out. I believe, MOO, he was totally bored with the whole "young married" life. It was too normal for him and he had to share his spotlight with Laci, who shined much brighter than he ever would.

I never formed any sort of opinion as whether or not he even considered divorce. I believe, MOO, that he thought a search for Laci would last a few weeks and then everyone would lose interest. I base that on his comments to Amber about being able to be with her in late January and he'd have all sorts of time for her.

I wonder if he enjoyed sales at all, not just fertilizer, but any product. He worked with his father, and that didn't last long, he sold the company IIRC. Another thing I wonder, he seemed to be happy when he and Laci ran the restaurant, and it was quite successful (not an easy thing to do). I hate to think that if they kept The Shack all this would've turned out differently.


I agree he likely did think a search for Laci would be short-lived, based on what he had told Amber. I also agree that Scott was likely bored while in Modesto playing "perfect husband", and he likely enjoyed the life he could lead when he was away, (courtesy of a Tradecorp expense account) I don't think Scott "enjoyed" working hard or long, JMO. I read somewhere ( Crier's book?) that he & Laci sold The Shack because they couldn't rely on their employees to run it, and they were frequently interrupted on their days off.

[Wearing A Halo]

It was Belmessierir who admitted that the jury "speculated".

Reposting what he said on Larry King's show

BELMESSIERI: Well, there was some speculation,


Further Belmessieri also confessed on the John and Ken Show that the jury speculated regarding: "how did he [Scott] transport the body?"

http://johnandkenshow.com/audio.php?pageID=44&per_page=


Given that Belmessieri also admitted on the John and Ken show that the jury speculated, we can be reliably assurred that his admission on the Larry King show was absolutely true.

There may well have been many evidentiary gaps that were plugged by speculation. We now know for sure that speculation was used by the jury. In turn, the use of speculation would explain the source of the alleged inculpatory evidence that the jury used to proof of intent, premeditation, deliberation and malice aforethought.

Thus, an appeal issue based on the jury's use of speculation could also support the "insufficient evidence" appeal issue.

It's always nice when one appeal issue provides direct support to another appeal issue.

That was a great interview with Mike Belmessieri Juror #4. Wudge has selective listening skills. The jurors didn't do the speculating. It was the prosecution's speculation about DRISP puting the umbrellas in the bed of the truck to then take them to the warehouse and leave them there for storage and then all of sudden forgetting to do just that and brought them back home, but Laci, that Mike Belmessieri was referring to. The evidence regarding the umbrellas was presented inside of the court and therefore, the jury can draw reasonable conclusions from the evidence presented in court. Same with the Larry King interview.

[Otter]

I agree he likely did think a search for Laci would be short-lived, based on what he had told Amber. I also agree that Scott was likely bored while in Modesto playing "perfect husband", and he likely enjoyed the life he could lead when he was away, (courtesy of a Tradecorp expense account) I don't think Scott "enjoyed" working hard or long, JMO. I read somewhere ( Crier's book?) that he & Laci sold The Shack because they couldn't rely on their employees to run it, and they were frequently interrupted on their days off.

You're right, its in CC's book (p. 66):

"There he opened a restaurant he called the Shack, serving beer, wine, and sandwiches. Scott's father characterized the Shack as a 'sports bar.' It seemed to be a success and was voted one the the best happy-hour restaurants in the area.

Laci and Scott ran the business for about two years. Over time, however, they grew increasingly frustrated. It was difficult to find good help. The employees constantly interrupted their days off. Two years after the Shack opened its doors, Scott and Laci opted to sell. Their relatives didn't know how much they received for it; indeed, no one could say for sure whether the new owner every fully paid Scott. Still, he seemed relieved to be out of the business."

There's my answer to what I was pondering! Memory is the second thing to go, I forget what the first thing is. :tongue:

On the same page is the deal with SP working with LP:

"Meanwhile, Scott's parents had made him a partner in Lee's corrugated box business. Lee had proudly assumed his son would run the enterprise for years to come, but two years later Scott bought out his father's share, then quickly and callously sold the company. Once again he did what he wanted to do, regardless of the pain inflicted on those who loved him."

Hmmm, I like the last sentence, IMO this was an established pattern in SP's behavior.

[attorneywan2be]

It was Belmessierir who admitted that the jury "speculated".

Reposting what he said on Larry King's show

BELMESSIERI: Well, there was some speculation,


Further Belmessieri also confessed on the John and Ken Show that the jury speculated regarding: "how did he [Scott] transport the body?"

http://johnandkenshow.com/audio.php?pageID=44&per_page=


Given that Belmessieri also admitted on the John and Ken show that the jury speculated, we can be reliably assurred that his admission on the Larry King show was absolutely true.

There may well have been many evidentiary gaps that were plugged by speculation. We now know for sure that speculation was used by the jury. In turn, the use of speculation would explain the source of the alleged inculpatory evidence that the jury used to proof of intent, premeditation, deliberation and malice aforethought.

Thus, an appeal issue based on the jury's use of speculation could also support the "insufficient evidence" appeal issue.

It's always nice when one appeal issue provides direct support to another appeal issue.

I remember I listened to this interview longtime ago..as far as I remember, he also said that MG promised the jury in his opening statement that he will identify who did this to Laci..something like that..however, I'm going to listen to it again now..

[attorneywan2be]

I agree Wudge..he did say that there was a speculation regarding the way Scott transported Laci to the waehouse..

Also, he said that Mark Geragos promised them in his opening statement that he will prove Scott innocent and find the real killer..MG didn't say in his opening statement that he will find the real killer..IMO, Belmessieri got that from the TV..I think Mark did say that on TV at one point..!

[Wudge]

I remember I listened to this interview longtime ago..as far as I remember, he also said that MG promised the jury in his opening statement that he will identify who did this to Laci..something like that..however, I'm going to listen to it again now..

Yes, Bellmessieri claimed (paraphrasing) Geragos said he would find the killers. But Geragos never said that in his opening statement.

Sounds like he might well have held Geragos liable for a fact he assumed he heard. (14th Amendment due process issue?)

Bellmessieri did say Laci was 8 1/2 months on pregnant (on 12/23).

And he claimed Laci would have had only ten minutes to walk McKenzie based off of Karen Servas's 10:18AM timepoint. Of course, no such ten minute window was established during the trial. Sounds like he assumed still more facts not in evidence.

Bellmessieri has more than a few issues like (gasping): rank speculation, assuming facts not in evidence, believing that Scott communicated with him, ignoring Judge Dellucchi's protective instructions (just for openers). Sounds like Scott's appeal team could well find a 5th Amendment violation and a 6th Amendent violation and a 14th Amendment violation all packaged around just one juror.

[JustMyOpinion]

You're right, its in CC's book (p. 66):

"On the same page is the deal with SP working with LP:

"Meanwhile, Scott's parents had made him a partner in Lee's corrugated box business. Lee had proudly assumed his son would run the enterprise for years to come, but two years later Scott bought out his father's share, then quickly and callously sold the company. Once again he did what he wanted to do, regardless of the pain inflicted on those who loved him."

Hmmm, I like the last sentence, IMO this was an established pattern in SP's behavior.


ITA, Otter. Well-established pattern of behavior, IMO. Scott cares about Scott, others are only useful if they serve him well at any given time, IMO. He quickly & callously sold his father's company, he quickly and callously disposed of his pregnant wife.. IMO

[accordn2me]

Are you saying it's too horrible to dwell on the possibility that Laci wasn't dead before he took her to the warehouse or put her in the Bay? ( clarifying)..? I agree it is a possibility, although I think it's more likely ( from the evidence that was presented) that she was.It would be more horrible than it already is if Laci wasn't dead by the time Scott put her in the bay. Whatever he did to end her life, you just have to pray it was fast.

Wasn't there some brouhaha with Scott's mother and someone over missing garbage bags and paper towels in the house? Since hearing that, and given the fact that no fornesic evidence of his murdering Laci in the house, I've speculated if he didn't throw a garbage bag over her head to start the whole thing off.

[JustMyOpinion]

It would be more horrible than it already is if Laci wasn't dead by the time Scott put her in the bay. Whatever he did to end her life, you just have to pray it was fast.

Wasn't there some brouhaha with Scott's mother and someone over missing garbage bags and paper towels in the house? Since hearing that, and given the fact that no fornesic evidence of his murdering Laci in the house, I've speculated if he didn't throw a garbage bag over her head to start the whole thing off.

I agree, A2M, about hoping it was fast. I feel so bad for her mother as it is, and it must've been sheer hell for her during moments where she couldn't help but contemplate her daughter's last moments, IMO. As for the garbage bag theory, that could explain why there was no forensic evidence of murder at the house.
I did read ( a long time ago) that there were no paper goods in the house when the Peterson parents arrived Xmas Day ( I don't know how reliable that source was). Some people speculated that Scott could have disposed of evidence at the Gallo Winery Dumpster, IIRC.

[thinkaboutit]

ITA, Otter. Well-established pattern of behavior, IMO. Scott cares about Scott, others are only useful if they serve him well at any given time, IMO. He quickly & callously sold his father's company, he quickly and callously disposed of his pregnant wife.. IMO

Just for clarification - that company was never just his father's company. It was a company that Scott and Lee started together. Lee had to return to San Diego because the other crating company was in trouble - so Scott bought Lee out. Then Scott sold it to buy the Shack. It's not like this was some life-long family owned company.

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Penalty/Dwitnesses/PetersonLee.htm

[JustMyOpinion]

Just for clarification - that company was never just his father's company. It was a company that Scott and Lee started together. Lee had to return to San Diego because the other crating company was in trouble - so Scott bought Lee out. Then Scott sold it to buy the Shack. It's not like this was some life-long family owned company.

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Penalty/Dwitnesses/PetersonLee.htm


I can easily see how Scott could take advantage of his father's misfortune so he could get the funds to open a bar & grille on a college campus. Much more "fun", ( or..so he likely thought) JMO

[Otter]

Just for clarification - that company was never just his father's company. It was a company that Scott and Lee started together. Lee had to return to San Diego because the other crating company was in trouble - so Scott bought Lee out. Then Scott sold it to buy the Shack. It's not like this was some life-long family owned company.

