Was Scott Peterson Wrongfully Convicted?

[attorneywan2be]

Regardless of your stance on the issue of guilt or innocence..the defendant's right to a fair trial is the cornerstone of our justice system...we all have to ask ourselves this question: Did Scott Peterson get a fair trial?

Delucchi's Rulings:

Examples:

1-Delucchi allowed the prosecution to demonstrate to the jury that a woman Laci's size could fit in the tool box and in the boat without being seen....

This demonstration didn't replicate the conditions of the prosecutor's theory regarding the manner Laci's dead body was transported..simply because the demonstration used a live person..Delucchi denied the defense boat experiment because it didn't replicate the conditions of the event in question...this basically demonstrates Delucchi's selective application of the law..

2-Delucchi removed juror #5 (doctor/attorney) during deliberations..juror # 5 told him that there were verbal comments made to him by other jurors that made him reflect on whether or not his safety was at issue.. Delucchi didn't investigate his claim. Juror # 8, Guinasso, stated in an interview with ABC that had juror #5 stayed on the jury it would have been a hung jury.

Sources:
Defense motion for a new trial
http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/story?id=529820&page=1

Police Misconduct:

Examples:

1-Detective Brocchini admitted in court that he excised part of his report that indicated that a witness saw Laci at the warehouse where the boat was stored only few days before her disappearance..
2-Detective Brocchini tampered with Miguel Espidia's statement..he added a reference regarding the use of duct tape in the so called murder plan.

Source: trial transcripts.

Prosecutorial Misconduct:

Examples:

1-Prosecutors committed several discovery violations:

Quote:
Judge Delucchi: I have had this conversation with the prosecution he said at least ten times. It's getting to be vexatious it's starting to annoy me. I'm going to have to start doing something about it to ensure that you guys comply with the discovery.

Source:trial transcripts

2-Distaso misstated the evidence in his closing argument

Examples:

-Distaso told the jury that Amy Rocha testified that on the 23rd Laci brought her curling iron with her to the salon...that's false, IMO, Distaso tried to refute the defense theory by misstating Amy's testimony..

-Distaso told the jury that Susan Medina testified that the city inspector arrived at their house at 10:20 am and left at 10:30 am..that's false. IMO, he misstated her testimony because he was trying to corroborate Karen Servas's new timeline that she found the dog at 10:18 am and not at 10:30 am..

Source: trial transcripts

3-Prosecutors/police might have leaked sealed police reports to Catherine Crier..that is a violation of Scott's right to a fair trial..
This was published in a Modbee article titled : Who was book's deep throat? Author says new Peterson account based on evidence from sealed police reports..

Source : http://www.modbee.com/local/story/10107545p-10931862c.html

Jury Misconduct:

Examples:

1- Richelle Nice ( who replaced juror #7) stated the following on Court TV chat on December 21, 2004:
"There were 11 people in there who had already deliberated on issues that they did not have to re-deliberate. Only Dennis and I had to go over those issues."

This means they totally violated the following judge's instructions, that he gave when he replaced juror #7 with the alternate "Richelle Nice" :

Judge Delucchi:
"The People and the defendant have the right to a verdict reached only after full participation of the twelve jurors who return the verdict. This right may be assured only if you begin your deliberations again from the beginning. You must, therefore, set aside and disregard all past deliberations and begin deliberating anew."


Sources:
http://www.courttv.com/talk/chat_transcripts/2004/1221peterson-nice.html
Trial transcripts

2- Mary Mylett "Juror 10" stated the following in an article that was Published on December 19, 2004 by Modesto Bee, the title of the article "Linked by a Tragic Loss"

Mylett Said:
-"Every single night since July or August, every night when I go to bed, I am part of the Rocha family"

-"My nightmares were during the day (in court), and the dreams helped me heal at night."

This indicates 2 key points:

1-She was very biased towards the victim's family and identified with them.

2-She made up her mind at the beginning of the case that Scott was guilty..otherwise, why would she describe her days in court as nightmares?