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Penalty/Dwitnesses/PetersonLee.htm

Hi tai, hope you're well and your baseball game went well with your little boy.

I had to scroll way down, but found the testimony. LP's testimony is matter of fact, and really says nothing to discount what CC stated, nor does it support your statement about it not being a "life-long family owned company." That was LP's life-long business if I'm not mistaken, boxes of some sort.

Is this YOO, or do you have a better source? If this is it, I don't see where you get an inference of anything one way or the other.

PETERSON: No, we were back at San Diego by now.

HARRIS: So you moved back to San Diego?

PETERSON: Uh-huh.

HARRIS: What had happened to the crating company?

PETERSON: I just let Scott have, well, Scott paid off my interest in it, which was just our initial startup money, and I let him take it over.

HARRIS: So did he continue to run it?

PETERSON: He continued to run it, yes.

HARRIS: And at some point did he sell it?

PETERSON: Yeah, he sold it to finance this restaurant that he wanted to get into.

HARRIS: We've heard talk about the restaurant, is this the one called The Shack?

PETERSON: Yes.

HARRIS: By the time, so we have the time frame correct, by the time he bought The Shack he and Laci were married; is that correct?

[Wearing A Halo]

Yes, Bellmessieri claimed (paraphrasing) Geragos said he would find the killers. But Geragos never said that in his opening statement.

Sounds like he might well have held Geragos liable for a fact he assumed he heard. (14th Amendment due process issue?)

Bellmessieri did say Laci was 8 1/2 months on pregnant (on 12/23).

And he claimed Laci would have had only ten minutes to walk McKenzie based off of Karen Servas's 10:18AM timepoint. Of course, no such ten minute window was established during the trial. Sounds like he assumed still more facts not in evidence.

Bellmessieri has more than a few issues like (gasping): rank speculation, assuming facts not in evidence, believing that Scott communicated with him, ignoring Judge Dellucchi's protective instructions (just for openers). Sounds like Scott's appeal team could well find a 5th Amendment violation and a 6th Amendent violation and a 14th Amendment violation all packaged around just one juror.

"Bellmessieri claimed (paraphrasing) Geragos said he would find the killers."

You two people need to listen again. It was John and Ken that said Geragos said, "would find the real killers." Bellmessieri was agreeing to what Geragos said about DRISP being "stone cold innocent." (breathing fine)

(U-NO)

[enlightenme]

PETERSON: I just let Scott have, well, Scott paid off my interest in it, which was just our initial startup money, and I let him take it over.


First he starts to say he just let Scott have it, and then he modifies it to Scott paid back the startup money. Was that ever verified by anyone other than Lee Peterson?

[thinkaboutit]

Hi tai, hope you're well and your baseball game went well with your little boy.

I had to scroll way down, but found the testimony. LP's testimony is matter of fact, and really says nothing to discount what CC stated, nor does it support your statement about it not being a "life-long family owned company." That was LP's life-long business if I'm not mistaken, boxes of some sort.

Is this YOO, or do you have a better source? If this is it, I don't see where you get an inference of anything one way or the other.

PETERSON: No, we were back at San Diego by now.

HARRIS: So you moved back to San Diego?

PETERSON: Uh-huh.

HARRIS: What had happened to the crating company?

PETERSON: I just let Scott have, well, Scott paid off my interest in it, which was just our initial startup money, and I let him take it over.

HARRIS: So did he continue to run it?

PETERSON: He continued to run it, yes.

HARRIS: And at some point did he sell it?

PETERSON: Yeah, he sold it to finance this restaurant that he wanted to get into.

HARRIS: We've heard talk about the restaurant, is this the one called The Shack?

PETERSON: Yes.

HARRIS: By the time, so we have the time frame correct, by the time he bought The Shack he and Laci were married; is that correct?

Hi Otter! Yes - thank you! We had a blast playing baseball! Here is the portion of the testimony I was referring to - previous to the testimony you quoted:

PETERSON: Yeah. So he was living in the house and after about 18 months I went up there myself to Morro Bay, Jackie stayed in San Diego, to start this other crating company.

HARRIS: Let's talk about that for just a minute. When you say you decided you were going to start another crating company up in San Luis Obispo?

PETERSON: Uh-huh.

HARRIS: And what made you decide to do that?

PETERSON: I think I missed Scott a lot and then I guess I just wanted another base of income, so I asked Scott if he wanted to go in with me.

HARRIS: And what did you two together to go in, what did you do?

PETERSON: We each put $3,500 in and bought some tools and started making sales calls.

HARRIS: Business successful?

PETERSON: Yeah.

HARRIS: Immediately?

PETERSON: No, it took some time. It didn't take as much time as San Diego. There was less competition.

HARRIS: Looking at photograph D 9 F-5, it's going to be very dark. Well, having you take a look at that, is this a picture of you with Scott at Central Coast Crating?

PETERSON: That's us, Uh-huh. That's our truck.

HARRIS: And was he going to college at this time?

PETERSON: Yes.

HARRIS: Had he started San Luis Obispo or was he still at Cuesta?

PETERSON: He was at Cal Poly by then.

HARRIS: Was he still working at the Pacific Cafe?

PETERSON: Yes.

HARRIS: Was he still working at the golf course?

PETERSON: He was. He was working at one golf course at night, clean up and lock the place up. I remember I'd go out there once in a while and catch him after work and we'd go have dinner just to spend some time together.

HARRIS: Do you have sort of a, you obviously were there, well, let me ask you this question, how long were you with Scott there while at college?

PETERSON: Right through his graduation.

HARRIS: So you were there for several years?

PETERSON: Uh-huh.

[Otter]

Hi tia!

LP was a good father to SP by instilling a work ethic, especially a "working for yourself" ethic, as that quote TG posted points out:


He was surrounded by entrepreneurship. That's his parents," Pernicano said, describing how
Jackie Peterson took doughnuts door to door to businesses in an effort to drum up new
customers for the family's shipping company. "He's got the genes and the example."

Still, even the family was skeptical that it was a good idea, Jackie Peterson said, since most
new restaurants fail. Lee Peterson said he did not give Scott Peterson seed money.
"We were sure they were going to lose the money," Jackie Peterson said.

The fact that LP missed his son is bittersweet, IMO. And what a good reason for starting up a business there. He knew the crating business from the inside out, an area with little competition and money to help start it p as partners -- father and son. I'm sure LP had great expectations for his son's future. They didn't see much future in restaurant, statistics show those fail more than any other business, but here was a one where his son could be his own boss and grow a company from scratch, with counsel from his dad.

SP threw that away. I can understand LP's disappointment. $3,500 wasn't anything to the Petersons, it was, as CC said, the callousness of "abandoning" this company that LP worked hard to get going. SP's heart was set on a restaurant, but he grew dissatisfied with that too and dumped yet another thing. At least no one's feeling were hurt by that.

Its just a pattern of his behavior, IMO, not the money involved that's telling.

[thinkaboutit]

Hi tia!

LP was a good father to SP by instilling a work ethic, especially a "working for yourself" ethic, as that quote TG posted points out:




The fact that LP missed his son is bittersweet, IMO. And what a good reason for starting up a business there. He knew the crating business from the inside out, an area with little competition and money to help start it p as partners -- father and son. I'm sure LP had great expectations for his son's future. They didn't see much future in restaurant, statistics show those fail more than any other business, but here was a one where his son could be his own boss and grow a company from scratch, with counsel from his dad.

SP threw that away. I can understand LP's disappointment. $3,500 wasn't anything to the Petersons, it was, as CC said, the callousness of "abandoning" this company that LP worked hard to get going. SP's heart was set on a restaurant, but he grew dissatisfied with that too and dumped yet another thing. At least no one's feeling were hurt by that.

Its just a pattern of his behavior, IMO, not the money involved that's telling.

Hi again Otter !- just one question....I don't understand how Scott closing down the company can be looked at as abandonment - when it was Lee that walked away first?

[Otter]

Hi again Otter !- just one question....I don't understand how Scott closing down the company can be looked at as abandonment - when it was Lee that walked away first?

Hi again to you!

Without much more than the little testimony that was presented, all this is IMO of course. Here are my thoughts on it.

LP was a man who had to work for himself, very much like my own father, and a trait I very much admire. He helped his son set up a business, as partners, equally investing money. I look at it that SP was responsible for the day-to-day operations based on logistics that LP was not close by geographically. LP knew how to run a crating company, what it took to make it successful. He wanted his son to BE successful -- on his own, without him.

Pure speculation on my part here, but my own family has gone through very similar experiences, without a murder in the mix. SP is ready to run it alone, LP is pleased, thinking "my hard work and encouragement paid off", then SP sells out the company.

Without a word to his father.

I'm not saying there's anything nefarious in that, that was his full right to do and then start a restaurant. Its just more about "its all about me", but to a degree that most of us can't comprehend. The behavior. Its the human in me, there's something wrong to be so "callous" -- all the time.

[thinkaboutit]

Hi again to you!

Without much more than the little testimony that was presented, all this is IMO of course. Here are my thoughts on it.

LP was a man who had to work for himself, very much like my own father, and a trait I very much admire. He helped his son set up a business, as partners, equally investing money. I look at it that SP was responsible for the day-to-day operations based on logistics that LP was not close by geographically. LP knew how to run a crating company, what it took to make it successful. He wanted his son to BE successful -- on his own, without him.

Pure speculation on my part here, but my own family has gone through very similar experiences, without a murder in the mix. SP is ready to run it alone, LP is pleased, thinking "my hard work and encouragement paid off", then SP sells out the company.

Without a word to his father.

I'm not saying there's anything nefarious in that, that was his full right to do and then start a restaurant. Its just more about "its all about me", but to a degree that most of us can't comprehend. The behavior. Its the human in me, there's something wrong to be so "callous" -- all the time.

If I'm not mistaken - Lee was nearby - he had moved to Morro Bay, which is only 12 miles from San Luis Obispo where they started the business. I agree with alot of what you said - and it's certainly possible that part of the reasons behind Lee wanting to start this business would be to help Scott get something started.

It's also possible Lee could have been disappointed when Scott decided to sell the company to buy a restaurant. But I don't think disappointed in a sense that he felt it was a callous move - just not a smart one.

How do we know the decision to buy the restaurant was a selfish one - and wasn't something he did because Laci wanted him to do it? They were together at the time.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion - and since neither of us personally know the Petersons (at least I'm assuming you don't :) ) - we are both speculating - neither of us is more right than the other.

Interesting how people can view the same set of circumstances in such a different way, isn't it? It's one of the many things that fascinates me about this case.

[Wudge]

If I'm not mistaken - Lee was nearby - he had moved to Morro Bay, which is only 12 miles from San Luis Obispo where they started the business. I agree with alot of what you said - and it's certainly possible that part of the reasons behind Lee wanting to start this business would be to help Scott get something started.

It's also possible Lee could have been disappointed when Scott decided to sell the company to buy a restaurant. But I don't think disappointed in a sense that he felt it was a callous move - just not a smart one.

How do we know the decision to buy the restaurant was a selfish one - and wasn't something he did because Laci wanted him to do it? They were together at the time.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion - and since neither of us personally know the Petersons (at least I'm assuming you don't :) ) - we are both speculating - neither of us is more right than the other.

Interesting how people can view the same set of circumstances in such a different way, isn't it? It's one of the many things that fascinates me about this case.


Behavioral suspicion and high profile cases usually go hand-in-hand. Some people seem to just love to pick on another person's behavior, and that behavior need not evidence anything, pick, pick, pick.

I watched as the Ramseys (JonBenet) were simply decimated by behavioral assessments. And I've seem the same thing happen in countless other cases as well.

There are people who, to me, seem to enjoy assaulting the behavior of people who fall under an umbrella of suspicion in high-profile cases. Some people feel that their power of perception results in such high-caliber proof that guilt can be adduced beyond a reasonable doubt. While other people just seem to enjoy piling on when others are bleeding and on the ground. In my mind, kicking suspected individuals when they are down on the ground just seems to be enjoyable to some people.

[JustMyOpinion]

Behavioral suspicion and high profile cases usually go hand-in-hand. Some people seem to just love to pick on another person's behavior, and that behavior need not evidence anything, pick, pick, pick.

I watched as the Ramseys (JonBenet) were simply decimated by behavioral assessments. And I've seem the same thing happen in countless other cases as well.

There are people who, to me, seem to enjoy assaulting the behavior of people who fall under an umbrella of suspicion in high-profile cases. Some people feel that their power of perception results in such high-caliber proof that guilt can be adduced beyond a reasonable doubt. While other people just seem to enjoy piling on when others are bleeding and on the ground. In my mind, kicking suspected individuals when they are down on the ground just seems to be enjoyable to some people.

Scott isn't suspected, he's convicted, he's not bleeding on the ground, he's incarcerated on death row. Nobody is kicking Scott, this is a forum for discussing the case ( Scott's behavior is part of that discussion and some of his behavior was evidence at his trial.) I see no comparisons between he & the Ramseys ( they were never arrested or indicted)

[thinkaboutit]

Scott isn't suspected, he's convicted, he's not bleeding on the ground, he's incarcerated on death row. Nobody is kicking Scott, this is a forum for discussing the case ( Scott's behavior is part of that discussion and some of his behavior was evidence at his trial.) I see no comparisons between he & the Ramseys ( they were never arrested or indicted)



Wudge's point had nothing to do with the fact that Scott was arrested and the Ramsey's weren't. He was talking about behavioral assessments. MANY people thought and still think that the Ramsey's (including Burke) had something to do with their daughter's death. MANY people analyzed their behavior and came to the conclusion they were guilty based on those behaviors.

I think Wudge's statement of bleeding on the ground was just a figure of speech - as in kicking someone when they're down. I don't think he meant Scott was bleeding on the ground - literally.

[Wudge]

Scott isn't suspected, he's convicted, he's not bleeding on the ground, he's incarcerated on death row. Nobody is kicking Scott, this is a forum for discussing the case ( Scott's behavior is part of that discussion and some of his behavior was evidence at his trial.) I see no comparisons between he & the Ramseys ( they were never arrested or indicted)


Scott going into the restaurant business evidences what?

[JustMyOpinion]

Scott going into the restaurant business evidences what?


Scott's history is of interest to some. The circumstances surrounding his purchase of the Shack were being discussed by some posters ( and there was testimony about this from his father at trial).

[Wudge]

Wudge's point had nothing to do with the fact that Scott was arrested and the Ramsey's weren't. He was talking about behavioral assessments. MANY people thought and still think that the Ramsey's (including Burke) had something to do with their daughter's death. MANY people analyzed their behavior and came to the conclusion they were guilty based on those behaviors.

I think Wudge's statement of bleeding on the ground was just a figure of speech - as in kicking someone when they're down. I don't think he meant Scott was bleeding on the ground - literally.


My post referenced high-profile cases; e.g., Sheppard, McMarten, Little Rascals Day Care, Rodney King, OJ, Richard Jewell & the Olympic park bombing, baby Sabrina, Jon Benet, Chandra Levy, Elizabeth Smart, the Runaway bride, this case, etc..

Rightly or wrongly, suspects are almost inevitably (figuratively) wrestled to the ground by the crimetainment media and packs move in.

[One2Snoop]

My post referenced high-profile cases; e.g., Sheppard, McMarten, Little Rascals Day Care, Rodney King, OJ, Richard Jewell & the Olympic park bombing, baby Sabrina, Jon Benet, Chandra Levy, Elizabeth Smart, the Runaway bride, this case, etc..


Rightly or wrongly, suspects are almost inevitably (figuratively) wrestled to the ground by the crimetainment media and packs move in

When Laci was discoverd missing most of us came to different message boards and started discussing this case from day one. It was a curiosity for me. Worry for a new mother to be and her baby.
It involves real people, one whose now in prision because a mother and baby were brutally murdered and dumped in the bay. Thats the part that keeps me glued to this case, not the entertainment factor. I don't find anything entertaining about this and I find being considered part of a pack rather insulting.

Maybe there are people out there who are in it for the "crimetainment" and who run in packs, but I'm not one of them. Just my 2 cents.

[enlightenme]

When Laci was discoverd missing most of us came to different message boards and started discussing this case from day one. It was a curiosity for me. Worry for a new mother to be and her baby.
It involves real people, one whose now in prision because a mother and baby were brutally murdered and dumped in the bay. Thats the part that keeps me glued to this case, not the entertainment factor. I don't find anything entertaining about this and I find being considered part of a pack rather insulting.

Maybe there are people out there who are in it for the "crimetainment" and who run in packs, but I'm not one of them. Just my 2 cents.

"Maybe there are people out there who are in it for the "crimetainment" and who run in packs, but I'm not one of them. Just my 2 cents."

Me either O2S! I think the media sucks and I've thought that ever since I was 15 and they actually showed people jumping out of a burning building to their deaths. This is while we were eating dinner! I was so sick and disgusted! It's all for the almighty dollar. The "media" always goes overboard, IMO. I have to turn it off a lot of the times.

But, I didn't see or hear any of the media hype with the Peterson case. I didn't even know anything about it until the trial had already started.

Sure, there are always a few "sheeple" that believe anything they hear on TV, tabloids, etc. But that is NOT why Scott Lee Peterson was convicted, IMO.

[thinkaboutit]

"Maybe there are people out there who are in it for the "crimetainment" and who run in packs, but I'm not one of them. Just my 2 cents."

Me either O2S! I think the media sucks and I've thought that ever since I was 15 and they actually showed people jumping out of a burning building to their deaths. This is while we were eating dinner! I was so sick and disgusted! It's all for the almighty dollar. The "media" always goes overboard, IMO. I have to turn it off a lot of the times.

But, I didn't see or hear any of the media hype with the Peterson case. I didn't even know anything about it until the trial had already started.

Sure, there are always a few "sheeple" that believe anything they hear on TV, tabloids, etc. But that is NOT why Scott Lee Peterson was convicted, IMO.

I think this world is full of alot more than a "few" sheeple. I'm not saying you're one of them - but I think it is a big problem.

[enlightenme]

I don't know, but I'd imagine because it's easy to do.

I think some people confuse a good imagination with an open mind and intelligence.

JMO MOO IMO and etc.

[thinkaboutit]

Adnoid <scratching head>, how come the NG's call the majority a lynch mob, or poisened by the media? How come not the obvious: the majority (like 9.999999999%) believe he's guilty, just 'cause he IS? :shrug:


I never called the majority a lynch mob - I called the crowd outside of the courthouse the day SP was found guilty a lynch mob - because of the people wearing pictures of SP with his head in a noose - and the cheers at him having been found guilty. Even the jurors were bothered by this.

[thinkaboutit]

And again, not saying you're one of these...

The flip side is that there are some who conclude that taking a position opposite to the majority is synonymous with moral superiority and "unbiased thinking". It is clearly possible to think clearly and still agree with the majority. I use the example of child molestation - the vast, vast majority feel that is is wrong and a horrible crime. Proclaiming that you feel it is benign or even admirable will put you in a minority but (I argue) will not make you morally superior - or right.

In any argument agreement with a majority is a non issue. The burden of proving your argument is the same even if everyone agrees with you or stand alone. I don't base my conclusion on Scott's guilt because the majority feel he's guilty.

I absolutely agree with you.

[accordn2me]

I cheered loudly in my living room and I'm sure even DRISP heard it.
Spanks....your square is turning deep red.
:no:

[enlightenme]

I don't know, but I'd imagine because it's easy to do.

JMO, but I think some people like to brag that they "think outside of the box", or they don't go along with the crowd, or they form their own opinions and are not just influenced by the MEDIA. I can understand that, even though I think it sounds a bit egotisical, but sometimes the majority or "the crowd" is right!

Moo, Coo, Woo, etc.

[accordn2me]

JMO, but I think some people like to brag that they "think outside of the box", or they don't go along with the crowd, or they form their own opinions and are not just influenced by the MEDIA. I can understand that, even though I think it sounds a bit egotisical, but sometimes the majority or "the crowd" is right!

Moo, Coo, Woo, etc.BOO!