She also stated:

"Wants Rocha to know that for more than six months during Scott Peterson's trial, she watched her carefully from the jury box".

According to the judge instructions, she was not supposed to be influenced by anyone's reaction or opinion on what was going on at the trial..

Source: http://www.modbee.com/reports/peterson/trial/story/9634098p-10518507c.html

3-Jurors were discussing the case before deliberations..judge Delucchi asked juror #6 if juror #5 (Justin Falconer) commented on the anchor..juror #6 stated that THEY (in plural) were talking about anchors and boating..etc..also juror #7 told the judge that several jurors asked about the weight and the size of the anchor in the case, but he couldn't remember who those jurors were.. he also said, that on occasions, there would be a conversation going, and someone would go "shh" and everyone would stop..!!!!!!

Source: defense motion for a new trial

Defense effectiveness

Mark Geragos did a very poor job from the beginning to the end..from the jury selection process to his closing argument.

Examples:

1- He didn't use all his pre-emptory challenges during the jury selection, I think he accepted jurors that clearly should have been rejected..

2- His cross examination of Karen Servas, he didn't challenge her timeline which was based on finding McKenzie at 10:18 am, as Karen Servas was testifying on cross, Geragos told her that they will be going through her timeline later on, the problem is, he never did, he told the judge that he will resume her cross examination after lunch, well, when they returned to court, he informed the judge that he discussed it with Mr. Distaso and that he was not going to ask anymore questions because they had a couple of witnesses they needed to rush through...that's negligence loud and clear..even judge Delucchi was clearly surprised..

3-The cross examination of Jacobson, he testified on direct that they were not able to identify the cell tower that handled Scott's call at 1:30 pm on January 11th, yet, the prosecution presented an exhibit that pointed an arrow to Hollister as his location for that call, Mark didn't ask how were they able to place Scott at Hollister if they were not able to identify the cell tower..

Source : trial transcripts

Media Influence:

The media spread false reports about the case..they convicted Scott on a daily basis poisoning the jury pool..those reports were proved false in the court of law.

Examples:

1-Laci's blood and vomit on the mop
2-Scott refused to let the police search and demanded a search warrant..
3-Scott didn't offer the marina receipt they found it in the truck as they were searching...
4-Scott just purchased a 1/4 of a million dollars insurance policy on Laci..
5-The house smelled like bleach and the floor was wet..
6-Burglars saw Scott doing something suspicious at 3:00 am on December 24th, 2002
7-Etc..etc..etc..

Sources:

Trial transcripts
Various media reports

Conclusion: Did Scott Peterson get a fair trial? The answer is: No -----> Scott Peterson was wrongfully convicted

[Wudge]

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.

[attorneywan2be]

I agree Wudge..what's amazing is that most of the prosecution witnesses's testimonies helped the defense more than the state, most notable is the medical examiner's testimony that Conner was a full term baby and his estimated gestational age was 9 months...yet, the jury completely ignored this important piece of exonerating evidence...

[One2Snoop]

I agree Wudge..what's amazing is that most of the prosecution witnesses's testimonies helped the defense more than the state, most notable is the medical examiner's testimony that Conner was a full term baby and his estimated gestational age was 9 months...yet, the jury completely ignored this important piece of exonerating evidence...

I don't believe they ignored this - from my understanding and from having two children of my own - determining gestational age is not an exact science. I was given 3 different due dates with my first (spanning 6 weeks) and 2 due dates with my second which was determined by ultrasound. So even ultrasounds can obviously be wrong if I was given a different due date after each one. I'm sure many, many pregnant woman would testify to the above.

[attorneywan2be]

I don't believe they ignored this - from my understanding and from having two children of my own - determining gestational age is not an exact science. I was given 3 different due dates with my first (spanning 6 weeks) and 2 due dates with my second which was determined by ultrasound. So even ultrasounds can obviously be wrong if I was given a different due date after each one. I'm sure many, many pregnant woman would testify to the above.