And if they ain't right...something I've been accused of a time or two...as in "you ain't right!"

I'll stand alone!:patriot:

[Otter]

BOO!

And if they ain't right...something I've been accused of a time or two...as in "you ain't right!"

I'll stand alone!:patriot:

No way! I stand in agreement! :beer:

Baaaaa

[accordn2me]

No way! I stand in agreement! :beer:

Baaaaa<---like a sheep :lol:

ROLF (like a dog)
HOO (like an owl)

:beer: (like some alkies)

[hankfromthebank]

AW2b, I hold Scott to be NG and certainly align myself with those who hold a wrongful conviction took place.

Given that the defense provided a reasonable explanation for each item of circumstantial evidence prosecutors held to be probative of pre-meditation, a wrongful conviction was, indeed, rendered.


No one is ever guilty according to you. That does tend to affect your credibilty.:shrug:

[hankfromthebank]

I never called the majority a lynch mob - I called the crowd outside of the courthouse the day SP was found guilty a lynch mob - because of the people wearing pictures of SP with his head in a noose - and the cheers at him having been found guilty. Even the jurors were bothered by this.


They were expressing their outrage at this horrible crime. Makes me proud to see fellow Americans care about a woman and child they never knew:patriot: .

[enlightenme]

They were expressing their outrage at this horrible crime. Makes me proud to see fellow Americans care about a woman and child they never knew:patriot: .


Hank! So good to hear from you! :seeya:

[One2Snoop]

:D yeah for me! Red is my color!

Why didn't the NGs complain that Marlene was out there every day with a collection bucket for herself?

I don't believe it has any bearing whatsoever regarding this discussion about (thread title) "Was Scott Peterson Wrongfully Convicted?" Perhaps thats why?

[Wudge]

I don't believe it has any bearing whatsoever regarding this discussion about (thread title) "Was Scott Peterson Wrongfully Convicted?" Perhaps thats why?

.........(salute)

[One2Snoop]

You should read back where the so called "lynch mob" and the "media" were brought up. Perhaps that is why I'm aking that question?

I've seen the posts and what I'd really like to see is this thread get back on topic. Again, this thread is not about Marlene or anyone else - its about, "Was Scott Peterson Wrongfully Convicted?" There's a difference between debating the subject at hand and constantly picking on other posters/people. I don't believe its necessary to continually make rude comments about others to make your point.

Thanks for understanding.

[One2Snoop]

Hiya Snoops, I'll lend a hand.

No, ISP was not wrongfully convicted. He premeditated and executed the murder of his wife and son. He was found guilty and sentenced to death by a jury of his peers who followed the law/instruction to the letter. All evidence pointed to him, and him alone. No evidence, nothing at all, pointed away from him. He will not win any appeals, or a new trial, he is not innocent, the trial he did have was more than fair and more than 98% of murderers could ever HOPE to have... therefore, he will remain in SQ for the rest of his life. Case closed.

How'd I do? :read:

Great and I agree! :patriot:

[SPANKS]

I've seen the posts and what I'd really like to see is this thread get back on topic. Again, this thread is not about Marlene or anyone else - its about, "Was Scott Peterson Wrongfully Convicted?" There's a difference between debating the subject at hand and constantly picking on other posters/people. I don't believe its necessary to continually make rude comments about others to make your point.

Thanks for understanding.
There was nothing rude about asking an obvious question. The NGs are always crying about the mob outside the court room, then why didn't they care about Marlene constantly out there with a collection bucket? If you don't like the post, don't respond to it. There was nothing rude about it. Give it a rest will ya.

[SPANKS]

Hiya Snoops, I'll lend a hand.

No, ISP was not wrongfully convicted. He premeditated and executed the murder of his wife and son. He was found guilty and sentenced to death by a jury of his peers who followed the law/instruction to the letter. All evidence pointed to him, and him alone. No evidence, nothing at all, pointed away from him. He will not win any appeals, or a new trial, he is not innocent, the trial he did have was more than fair and more than 98% of murderers could ever HOPE to have... therefore, he will remain in SQ for the rest of his life. Case closed.

How'd I do? :read:

Excellent! :beer:

[Anne2719]

I agree with this also. I didn't want to believe Scott Peterson murdered his family, and I fought about it for a long time. It broke my heart when I realized I was being blind and not admitting the writing on the wall. Maybe he snapped, maybe he is a very sick man, but he murdered his wife and child and I don't think it's right that anyone defends him. They should use all that energy and intelligence to defend someone who is really innocent. MO
While some are defending Scott, I think some others are actually defending the system that hopefully will protect those who are really innocent.

[One2Snoop]

If Laci had testified would Scott have still been convicted?


Would there even have been a trial if Laci were alive to testify?

I think you missed that A2m was being facetious when she said that.

[Anne2719]

Would there even have been a trial if Laci were alive to testify?
I've never seen an iota of evidence that Scott didn't love Laci and that he would have ever harmed her in any way. After all, he is a guy who never hit another human being in his entire life, something I sure can't say about me.

Laci would have and could have trusted Scott with her life; just not with any woman who was a little too easy which is the description of all too many men (and women). Adultery is not murder.
If she would have and could have trusted him with her life, that very well could have been a big mistake.

[accordn2me]

Would there even have been a trial if Laci were alive to testify?

I think you missed that A2m was being facetious when she said that.

Prove it! Can you....:lol:

[One2Snoop]

Would there even have been a trial if Laci were alive to testify?
I've never seen an iota of evidence that Scott didn't love Laci and that he would have ever harmed her in any way. After all, he is a guy who never hit another human being in his entire life, something I sure can't say about me.

Laci would have and could have trusted Scott with her life; just not with any woman who was a little too easy which is the description of all too many men (and women). Adultery is not murder.



I can agree with one thing you said above - Adultery is not murder although I could see it as precursor to murder. JMO.

[One2Snoop]

(chuckle)

:eek: I KNOW!!!!! Maybe Laci's spirit actually jumped into Mylett's body and it was Laci who sat on Scott's jury. Now that would be justice at it's finest!

Originally Posted by One2Snoop
Would there even have been a trial if Laci were alive to testify?

I think you missed that A2m was being facetious when she said that.

Prove it! Can you....:lol:

LOL :tongue: I see an awful lot of exclamation points in that post!!!!!!!

[accordn2me]

LOL :tongue: I see an awful lot of exclamation points in that post!!!!!!!
Lemme go refill my wine bott....I mean glass...and go see what the heck I was talking about.....maybe my !!!!!!!!!!!!!!key got stuck huh? Sometimes adnoids, "how do you spell OCD, how do you spell OCD, how do you spell OCD, how do you spell OCD, how do you spell OCD, how do you spell OCD, how do you spell OCD, how do you spell OCD," buttons get stuck......so why can't my !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! get stuck?


and another thing------------> my reputation spreader is broke!

[One2Snoop]

Lemme go refill my wine bott....I mean glass...and go see what the heck I was talking about.....maybe my !!!!!!!!!!!!!!key got stuck huh? Sometimes adnoids, "how do you spell OCD, how do you spell OCD, how do you spell OCD, how do you spell OCD, how do you spell OCD, how do you spell OCD, how do you spell OCD, how do you spell OCD," buttons get stuck......so why can't my !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! get stuck?


:tongue: I think thats it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :beer:

[accordn2me]

:tongue: I think thats it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :beer:NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

During my pit stop........(tmi?).......I remembered what it was.........I was responding to that ludicrous idear....that Mylett had become a Rocha family member during the trial.:cuss:

[Otter]

NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

During my pit stop........(tmi?).......I remembered what it was.........I was responding to that ludicrous idear....that Mylett had become a Rocha family member during the trial.:cuss:

A2m! Shhhhh! Don't bring that up again, someone was convinced that the conviction would be overturned, and maybe with prejudice. :D

Big hopes for some, based on an itty bitty molecule of dust. Poof!

[One2Snoop]

NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

During my pit stop........(tmi?).......I remembered what it was.........I was responding to that ludicrous idear....that Mylett had become a Rocha family member during the trial.:cuss:

Oh yes, I remember that now.

[One2Snoop]

A2m! Shhhhh! Don't bring that up again, someone was convinced that the conviction would be overturned, and maybe with prejudice. :D

Big hopes for some, based on an itty bitty molecule of dust. Poof!

Remember this little guy?

http://i13.tinypic.com/2u73sdc.gif http://i13.tinypic.com/2u73sdc.gif

[accordn2me]

A2m! Shhhhh! Don't bring that up again, someone was convinced that the conviction would be overturned, and maybe with prejudice. :D

Big hopes for some, based on an itty bitty molecule of dust. Poof!

HOO???????????????

[Otter]

Remember this little guy?

http://i13.tinypic.com/2u73sdc.gif http://i13.tinypic.com/2u73sdc.gif

:lol: What are odds of getting him added to the list? Where's Adnoid? He could calculate it to the nearest molecule.

[thinkaboutit]

Interesting plan, you sound experienced. ISP wasn't planning to get caught, unfortunately for HIM, he was seen at the bay, he had to say he was there rather than golfishing.

The mind numbing stupidity of the prosecution allegations put a killer behind bars, so quite possibly mind numbing stupidity is a good thing, no? :tongue:

I've never understood this theory - that Scott was spotted at the bay - so he had to switch the alibi from golfing to fishing. Why then did he tell Amie Krigbaum that he had been golfing?

[accordn2me]

snip......as best as I can determine, (snip) women (snip) with a lover, (snip) are at a higher risk. Those like Laci are at the least risk by far. She was much more likely to die in a traffic accident than from homicide by partner.


I helped you with your post as much as I could. I can't do a thing with the bolded part. As best you can determine.........what is the risk for a pregnant woman dying by murder?

As best you can determine.....what is the risk for a pregnant woman dying by accident?

[attorneywan2be]

Snip

unfortunately for HIM, he was seen at the bay, he had to say he was there rather than golfishing.

Snip



So you're saying that Scott changed his alibi from golfing to fishing because he was seen at the bay..would you please explain this theory in light of the following facts:

1- On Dec 20th Scott bought a fishing license that was valid for Dec 23rd and the 24th...(that was done before anyone saw him at the bay) + he kept that fishing license..he also bought a saltwater fishing rod..

2- Scott left a message to Laci that he was about to leave Berkeley..that call documented his whereabouts

3-Scott Told Amy Krigbaum and Harvery that he was golfing (supposedly, he said that after he knew he was seen at the bay, and after he left the message to Laci that he was leaving the bay)

[accordn2me]

Circular arguments one and all. Poor Distaso - forced to argue with no evidence. No wonder he had to lie in his closing.
Oooooooooh,,,,,yeah. Poor Distaso....the jurors knew that closing statement was not evidence. They convicted Scott on the CE. Bet poor lil lo Distaso is still cryin' his eyes out.

[accordn2me]

Let me just ask you something right now....I've never heard of the Douglas guy in your previous post.....do you think Scott Peterson is factually innocent....or do you just believe there was not enough evidence to convict him?

[Otter]

Not really. He also convicted Douglas S. Mouser (http://www.corpus-delicti.com/mouser.html) with no evidence. It seems he was prepared to do anything to get to be a judge. I'd like to see him disbarred myself.

Wow a link! Not much of one, but thanks for the effort. Maybe that guy's attorney should be disbarred along with Geragos. That's seems to be where the problem lies if there's evidence that leads to reasonable doubt that wasn't presented or prosecution evidence not debunked.

This is a forum about Peterson, not Mouser or anyone else.

[Otter]

You read that summary of the case and you still can't see how insane the conviction of Mouser was? You don't see the similarities between Mouser and Peterson? Both 5 month trials despite no evidence of guilt? Both relying on public hatred of the defendant? Both with Distaso prosecuting? You should also look at the Cano case and see the difference when Distaso doesn't have the media watching him.

Sigh again.

You see Peterson very differently than I do. I know nothing about Mouser, I know nothing about the site you linked to. This forum has nothing to do with him and his conviction.

I never hated SP. I'm a reasonable person, a cynical one. I followed the case very closely and moreso as years have passed. There's no talking to you about this. I'm interested in debate, but both sides have to open their ears to have a discussion. You refuse to do that.

So I'll bow out now. Life is too short. He's guilty. There's not a molecule of doubt.

[accordn2me]

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?p=8844643#post8844643

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?p=8845807#post8845807

Just for starters. I have to go to a party. Poor me. Poor Distaso.

Poor Laci & Conner:flamemad:

[accordn2me]

Kyo also noted that, while Laci Peterson's garments were covered with sediment and barnacles, the tape around the fetus's neck was clean of debris. Because the baby was never in the sea.Link?

I've posted this link multiple times on this very site. Catch up!

OR....go to SII and look at the state's photos I think exhibit #253 "I" maybe the specific one....but you probably need to stare at them all a while. Do it.
You will see. Or you will refuse to see....or deny that you see....or you won't see.

Link to Kyo saying "no barnacles on the tape b/c baby was never in "sea"

[accordn2me]

The twine/tape had a tight overhand knot in it.

The tight overhand knot did not hold the twine/tape in an "enclosed circle."

When Conner was floating through the water, the twine/tape wrapped around Conner's neck.(not over his head)

The motion of the water caused the twine/tape to look like a very loose bow.

The very loose and Conner's body blocked the tight overhand knot from view.

[B]The tight overhand knot had nothing at all to do with the loose bow-like formation.

[accordn2me]

HARRIS: Showing you 250 G (sic), does this show the left end of that material in the photographs after you've taken the bow out?

KYO: That’s correct. And you can see there's a -- a knot. This is a very tight overhand knot that's left after the bow is taken out.

HARRIS: And that particular knot, did it have anything to do with that bow?

KYO: No.

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?p=8844343#post8844343

[accordn2me]

Then what was the purpose of the tight knot?

This is a very tight overhand knot that's left after the bow is taken out.


How can I answer this? I can make something up. Unless we knew the original purpose of the twine/tape (they aren't even sure what the stuff is) and even then it wouldn't necessarily point to the purpose, if there was a purpose at one time, of the tight knot.

One thing is for certain...it was just a tight knot. Per Kyo's testimony, the tight knot had nothing to do with the loose bow-like formation.

Forget about the twine/tape. It's trash. It's not exonerating trash, either.

[Anne2719]

Then what was the purpose of the tight knot?

This is a very tight overhand knot that's left after the bow is taken out.
Just as the rest of the tape was left after the bow was taken out. In my opinion, that tight knot was there before the debris got snagged onto the baby's body. And the loose bow-like formation happened in the turbulence of the water. Have you ever had a loose thread in the laundry with your other clothes? I can remember having to cut threads that got wound around shirt sleeves -- amazing what knots were formed. I believe this easily could have happened in that storm, with a piece of material that had a knot in it to start with.

[JustMyOpinion]

It's THE most important piece of exonerating evidence.The medical examiner couldn't get it off without cutting it. Game, set and match.

The ME testified he cut the tape out of force of habit, and a desire not to damage the evidence. He did not say "I couldn't get it off".

[Anne2719]

The ME testified he cut the tape out of force of habit, and a desire not to damage the evidence. He did not say "I couldn't get it off".
Yes. I think it's pretty common for clothing to be cut off at autopsy, too. Doesn't mean they can't get it off without cutting.

[thinkaboutit]

Yes. I think it's pretty common for clothing to be cut off at autopsy, too. Doesn't mean they can't get it off without cutting.

Dr. Peterson testified that if possible - he prefers to remove clothing intact.

PETERSON: If possible I like to remove clothing intact. So, for example, to remove a bra I'll just unfasten it as it would normally be unfastened and remove it. Sometimes that's not possible. And sometimes clothing has to be cut. But as much as possible, I'll try to take it off just as it is.



He also testified that he probably would have damaged Conner's head if he had attempted to take the tape off:

PETERSON: Well, there's certainly, as, as a forensic pathologist, we have certain habits. We're as much creatures of habit as anybody. And when we're presented with something around the neck, habit takes over, and the habit is to try to preserve that as much as possible, while still removing it without damaging the body. So my suspicion is that in this case I could have pulled that off of Conner's head, but I probably would have damaged the head by doing that. So I simply cut around the neck. The knot that I saw was near the left shoulder. I cut it over on the right-hand side and simply removed it and handed it to Officer Soler.



If he couldn't get it off without damaging the head - it is curious how it would have gotten on Conner's head (including over his ears) - without damaging it.

[accordn2me]

The ME testified he cut the tape out of force of habit, and a desire not to damage the evidence. He did not say "I couldn't get it off".Yes. He wanted to leave it as it was to the extent he could and do what he needed to do with the autopsy.

[accordn2me]

Dr. Peterson testified that if possible - he prefers to remove clothing intact.



He also testified that he probably would have damaged Conner's head if he had attempted to take the tape off:



If he couldn't get it off without damaging the head - it is curious how it would have gotten on Conner's head (including over his ears) - without damaging it. The twine/tape did not go OVER. It went AROUND Conner's neck. The Dr. cut it off so he wouldn't disturb the bow-like formation. If he would have gently pulled on the bow-like formation, I think it would have simply slipped from around the neck.

[thinkaboutit]

The twine/tape did not go OVER. It went AROUND Conner's neck. The Dr. cut it off so he wouldn't disturb the bow-like formation. If he would have gently pulled on the bow-like formation, I think it would have simply slipped from around the neck.


So you are suggesting that it wrapped around Conner's neck - then knotted itself and tied itself into a bow?

If after cutting off the twine - I would think that if it had been easily untied - he would have discovered this and testified to it.

Dr. Peterson testified at pre-lim that he believed the twine floated over Conner's head:

THE COURT: Let me ask a question before the prosecution has another one. I want to understand this tape that you said, when you pull it, it's only two centimeters?

THE WITNESS: There was a gap, Your Honor. If you pulled the tape snug against the neck, from the direction you were pulling it, measuring from the neck to there, there was a two-centimeter gap.

THE COURT: How could that be an item that floated onto the baby if -- I assume two centimeters doesn't get it over the head?

THE WITNESS: Simply because the head's deforming and the skull plates were overriding, and that's dynamic process. Depending upon what the baby is brushing up against or washing onto, I see no problem with that happening.



Q. Let me show you EE again. You answered the judge's question. You said it could have just got on there. So this tape that's on there that's knotted behind the back, this baby would have to -- what? -- be swimming like this, have the tape go over the head and then underneath the arm and be knotted right here? Wouldn't you admit that that is extremely unlikely that this tape would have been wrapped around to be only two centimeters around the neck, to also be wrapped around the arm and just so happen have a bow tie knot right at the shoulder area?

A. Well, I would agree it's unlikely that a dead baby would swim but --

Q. Would you also agree that it's unlikely that the dead baby would have that tape around it in such a fashion that you had to cut it off as opposed to just pulling it off?

A. You know, all I can do is describe the findings there at autopsy. I know how deformable the head is as the brain is liquefying. In terms of how this baby went through rocks, other things that may have happened on its trip to the shore, I can't speak to that. All I know is this tape was there, and there was no injury to the neck, and I believe it would be quite easy to deform the head enough to fit that tape circle.

Q. At the same time the arm just so happened to have a tight fit? Wasn't the tape around the arm and the shoulder as well and knotted on the back?

A. Well, the knot is the knot that I described about the left shoulder. As I recall, there was only that one knot. This is picture EE. There was another picture that showed the baby at the scene in the grass, where to my eye anyway, that tape was in a different position. So I don't particularly think it was wrapped around the arm or the chest. I know it was wrapped around the neck, though.

Q. We had that discussion earlier.

A. We did.

Q. You don't see the tape. I do see the tape. Here, clearly, when you see the baby, you hadn't -- when you made your findings, you hadn't seen the picture I showed you; isn't that correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Now I'm showing you the picture that was shown to you at the autopsy, and clearly it's not just looped around the neck; is that correct?

A. In this picture, it isn't.

Q. In this picture, it's not only looped around the neck; it's looped around the left arm and shoulder? Correct?

A. In this picture, it is.

Q. It appears to be done so tightly; isn't that correct?

A. Well, in this picture, it does.

Q. In that picture, that's the way you saw the baby?

A. It is.

[accordn2me]

He testified that the gap was 2 cm (less than one inch). No way it would pull over the head. The only reasonable conclusion is that it was tied on by someone.