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

[Wudge]

I don't believe they ignored this - from my understanding and from having two children of my own - determining gestational age is not an exact science. I was given 3 different due dates with my first (spanning 6 weeks) and 2 due dates with my second which was determined by ultrasound. So even ultrasounds can obviously be wrong if I was given a different due date after each one. I'm sure many, many pregnant woman would testify to the above.

Estimating gestational age is not an exact science. That's the problem with the testimony from the State's expecrt, Dr. Devore. He represented his finding to a precision range beyond what's recognized and practiced within the medical profession.

[One2Snoop]

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

My doctor was 6 weeks off. Doctor's aren't god and they do make mistakes particularly when it comes to the gestational age of a baby. For all we know, Conner could've just been a big baby to begin with. I'm sure you've taken that into consideration?

[thinkaboutit]

My doctor was 6 weeks off. Doctor's aren't god and they do make mistakes particularly when it comes to the gestational age of a baby. For all we know, Conner could've just been a big baby to begin with. I'm sure you've taken that into consideration?

One2Snoop, if you don't mind me asking - what was your due date based on (the one that was 6 weeks off)?

[thinkaboutit]

My doctor was 6 weeks off. Doctor's aren't god and they do make mistakes particularly when it comes to the gestational age of a baby. For all we know, Conner could've just been a big baby to begin with. I'm sure you've taken that into consideration?

Actually, the facts indicate just the opposite - that Conner was actually a small baby. The most accurate ultrasound (for determining EDC) for any pregnant woman is the first ultrasound. That is because that in the first trimester - all babies develop at the same rate. It is not until the second half of the pregnancy that genes and other hereditary factors kick in - and growth rates either slow or speed up. Conner's development at Laci's first ultrasound coincided with her first due date calculation - which was based on her last menstrual period. Then later, when she had her second ultrasound - the doctor notated a possible due date, six days later than the first - which actually indicates that Conner was either actually younger than they anticipated - or the more likely - that he was simply a small baby. Because the earlier ultrasound is typically more accurate - Laci's ob-gyn did not officially change her EDC (more commonly known as due date).

[attorneywan2be]

My doctor was 6 weeks off. Doctor's aren't god and they do make mistakes particularly when it comes to the gestational age of a baby. For all we know, Conner could've just been a big baby to begin with. I'm sure you've taken that into consideration?


BTW, the jury are not allowed to take into consideration their own experience as to a certain issue, they should only consider the evidence presented in court..there was no evidence presented that due date could be off by 6 weeks..they should have accepted that Conner was 32 weeks at the time of Laci's disappearance ..since the ME stated that Conner was a full term baby, 9 months old, they should have found Scott "not guilty"

[One2Snoop]

One2Snoop, if you don't mind me asking - what was your due date based on (the one that was 6 weeks off)?

Due date given was mid April - baby was born very early March. She was full term but small - 5lbs. From the records I kept I knew that April was way off. I hope this answers your question?

And when I said Conner could've been a big baby - I'm fully aware that a majority of the growth occurs in the latter part of the pregnancy - she was almost 8 months pregnant correct? I remember thats about the time I blew up like a balloon. (sorry not a technical term but thats what I felt like) :tongue: The pictures I saw of Laci pregnant reminded me of a friend of mine - almost the same size as Laci - and she had 10-14 lb babies (with no gestational diabetes involved) Ouch!

Anyhow, I just don't buy that Conner was full term when his body was found unless science can somehow determine he continued to grow inside Laci's body after her death. I just don't think thats possible unless she were kept on life support somehow.

[thinkaboutit]

Due date given was mid April - baby was born very early March. She was full term but small - 5lbs. From the records I kept I knew that April was way off. I hope this answers your question?

And when I said Conner could've been a big baby - I'm fully aware that a majority of the growth occurs in the latter part of the pregnancy - she was almost 8 months pregnant correct? I remember thats about the time I blew up like a balloon. (sorry not a technical term but thats what I felt like) :tongue: The pictures I saw of Laci pregnant reminded me of a friend of mine - almost the same size as Laci - and she had 10-14 lb babies (with no gestational diabetes involved) Ouch!

Anyhow, I just don't buy that Conner was full term when his body was found unless science can somehow determine he continued to grow inside Laci's body after her death. I just don't think thats possible unless she were kept on life support somehow.



I know exactly what you're saying - I felt like a balloon myself!! :-)

I wasn't saying the majority of the growth is in the latter part of the pregnancy. I was saying that it is only possible to determine whether a baby is going to be small or large for it's age in the second half of the pregnancy (i.e., all babies at 5 weeks gestation are the same size - however not all babies at 20 weeks are the same size). I was referring to your suggestion that it was possible that Conner was a big baby for his age - I was saying the facts suggest he was in fact a small baby for his age - which makes his measurements at 32 weeks gestation (according to the prosecution) make less sense.

I think what Conner's size suggests, for some, is that Laci did not die on December 24th - which exonerates Scott Peterson.

[One2Snoop]

According to this the pathologists weren't in agreement as to the gestational age of the baby... Just because Geragos was able to get the medical examiner to say "correct" to "nobody estimated gestational age at 32 weeks" we should keep in mind the word "estimated" was used. Another analysis estimated 33-38 weeks. 33 weeks is pretty close to 32. I would tend to hang onto the 33 or 34 for that matter instead of the 38 since that was a much closer estimate.

How do you explain the massive decay to Laci's body but not Conner's other than the explanation given below? I don't recall but did the bag that was found near Conner's body show any DNA evidence that he had been inside it?

snip

But Dr. Brian Peterson, no relation to the couple, told the judge that the condition of the bodies indicated Laci Peterson was dumped into the bay still carrying her child.

The pathologist said that some time later, after weeks and perhaps months of massive decay to Laci Peterson's body, the child's remains eventually separated from her womb.
The remains of the fetus washed onto the shore of San Francisco Bay April 13 and Laci Peterson's the following day.

Dr. Peterson testified that the mother-to-be's remains were so badly decomposed that he could not determine how she was killed and could not offer a time of death more precise than "some months" before she was discovered.

Her head, forearms, hands, lower legs and most of her internal organs were missing. The fetus, on the other hand, showed signs of internal decomposition, but its skin was not missing or marred to the degree that Laci Peterson's was.
The doctor said he concluded the child's remains were less decayed because he was protected by his mother's uterus.

"With time, tidal action and animal feeding the uterus wore away and at that time, the fetus was released," said the medical examiner.[/color]

snip

The defense also grilled the pathologist about the age of the fetus. Laci Peterson disappeared when she was about 32 weeks pregnant. The pathologist said the fetus was full term and another analysis concluded the child was between 33 and 38 months.
"Nobody estimated gestational age at 32 weeks," pressed Geragos.

"Correct," the pathologist said.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/111703_ctv.html

[thinkaboutit]

According to this the pathologists weren't in agreement as to the gestational age of the baby... Just because Geragos was able to get the medical examiner to say "correct" to "nobody estimated gestational age at 32 weeks" we should keep in mind the word "estimated" was used. Another analysis estimated 33-38 weeks. 33 weeks is pretty close to 32. I would tend to hang onto the 33 or 34 for that matter instead of the 38 since that was a much closer estimate.

How do you explain the massive decay to Laci's body but not Conner's other than the explanation given below? I don't recall but did the bag that was found near Conner's body show any DNA evidence that he had been inside it?


http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/111703_ctv.html

I don't think there is another explanation for Conner's lack of decomposition needed to support the theory that Laci lived beyond December 24th. Laci could have been kept alive until some time in January and then put into the bay.

Laci actually was 33 weeks pregnant on December 24th according to her medical chart and her original EDC. There was testimony that the 32 on her chart should have read 32 - 6 on the 23rd - meaning 32 weeks and 6 days - which would have made her 33 weeks on the 24th. However, I'm assuming that the range given - 33 - 38 weeks by the forensic anthropologist means - 33 weeks if Conner was a big baby - 38 weeks if Conner was a small baby. But Conner being a big baby at 33 weeks is NOT supported by the measurements taken at the second ultrasound. The doctor notated a later EDC because Conner was smaller than expected.