IMOI didn't say pull over. I said pull from around the neck.

Your "reasonable conclusion" is not reasonable. It's fantasy. The twine/tape wrapped around Conner's neck.

The loose bow-like formation could have been pulled gently and the twine/tape would have slipped from around the neck. However, given the condition of Conner's body, no matter how gentle the Dr. was, it would have more than likely caused more damage. So, he cut it off.

The tight knot had nothing to do with the loose bow-like formation. The twine/tape was not held in an "enclosed circle" or a secure loop.

[thinkaboutit]

I didn't say pull over. I said pull from around the neck.

Your "reasonable conclusion" is not reasonable. It's fantasy. The twine/tape wrapped around Conner's neck.

The loose bow-like formation could have been pulled gently and the twine/tape would have slipped from around the neck. However, given the condition of Conner's body, no matter how gentle the Dr. was, it would have more than likely caused more damage. So, he cut it off.

The tight knot had nothing to do with the loose bow-like formation. The twine/tape was not held in an "enclosed circle" or a secure loop.

Accordn2Me - what part of the testimony are you basing your conclusion that it was a "loose bow-like formation"? Or are you going by the picture of the twine? IMO - the testimony of Dr. Peterson suggests it was not loose. He actually handled it - don't you think he would have determined it was simply a loose bow?

I have a really hard time picturing the twine wrapping around Conner's neck in the water and forming a bow on it's own.

[JustMyOpinion]

Accordn2Me - what part of the testimony are you basing your conclusion that it was a "loose bow-like formation"? Or are you going by the picture of the twine? IMO - the testimony of Dr. Peterson suggests it was not loose. He actually handled it - don't you think he would have determined it was simply a loose bow?

I have a really hard time picturing the twine wrapping around Conner's neck in the water and forming a bow on it's own.

This is the testimony from the criminalist that I relied on in forming my opinion it was a loose bow-like formation: ( and defense did not bring a criminalist to testify otherwise, even though they reportedly had obtained services of Dr Henry Lee)
http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/091404_ctv.html
Kyo, spending her second day on the stand as a prosecution witness, said the loop was "chemically similar" to plastic debris recovered near Laci Peterson's remains and noted that it was not tied tautly.
"As you can see," she said, pointing jurors in Peterson's capital trial toward a photo on a large projection screen, "it looks like a bow, but from the way that it's tied, it's tied very loosely."

[thinkaboutit]

This is the testimony from the criminalist that I relied on in forming my opinion it was a loose bow-like formation: ( and defense did not bring a criminalist to testify otherwise, even though they reportedly had obtained services of Dr Henry Lee)
http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/091404_ctv.html
Kyo, spending her second day on the stand as a prosecution witness, said the loop was "chemically similar" to plastic debris recovered near Laci Peterson's remains and noted that it was not tied tautly.
"As you can see," she said, pointing jurors in Peterson's capital trial toward a photo on a large projection screen, "it looks like a bow, but from the way that it's tied, it's tied very loosely."

But under the loose bow - there was a tight knot - correct?

KYO: That’s correct. And you can see there's a -- a knot. This is a very tight overhand knot that's left after the bow is taken out.

HARRIS: And that particular knot, did it have anything to do with that bow?

KYO: No.

HARRIS: Did you ever try to or attempt to take or take that knot out of the twine?

KYO: I didn't try to unknot that one because pretty tight.

HARRIS: It was pretty tight?

KYO: Right.

[accordn2me]

Accordn2Me - what part of the testimony are you basing your conclusion that it was a "loose bow-like formation"? Or are you going by the picture of the twine? IMO - the testimony of Dr. Peterson suggests it was not loose. He actually handled it - don't you think he would have determined it was simply a loose bow?

I have a really hard time picturing the twine wrapping around Conner's neck in the water and forming a bow on it's own.
The same part that Wudge bases his "twice-knotted" theory on....I reckon.

Read your posted testimony from Peterson. Again and again and again....the work around is used. Around the neck, around the arm......

The tight knot had nothing to do with the loose bow-like formation that formed after the twine wound around the baby's neck and arm.

[thinkaboutit]

Hey A2M - The twine/bow easily could have come from packaging/debrie and was floating around in the water - like pollution. Not hard to imagine in the SFB. Regardless, this is what Peterson said on the stand about the KNOTTED BOW:

Geragos also pointed to a bag found with duct tape attached to it in “the vicinity” of the bodies.
The remains were found in April just over a mile apart along the bay’s eastern shoreline.

Brian Peterson testified He testified that Conner had a gash in the chest and tape around
his neck, but was in relatively good condition, leading him to conclude it had probably
only recently emerged from the mother when the bodies were found a day apart in mid-
April, and that the 1½ loops of plastic tape around Conner’s neck, was ocean debris.

Geragos suggested the variance in decomposition between the bodies could be
attributed to the bag being placed on Conner and secured with the plastic tape.

“I think that’s possible, I certainly don’t think it’s likely,” Brian Peterson said. “It’s not my top choice.”

Geragos pressed the doctor about a strip of plastic tape that looped loosely around the baby's
neck and was knotted around one shoulder. He asked if it could be related to a bag found nearby
with duct tape on it and suggested the bag could have protected the child's body from the sea.

Dr. Peterson said he believed the fetus had become entangled in flotsam
or jetsam and that the tape hadn't even caused any damage to the skin.

What is this a quote from - who's interpretation of the testimony is this? I find nothing in the testimony that suggests the plastic tape was loosely around the baby's neck.

[accordn2me]

But under the loose bow - there was a tight knot - correct?
They couldn't see the tight knot at first because of where it was positioned (per testimony posted umpteen times).

Look at the pictures. I can plainly see that the tight knot is just that. A knot in the twine/tape. It did not form the twine/tape into a loop, or circle. It was just a knot in the string (twine/tape). I believe the twine/tape, with the tight knot already in it, wrapped around the baby's neck (per testimony). The tidal action from the currents and storm caused the loose bow-like formation to form. No, it (twine/tape) didn't "tie" itself. Again, the tidal action from the wind currents, water currents, wave action, storm, etc. caused the twine/tape to look like it had a very loose bow starting to form.

The tight knot was independent of, and had absolutely no relation to, the loose bow-like formation that was beginning to form from the tidal action.

[thinkaboutit]

The same part that Wudge bases his "twice-knotted" theory on....I reckon.

Read your posted testimony from Peterson. Again and again and again....the work around is used. Around the neck, around the arm......

The tight knot had nothing to do with the loose bow-like formation that formed after the twine wound around the baby's neck and arm.

The tight knot had nothing to do with the loose bow - but it had everything to do with the portion that was around the baby's neck. The loose bow - imo - is irrelevant. However it was the knot and it's position on the twine - that determined the tawtness around Conner's neck. The portion to the right of the knot in the pictures is the portion that was around Conner's neck. I just don't see how, in the water, that tape wrapped around Conner's neck - and tied itself into a knot. Because that's the only other possible suggestion - if you don't believe the loop slid over Conner's head.

Now - question for all - is it possible - that the loop was larger when it slipped over Conner's head and the knot was loose- and then as it got tangled around his arms and body - the motion of the water - moved his little arms - and caused the knot to move closer to his neck, the loop to get smaller around his neck - and the knot to tighten?

[accordn2me]

The tight knot had nothing to do with the loose bow - but it had everything to do with the portion that was around the baby's neck. The loose bow - imo - is irrelevant. However it was the knot and it's position on the twine - that determined the tawtness around Conner's neck. The portion to the right of the knot in the pictures is the portion that was around Conner's neck. I just don't see how, in the water, that tape wrapped around Conner's neck - and tied itself into a knot. Because that's the only other possible suggestion - if you don't believe the loop slid over Conner's head.

Now - question for all - is it possible - that the loop was larger when it slipped over Conner's head and the knot was loose- and then as it got tangled around his arms and body - the motion of the water - moved his little arms - and caused the knot to move closer to his neck, the loop to get smaller around his neck - and the knot to tighten?2me, it's as plain as day....the tight knot was insignificant. Were it not insignificant, MG would have made a huge deal out of it. He didn't. Because he couldn't. Because it wasn't significant.

The tight knot was independent of, and had no relation to, the loose bow-like formation that was starting to form due to tidal action.

[thinkaboutit]

2me, it's as plain as day....the tight knot was insignificant. Were it not insignificant, MG would have made a huge deal out of it. He didn't. Because he couldn't. Because it wasn't significant.

The tight knot was independent of, and had no relation to, the loose bow-like formation that was starting to form due to tidal action.

Well - if Geragos had done a better job of defending Scott - I could agree with that - but there are alot of things Geragos should have made a bigger deal of - and didn't. ;)

[accordn2me]

Well - if Geragos had done a better job of defending Scott - I could agree with that - but there are alot of things Geragos should have made a bigger deal of - and didn't. ;)Well...I would love to see a list, maybe in the 'Ineffective Counsel' thread of just such things SIIs would have liked to have seen the defense do. How about it?

[thinkaboutit]

Well...I would love to see a list, maybe in the 'Ineffective Counsel' thread of just such things SIIs would have liked to have seen the defense do. How about it?

Sounds like a good idea to me - but I've been on this dang computer all day - won't be able to start that today! Anyone else is welcome to though! :hat:

[accordn2me]

The tight knot had nothing to do with the loose bow - but it had everything to do with the portion that was around the baby's neck. The loose bow - imo - is irrelevant. However it was the knot and it's position on the twine - that determined the tawtness around Conner's neck. The portion to the right of the knot in the pictures is the portion that was around Conner's neck. I just don't see how, in the water, that tape wrapped around Conner's neck - and tied itself into a knot. Because that's the only other possible suggestion - if you don't believe the loop slid over Conner's head.

Now - question for all - is it possible - that the loop was larger when it slipped over Conner's head and the knot was loose- and then as it got tangled around his arms and body - the motion of the water - moved his little arms - and caused the knot to move closer to his neck, the loop to get smaller around his neck - and the knot to tighten?How did you come to conclude the tight knot had anything to do with the twine/tape being around Conner's neck?