[Beebee]

I know exactly what you're saying - I felt like a balloon myself!! :-)

- I was saying the facts suggest he was in fact a small baby for his age - which makes his measurements at 32 weeks gestation (according to the prosecution) make less sense.

I think what Conner's size suggests, for some, is that Laci did not die on December 24th - which exonerates Scott Peterson.

I never thought about it from that point of view but you are right. It is suggestive that Conner was in fact small for his age. That wouldn't be surprising either as Scott and Laci are on the small side themselves.

[Invrdv8]

No, the verdict was righ on. Attorneywannabe, can't you discuss the case without copying and pasting altered transcripts from that sorry site sii?
You have stated several times that the transcripts on SII have been altered. Why don't you give us a few examples? Maybe you should do some "copying and pasting" to document your accusations. I think Attorneywan2be is doing a very good job of supplying documentation to substantiate his/her comments. Rather than ridicule maybe you should do the same.:no:

[TuscanDreams]

Hedidit,

Hello and welcome to the forum. I'd like to ask a favor, could you please take a breath and then consider discussing the facts and not the posters? I understand that this case incites passion, a woman and her baby are dead. Let's focus on the facts and discuss the case material, ok?

Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter, I look forward to seeing your posts.

[accordn2me]

No, the verdict was righ on. Attorneywannabe, can't you discuss the case without copying and pasting altered transcripts from that sorry site sii?Do you have another transcript site? I'm a relative newbie to the case in so far as I haven't really delved into testimony, interview, pics and such. I'm finding a lot of information on the sii site. FYI, everything I've read so far is not favorable to the defense.

[triipn]

I have no idea whether he did or didn't do this crime but I will say its very scary to know that you can be convicted and sentenced to death by Prosecutors that can present NO real evidence against you, NONE! Anyone that thinks this trial was fair needs to be put in the same situation and see if they think it was far for them. You need to PROVE someones guilt, not just assume it.:patriot:

[attorneywan2be]

I have no idea whether he did or didn't do this crime but I will say its very scary to know that you can be convicted and sentenced to death by Prosecutors that can present NO real evidence against you, NONE! Anyone that thinks this trial was fair needs to be put in the same situation and see if they think it was far for them. You need to PROVE someones guilt, not just assume it.:patriot:



I agree...

This whole case was based on imagination, total speculation!!

They told the jury he killed her in the house, but there was no evidence a murder has ever occurred there.

They told the jury he put her in the tool box, but there was no evidence her body was ever there.

They told the jury he put her in the truck, but there was no evidence her body was ever there.

They told the jury he dumped her in the bay, but there was no evidence her body was ever there, in the water, no fish bite marks on her body, after extensive search they never found her body in the water in the bay, no one saw her body floating, there was no sign of animal feeding on Conner's body, even if he was in her uterus, there was an opening at the top (the fundus), so he would have been exposed to the elements and marine life, the medical examiner ( a prosecution witness) testified that the mineral deposits found on her pants were the result of repeated wetting and drying of her pants over a long period of time, how could that have occurred at the bottom of the bay?

This is a TRAVESTY of JUSTICE...

IMO

[TuscanDreams]

I agree...

This whole case was based on imagination, total speculation!!

They told the jury he killed her in the house, but there was no evidence a murder has ever occurred there.

They told the jury he put her in the tool box, but there was no evidence her body was ever there.

They told the jury he put her in the truck, but there was no evidence her body was ever there.
IMO

Would you agree that if Laci was manually strangled that there would be no forensic evidence, such as blood, at the scene?

[enlightenme]

I agree...

This whole case was based on imagination, total speculation!!

They told the jury he killed her in the house, but there was no evidence a murder has ever occurred there.

They told the jury he put her in the tool box, but there was no evidence her body was ever there.

They told the jury he put her in the truck, but there was no evidence her body was ever there.

They told the jury he dumped her in the bay, but there was no evidence her body was ever there, in the water, no fish bite marks on her body, after extensive search they never found her body in the water in the bay, no one saw her body floating, there was no sign of animal feeding on Conner's body, even if he was in her uterus, there was an opening at the top (the fundus), so he would have been exposed to the elements and marine life, the medical examiner ( a prosecution witness) testified that the mineral deposits found on her pants were the result of repeated wetting and drying of her pants over a long period of time, how could that have occurred at the bottom of the bay?

This is a TRAVESTY of JUSTICE...

IMO

There were barnacles on Laci's body. There was testimony that she was in the water 3 to 6 months.

The frayed opening at the top of Laci's uterus (the fundus) was probably finally opened up when her body was dislodged and floated to the surface during the 2 day storm. Before that it was thin, but not open to the elements, until Conner broke through it and was washed ashore.

I'm sorry, I just do not see any defense attorney trying to "float" the idea that the bodies were placed on the shore, 4 months later, a mile apart, after a storm.

[Wudge]

Would you agree that if Laci was manually strangled that there would be no forensic evidence, such as blood, at the scene?


A lack of evidence is not evidence prosecutors can use. The defense can use such facts, because, at a bare minimum, they support reasonable doubt.

[enlightenme]

A lack of evidence is not evidence prosecutors can use. The defense can use such facts, because, at a bare minimum, they support reasonable doubt.


Strangulation seems to be a very popular way to kill women. I hear it all the time. Hundreds of cases.

Not very often do you hear of a man being strangled. I'm thinking of one case recently where a woman strangled the man that her ex-husband sent to kill her. I think that was in Oregon, IIRC.

Many cases are based on CE only, with little or NO forensic or direct evidence. CE carries the same weight as direct evidence.

[Invrdv8]

Would you agree that if Laci was manually strangled that there would be no forensic evidence, such as blood, at the scene?
How about knocking her unconscious, placing her on maybe a tarp , then strangling her. The tarp would prevent her bodily fluids upon death from being detected in the house. Didn't they find a tarp with gasoline on it? Wouldn't the gasoline destroy any forensic evidence?

[TuscanDreams]

A lack of evidence is not evidence prosecutors can use. The defense can use such facts, because, at a bare minimum, they support reasonable doubt.

In my experience, I've had clients convicted of murder after they smothered or strangled their victim. Normally, the teeth leave a mark on inside the inner lips if a smothering occurred. If a strangulation occurs, tiny little veins in the eyes break, it's called pectial (can't spell it) hemorraging and the hyboid bone breaks.

I'm not sure that I agree that only the defense can use this type of case material, do you have more information on that?

[attorneywan2be]

Would you agree that if Laci was manually strangled that there would be no forensic evidence, such as blood, at the scene?


Absolutely not...!!!

Quote:

DR. HENRY LEE, FORENSIC EXPERT: Well, when I heard the verdict, it was a surprise, too. As I say before, if the jury use compassion (UNINTELLIGIBLE) they will go to a conviction. If the jury look at the physical evidence, use logic, they are probably going to acquit him. And it looks like, you know, the defense did not really use physical evidence to prove otherwise.

---------------------------------------

KING: If there were smothering, would there have been evidence?

LEE: Depends on -- sometime we find saliva, large amount of saliva, nasal secretion, mixed with small amount of blood on the pillow. Also, we usually can find some urine, fecal material, body fluid on the bed sheet and the quilt. Don't forget, she is pregnant. Late stage of pregnant. In theory, you should find some evidence, which did not find.


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0411/12/lkl.01.html

[thinkaboutit]

I have no idea whether he did or didn't do this crime but I will say its very scary to know that you can be convicted and sentenced to death by Prosecutors that can present NO real evidence against you, NONE! Anyone that thinks this trial was fair needs to be put in the same situation and see if they think it was far for them. You need to PROVE someones guilt, not just assume it.:patriot:

Welcome to the board Triipn!!!! :)

[thinkaboutit]

To everyone who believes Scott strangled or smothered Laci - what is your opinion on how her ribs were broken? Which according to the forensic anthropologist who testified, the breaks were peri-mortem - meaning at or around the time of death? And it was her 5th and 6th rib - which would have been under her arm - just below the arm pit area. I always found it interesting that the prosecution ignored this fact.