Get a piece of string...a scarf or necktie would work for this purpose....and tie a tight overhand knot in it...then loop it around your neck and start tying a slip knot....does the tight knot you tied have anything to do with this second knot OR the loop around your neck? NO! Now.....gently tug on your slip knot and slip whatever you're using from around your neck.....See?... tight knot is there...still....because it had nothing to do with the loop or slip knot. And nothing had to fit over your head!

[thinkaboutit]

How did you come to conclude the tight knot had anything to do with the twine/tape being around Conner's neck?

Get a piece of string...a scarf or necktie would work for this purpose....and tie a tight overhand knot in it...then loop it around your neck and start tying a slip knot....does the tight knot you tied have anything to do with this second knot OR the loop around your neck? NO! Now.....gently tug on your slip knot and slip whatever you're using from around your neck.....See?... tight knot is there...still....because it had nothing to do with the loop or slip knot. And nothing had to fit over your head!


I understand what you are saying - but IMO - from the pictures - this is not what happened. In the following pic - you can see where the knot is - and extending from that knot (to the right) are the two ends of the twine that represent where Dr. Peterson cut the twine.

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/253H.JPG

compare the end you can see in the above picture with the ends in this picture

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/253D.JPG

This was not simply a tight knot in the twine - it is the knot that caused the loop around Conner's neck that in Dr. Peterson's opinion needed to be cut as opposed to slipping over Conner's head. That's my interpretation of what I see in the pictures.

[accordn2me]

I understand what you are saying - but IMO - from the pictures - this is not what happened. In the following pic - you can see where the knot is - and extending from that knot (to the right) are the two ends of the twine that represent where Dr. Peterson cut the twine.

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/253H.JPG

compare the end you can see in the above picture with the ends in this picture

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/253D.JPG

This was not simply a tight knot in the twine - it is the knot that caused the loop around Conner's neck that in Dr. Peterson's opinion needed to be cut as opposed to slipping over Conner's head. That's my interpretation of what I see in the pictures.
Really? That's what you see, eh? Hmmm, maybe I do need to get my "spy glass" out and look.....

Those ends looks really frayed for them to have been cut by sharp scissors....or whatever Dr. P used.....what DID he use? His teeth....:eek:

Lemme go ponder again.......:seeya: :read:

[accordn2me]

GERAGOS: When you observed this first, it had on it a knot in a bow; is that correct? When you first examined -- for instance, what was marked as 233 is that knot that was right there. Was that the observable?

KYO: It was among the bow. So it's wrapped up underneath, you know, the bow. So I didn't see that particular knot.

GERAGOS: That's what I was getting to. The knot itself was actually that's 253I. That knot was actually right in there; is that correct? In the picture marked as 253D, the bow on the twine that was around the baby's neck and shoulder had a knot underneath it; is that correct? What you described as a hard or a tight knot? Let me show you another picture, see if you can see it. See 253E? Isn't this the knot what you described as very tight knot, right there?

KYO: There is a loose bow-like knot. But within that particular line string there is a tied knot.

GERAGOS: That's what I'm asking you. Is the tight knot in this area here? Or is it on -- because I don't see it when you have got this out here. This is before you untied it?

KYO: That’s right.

GERAGOS: So before you untied this bow, you took a picture of it, right?

KYO: That’s right.

GERAGOS: Okay. And before you untied the bow, you could not see this, correct?

KYO: That’s right.

GERAGOS: Once you untied the bow, what you saw untied -- this is the close-up. This is the length version, the one you untied it and, lo and behold, you have the tight knot, correct?

KYO: Yes.

[accordn2me]

PETERSON: I did. The one piece of debris that I specifically recorded, and I'll read from my report here. This is in the first paragraph under internal/external examination: As received, one and one half loops of plastic tape are around the neck of the fetus with extension to a knot near the left shoulder. The skin is uninjured beneath this loop, and the slack between the loops and the neck is roughly two centimeters.

HARRIS: I want to go back and figure out what that means. Two centimeters, about how big is that?

PETERSON: A little under an inch.

HARRIS: Now, if you've got something that's kind of looped around someone's neck, does that cause you any concern? Or would you examine that further?

PETERSON: Well, there's certainly, as, as a forensic pathologist, we have certain habits. We're as much creatures of habit as anybody. And when we're presented with something around the neck, habit takes over, and the habit is to try to preserve that as much as possible, while still removing it without damaging the body. So my suspicion is that in this case I could have pulled that off of Conner's head, but I probably would have damaged the head by doing that. So I simply cut around the neck. The knot that I saw was near the left shoulder. I cut it over on the right-hand side and simply removed it and handed it to Officer Soler.

HARRIS: Now, did you examine it to see if it had anything to do with any injury or any cause with Conner?

PETERSON: It wasn't so much of examining the tape, or whatever it was. It was more a matter of examining the neck. And I looked at the skin beneath that loop, and the skin was undamaged. And I also dissected the neck organs beneath the skin, and they were undamaged. So my,

HARRIS: So what does that mean?

PETERSON: My conclusion was that that material had not caused damage to the neck. And, in fact, my opinion was and is that it was simply debris that had become associated with the body.

HARRIS: To go back through that. When you're saying something, something is wrapped around the neck, say, for example, if somebody ties something around someone's neck, does that cause damage to a live person?

PETERSON: It does. The term we use for that is ligature. And there are different types of death that might involve a ligature. One type would be hanging. Another type would be ligature strangulation, where that material is actually being applied to a living person's neck. In the case of ligature strangulation, it's typical to see bleeding inside the muscle in the neck, sometimes damage to other structures, the cartilage to the voice box, for example. There was no such damage in this case. In the case of hanging, it's typical to see a change in the skin beneath the ligature that we call ligature furrow. That's the impression of that on the skin. There was no ligature furrow in this case. So to make a long story short, I could see neither external nor internal damage that could have been caused by this material. So my assessment was then that it hadn't caused damage.

[accordn2me]

PETERSON: All right. This is a view of Conner from the right side now. And here's that tear I talked about. This is actually the top of the arm bone, the humerus showing through. So that's that post-mortem tear extending down across the chest. More of this tape-like material.

HARRIS: And last, the rear view, 258 E?

PETERSON: Another view of the knot and the tape, the head with the overriding skull plates. The back. There's some more liquefaction, disolving-type change there. That's actually skeletal muscle you can see through. I described the fact there wasn't particularly any scalloping around the edges. And scalloping is a change that I would associate with feeding, animal feeding, like crustaceans. I didn't see that here.

HARRIS: Now, just to go back through this. You're saying that's muscle tissue. Does that mean that something is occurring to the skin at that point in time?

PETERSON: Sure. Again, post-mortem change. Partly is dissolved away. Partly I think is just friction that might have been with the tear in the shoulder, the chest and the abdomen. Also affected this part of the body as the body was washed up. In fact, there's the bowel right there. The same process, I think. It's a soft body simply being pulled apart because of the tidal action.

HARRIS: And you were talking about that loop of tape. Do we see it better in this particular view, how it goes around the neck there?

PETERSON: Again, it's kind of hard to see, but this is the head here. There's the neck there. Here's the tape running around the neck. And those loops that you saw in the front near the left shoulder? Now the left shoulder is up. So you're just seeing those from the back.

HARRIS: And the one piece of the tape that goes all the way around the neck, does that go up past where that knot is at? If you're following that up with the pointer?

PETERSON: As we go up it looks to me like it's going over this way. It's kind of hard to tell, though. The resolution isn't great.

[accordn2me]

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, in addition, Mr. Harris showed the picture of the cord, or not a cord, of the tape around the neck. Do you remember that the picture?

PETERSON: I do.

GERAGOS: I don't want to pull it back up again. But the fact of the matter is that there was only approximately less of an inch space when you pull that tight; is that correct?

PETERSON: Correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, you did not attempt to try to pull that off of the baby; isn't that correct?

PETERSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Because you were afraid that that would do some damage to the baby, correct?

PETERSON: I suspect it would have, but I think, as much as anything else, it was habit.

GERAGOS: Okay. Then you ended up cutting it off; isn't that correct?

PETERSON: I did.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, the way that it, at, we just saw the picture, it appears that the, this tape or this twine was wrapped around, and then around the neck, and then it appeared, if I understand the way the picture is, to have been tied and there was a knot and a bow; is that correct?

PETERSON: Except you're gesturing towards your right, and I believe that bow was towards, towards the left.

GERAGOS: Okay. And so the same process, underneath the arm and then back around the neck. And there was a space, as you indicated, of two centimeters around the neck area; is that correct?

PETERSON: Right.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, you've indicated that the twine or this cord, that you didn't see any evidence that it was the cause of death, correct?

PETERSON: There was, there was no damage to the neck that I could associate with that tape.

GERAGOS: Okay. But there was also nothing eliminating the distinct possibility that that was placed on post-mortem and then tied, is there? Nothing eliminates that possibility that you saw?

PETERSON: I would just say that, as a forensic pathologist, that's outside of what I would normally determine or even think about.

GERAGOS: Okay. So you wouldn't, that's not in your area of expertise?

PETERSON: No.

[accordn2me]

When I can't find something.......it drives me nutz! Nutzier!

How long is it from this tight knot to the end where it was cut? And from that end where it was cut....back to the tight knot?

[accordn2me]

in your post: http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8848251&postcount=845

It seems to me that the judge is being mislead...or he's lost....and the way MG is cleverly asking the questions makes it sound like this loop was 2 centimeters in circumference. Well that's just ridiculous. the gap between the neck and the tape/twine (not between the tape & knot) was 2 centimeters - the gap between tape/twine & neck

Also, Kyo's use of the term "tied" is not the best choice of word since these two experts obviously believe the twine/tape became associated with the body in the water.

Where can I find the circumference of the entire loop that was around Conner's neck?

Or....if we could place those two cut ends back together....what would the circumference of that loop be?

[accordn2me]

Q. Okay. In this one, it appears that that tape is wrapped around the neck, and then in addition to that, there's a -- the baby is intertwined with what appears to be plastic as well, all surrounding the baby; is that correct?

A. It looks to me like that's the tape that we discussed earlier with the knot near the left shoulder.

Q. Right.

A. The material over by the left arm to my eye looks like more tape. It's hard to say from the perspective, though.

Q. It would appear to be some kind of a plastic substance -- is that a fair statement? -- or some kind of translucent substance?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, on EE, is this how the baby appeared when it was brought in for you to take a look at?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, on this photo, there is this tape that is, lack of a better word, looks knotted around the neck and the shoulder and then it wraps around the front chest area as well?

A. I don't recall it wrapping around the chest. I guess it would depend on how you laid the body out. Specifically, there was a loop around the neck, and this may have been loose here. I think it was.

Q. Okay. I've got what appears to be a series of your pictures or somebody's pictures from the autopsy, which looks like in all of them they're wrapped across the front, around the neck, and then under -- what would it be? -- the left arm and then knotted back behind the neck; is that correct?

A. Right.

Q. Okay. That knot there appears to be a knot like a bow tie knot, isn't it?

A. Well, it's hard to see what's the side of it, but I think that's the knot that I described, though.

snip

Q. Do you remember -- does this refresh your recollection at all as to how you got the tape off the neck of the baby and around? Because it goes around the neck and it also goes under the arm and then it's knotted back in the back. Do you know how you got that off?

A. Well, the funny thing is in this scene picture which is DD, it's not around the chest and the arm.

Q. Well, it appears it is right there.

A. Well, I don't want to argue with you, but there's tape around the neck here. The majority appears to be over by the arm, whereas now here it's more associated with the chest. That could have been simply a transportation issue.

Q. Well, right here it appears that it goes right across the chest and under the arm in the picture, doesn't it?

A. Well, that's the neck right there and we already agree there's a loop around the neck.

Q. Right. Then we see right here what appears to be tape going -- that same tape going --

A. I'm not seeing that. I think that's a limit probably of the picture and our eyes' resolution.

Q. Okay. Well, is it a fair statement that what you're seeing right here in FF appears to be represented right here and there's much more plastic, or whatever that is, where the baby's left arm is?

A. Well, yeah, I think -- we're seeing it in two different ways, and I'm not trying to argue with you. All I'm seeing is more of the same by the arm that's around the neck. I believe there's a connection there -- see where I'm pointing at right there?

Q. Uh-huh. Yes.

A. That leads over to this. I believe we're looking at the same material here. It's just been moved in position from here to here.

Q. Is there anything in the picture that shows that there's a connection?

A. Well, again, that's what I think is right there on top of the arm and maybe right there.

Q. Okay.

A. Hard to say, though, based on this picture.

Q. Okay. Based on the picture, you did not get all of the other material that was at the scene. Isn't that a fair statement?

A. I don't know.

Q. Okay. Now, the -- leave these right here, if I could.

THE COURT: While he's looking for that and you have the pictures right there, you just indicate this is a tape around the neck. Can you describe the tape? The width? Is it electrician's tape? Plastic tape? Is it sticky tape, not sticky?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, it's clear plastic. As I recall from taking this off the baby, there was nothing particularly sticky anymore.

THE COURT: But did it look like tape, the type that you use to tape something or is it --

THE WITNESS: A lot like wrapping tape, Your Honor, boxing tape.

[thinkaboutit]

Really? That's what you see, eh? Hmmm, maybe I do need to get my "spy glass" out and look.....

Those ends looks really frayed for them to have been cut by sharp scissors....or whatever Dr. P used.....what DID he use? His teeth....:eek:

Lemme go ponder again.......:seeya: :read:

LOL! You are funny! Let's see if I can explain what I am thinking in a somewhat articulate manner - LOL! I am thinking that the part that looks frayed - wasn't actually cut - that portion was frayed or split away from the portion that was still intact and forming the loop before Dr. Peterson made the cut. Does that make sense?

Again though - I want to be clear. I am not saying that I am 100% convinced that this was not debris that floated onto Conner - even if this twine was knotted around his neck. I still think it's possible - and anyone feel free to correct me if this is impossible - that:

The twine was debris floating in the water - possible caught on some other type of debris. The loop - before it looped over Conner's head - was a bigger loop with a very loose knot. It slips over Conner's head - tangles around his little body - and the motion of the waves causes movement of his limbs - which tightens this loop around his neck - and eventually the knot tightens also. Again, I think (and I'm not very scientifically minded - so everyone - don't laugh) - in order for this to occur - the twine would also have to be initially caught on some other type of debris - something stationary - so as the waves attempted to push Conner away from this debris - this is what caused the loop and knot to tighten - eventually - the twine worked it's way loose from the other debris.

Thoughts?

[Wudge]

LOL! You are funny! Let's see if I can explain what I am thinking in a somewhat articulate manner - LOL! I am thinking that the part that looks frayed - wasn't actually cut - that portion was frayed or split away from the portion that was still intact and forming the loop before Dr. Peterson made the cut. Does that make sense?

Again though - I want to be clear. I am not saying that I am 100% convinced that this was not debris that floated onto Conner - even if this twine was knotted around his neck. I still think it's possible - and anyone feel free to correct me if this is impossible - that:

The twine was debris floating in the water - possible caught on some other type of debris. The loop - before it looped over Conner's head - was a bigger loop with a very loose knot. It slips over Conner's head - tangles around his little body - and the motion of the waves causes movement of his limbs - which tightens this loop around his neck - and eventually the knot tightens also. Again, I think (and I'm not very scientifically minded - so everyone - don't laugh) - in order for this to occur - the twine would also have to be initially caught on some other type of debris - something stationary - so as the waves attempted to push Conner away from this debris - this is what caused the loop and knot to tighten - eventually - the twine worked it's way loose from the other debris.

Thoughts?


It is the twice-knotted circle of twine around Connor's neck that is exonerating evidence.

Other than the twine having been tied around Connor's neck by human hand, there was absolutely no explanation for how the smaller circumference of twice-knotted twine could have gotten over Connor's larger head and down past his ears to end up around his neck (basic physics).

Since there was no "reasonable" explanation for the presence of the twine, then there could not be proof beyond a "reasonable" doubt; i.e., unless the jury violated Scott's Constitutional right to due process by speculating -- as Belmessieri admitted the jury did, indeed, do.

[thinkaboutit]

It is the twice-knotted circle of twine around Connor's neck that is exonerating evidence.

Other than the twine having been tied around Connor's neck by human hand, there was absolutely no explanation for how the smaller circumference of twice-knotted twine could have gotten over Connor's larger head and down past his ears to end up around his neck (basic physics).

Since there was no "reasonable" explanation for the presence of the twine, then there could not be proof beyond a "reasonable" doubt; i.e., unless the jury violated Scott's Constitutional right to due process by speculating -- as Belmessieri admitted the jury did, indeed, do.

So you are saying that what I proposed is physically impossible?

Or are you saying that the jury was not legally able to consider what I proposed?

Or both? :)

[Wudge]

So you are saying that what I proposed is physically impossible?

Or are you saying that the jury was not legally able to consider what I proposed?

Or both? :)

.......Both

[JustMyOpinion]

[QUOTE=Wudge;8848724]It is the twice-knotted circle of twine around Connor's neck that is exonerating evidence.

QUOTE]

IN YOUR OWN OPINION.

[Wudge]

[QUOTE=Wudge;8848724]It is the twice-knotted circle of twine around Connor's neck that is exonerating evidence.

QUOTE]

IN YOUR OWN OPINION.

It's not opinion. It's fact. For there was no reasonable explanation provided by the State for the presence of the twine around Connor's neck, none, zip, nade, zero. Hence, by definition, the State did not provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is a perfect examle of the need for professional jurors or the need for potential jurors to have passed an applied logic test before they could be considered for voir dire.

[JustMyOpinion]

[QUOTE=JustMyOpinion;8848734]

It's not opinion. It's fact. For there was no reasonable explanation provided by the State for the presence of the twine around Connor's neck, none, zip, nade, zero. Hence, by definition, the State did not provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

.

The State didn't provide an explanation that YOU find reasonable. You were not present in court to hear/see all of the testimony ( which included actual photographs of Conner/tape), the jurors were.

[Wudge]

[QUOTE=Wudge;8848738]

The State didn't provide an explanation that YOU find reasonable. You were not present in court to hear/see all of the testimony ( which included actual photographs of Conner/tape), the jurors were.

As regards the twine, you previously agreed that no one explained the when and where for the how. If no explanation, then certainly no reasonable explanation

[JustMyOpinion]

[QUOTE=JustMyOpinion;8848741]

As regards the twine, you previously agreed that no one explained the when and where for the how. If no explanation, then certainly no reasonable explanation


Jurors can take circumstantial evidence and utilize it to infer facts not in direct evidence. It is a FACT that you were not present throughout the entire trial or present inside juror deliberations..IMO.

[Wudge]

[QUOTE=Wudge;8848742]


Jurors can take circumstantial evidence and utilize it to infer facts not in direct evidence. It is a FACT that you were not present throughout the entire trial or present inside juror deliberations..IMO.

As regards the twine, you previously agreed that no one explained the when and where for the how. If no explanation, then certainly no reasonable explanation

[JustMyOpinion]

[QUOTE=JustMyOpinion;8848743]

As regards the twine, you previously agreed that no one explained the when and where for the how. If no explanation, then certainly no reasonable explanation

ME stated his opinion that the tape-like material was debris that had become associated with the body. He also testified that Laci went into the water with Conner inside, where he remained until he was expelled a few days before washing ashore ( paraphrasing). Criminalist testified that the bow-type knot was not tightly tied, and the tape-like material was similar to debris collected near Laci Peterson's remains, that her research indicated it was twine used in packing & fishing industry, that it did not match the duct tape found on Laci's remains ( paraphrasing). Hydrologist testified about wind, velocity, tidal movement, long/short waves. ( paraphrasing). I think the jurors could have easily concluded that Conner became entangled in ocean debris ( after expulsion from his mother's body, before washing ashore)
JMO, especially as defense chose not to bring experts who contradicted or challenged the findings of State witnesses..JMO