[thinkaboutit]

270) Mark Geragos: Scott was there, and then right over here was Laci?
271) Amy Rocha: Yes.
272) Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, when you were, you said you were helping her style her hair. Is that something called a fun flip?
273) Amy Rocha: Well, we did her hair flipped out, yes.
274) Mark Geragos: Okay. And you were showing her how to take a,
275) Amy Rocha: Curling iron.
276) Mark Geragos: curling iron?
277) Amy Rocha: And flip it out.

So, it appears that the prosecution did NOT lie about the curling iron, doesn't it

They were at a salon - plenty of curling irons there. It does not say anywhere in Amy's testimony that Laci brought her curling iron with her to the salon. In fact the idea is really kind of silly.

[accordn2me]

To everyone who believes Scott strangled or smothered Laci - what is your opinion on how her ribs were broken? Which according to the forensic anthropologist who testified, the breaks were peri-mortem - meaning at or around the time of death? And it was her 5th and 6th rib - which would have been under her arm - just below the arm pit area. I always found it interesting that the prosecution ignored this fact.Yes. It is interesting if the prosecution ignored that...especially with the FA's peri-mortem opinion. From experience, if someone grabs you from behind, under your arms, locks their arms around you, lifts you off the ground and squeezes hard, you have a couple of minutes before you pass out.....and it could probably break your 5th and 6th ribs.

[thinkaboutit]

Not really. Laci would be doing the hair with her own curling iron, not a professional cosmetologist's curling iron. She would want to be able to do it with her own equipment.

I am not sure of the legality of using someone else's equipment anyway.

I'm not sure of the legality of it either - but the real point is - Distaso said Amy testified that Laci brought her curling iron to the salon - but Amy testified to no such thing.

[thinkaboutit]

Yes. It is interesting if the prosecution ignored that...especially with the FA's peri-mortem opinion. From experience, if someone grabs you from behind, under your arms, locks their arms around you, lifts you off the ground and squeezes hard, you have a couple of minutes before you pass out.....and it could probably break your 5th and 6th ribs.


I hope you don't mind me asking - what experience is that? I can't imagine breaking a young, healthy woman's ribs like that.

In any case - wouldn't she have fought? Wouldn't Scott have had scratches on his hands, face?

[Beebee]

Not really. Laci would be doing the hair with her own curling iron, not a professional cosmetologist's curling iron. She would want to be able to do it with her own equipment.

I am not sure of the legality of using someone else's equipment anyway.

I'm just curious, have you ever taken your own curling iron to a salon? Do you know anyone who has? In all my visits to the salon, I have never seen somebody bring their own curling iron, nor do I know anyone who has. "Their own equipment" :confused: A curling iron is a culing iron.

[Wudge]

In my experience, I've had clients convicted of murder after they smothered or strangled their victim. Normally, the teeth leave a mark on inside the inner lips if a smothering occurred. If a strangulation occurs, tiny little veins in the eyes break, it's called pectial (can't spell it) hemorraging and the hyboid bone breaks.

I'm not sure that I agree that only the defense can use this type of case material, do you have more information on that?



Tuscan, in criminal trials, prosecutors are not required to provide an absence of evidence. Prosecutors are required to provide "evidence" that proves the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

You are talking about a situation akin to a prosecutor standing up and claiming: I have no forensic evidence. So I'm asking the Court to tell the jury we must assume that the defendant either destroyed the evidence that should be there or they were too smart to leave behind any forensic evidence that I could use to prove the charge against the defendant. Therfore, I am asking the Court to allow the case to proceed without evidence.

To so request the Court's indulgence would be to try and invoke the most unimaginable kind of circular logic into our system of jurisprudence.

[Wudge]

Not really. Laci would be doing the hair with her own curling iron, not a professional cosmetologist's curling iron. She would want to be able to do it with her own equipment.

I am not sure of the legality of using someone else's equipment anyway.

What Distaso told the jury about the curling iron just before he ended his rebuttal argument was a boldfaced lie.

Quoting Distaso

"What the defense didn't tell you -- and my guess is that they
just simply forgot. But what they didn't tell you is, Amy Rocha testified that
when Laci went to the salon that night, she brought her curling iron with her.
So we know without any doubt that Laci Peterson, whether Margarita put the curling iron away or not, we know she went back to it that day, because she took it to the salon at 5:45 in the afternoon."

100% lie.

[accordn2me]

I hope you don't mind me asking - what experience is that? I can't imagine breaking a young, healthy woman's ribs like that.

In any case - wouldn't she have fought? Wouldn't Scott have had scratches on his hands, face?nawww....you can ask me anything...

i was in a rather violent relationship with my husband (years ago, thankfully). he had just told me he had an affair with the next door neighbor. i was storming out to confront her when he grabbed me from behind as i described. i don't know what a pregnant Laci would have done but i fought while i was conscious. my husband did not sustain scratches....bruises to his shins...IIRC...it was over rather quickly....when i came to...my ribs were not broken but i thought they were....

[thinkaboutit]

nawww....you can ask me anything...

i was in a rather violent relationship with my husband (years ago, thankfully). he had just told me he had an affair with the next door neighbor. i was storming out to confront her when he grabbed me from behind as i described. i don't know what a pregnant Laci would have done but i fought while i was conscious. my husband did not sustain scratches....bruises to his shins...IIRC...it was over rather quickly....when i came to...my ribs were not broken but i thought they were....

Thanks for sharing.

[One2Snoop]

What Distaso told the jury about the curling iron just before he ended his rebuttal argument was a boldfaced lie.

Quoting Distaso

"What the defense didn't tell you -- and my guess is that they
just simply forgot. But what they didn't tell you is, Amy Rocha testified that
when Laci went to the salon that night, she brought her curling iron with her.
So we know without any doubt that Laci Peterson, whether Margarita put the curling iron away or not, we know she went back to it that day, because she took it to the salon at 5:45 in the afternoon."

100% lie.

This seems like such a non-issue in my opinion. I don't see that the Curling Iron issue itself really establishes anything. Did it have anything to do with Laci's death? The only point I see regarding this conversation is it placed Laci at the Salon to help establish a timeline for her last known whereabouts.

[Wudge]

This seems like such a non-issue in my opinion. I don't see that the Curling Iron issue itself really establishes anything. Did it have anything to do with Laci's death? The only point I see regarding this conversation is it placed Laci at the Salon to help establish a timeline for her last known whereabouts.

The curling iron is evidence that Laci was alive on 12/24. As are the web site searches at 8:44AM on 12/24 for a a gap scarf and sunflower motif umbrella stand.

If Laci was alive that morning, at the very least, her being alive at that time works heavily against the State's theory that this was a long thought out premeditated murder by Scott. Because its ridiculous to think that a plan is executed that left behind absolutely no forensic evidence or scent anywhere, yet the murderer was so stupid that they hsd to carry a body out to their truck in broad daylight when they could have transferred it to the truck under the cover of darkness.

[LionRun]

nawww....you can ask me anything...

i was in a rather violent relationship with my husband (years ago, thankfully). he had just told me he had an affair with the next door neighbor. i was storming out to confront her when he grabbed me from behind as i described. i don't know what a pregnant Laci would have done but i fought while i was conscious. my husband did not sustain scratches....bruises to his shins...IIRC...it was over rather quickly....when i came to...my ribs were not broken but i thought they were....

Accordn2me, I am glad that you chose to leave such an abusive and dangerous man. Prior to you telling your story I had envisioned what happened to you as a possibility of what happened concerning Laci's broken ribs. However, we will never know at this point, unless Scott comes out and says it. But, I speculate that that could have been what happened.

Lion

[accordn2me]

Accordn2me, I am glad that you chose to leave such an abusive and dangerous man. Prior to you telling your story I had envisioned what happened to you as a possibility of what happened concerning Laci's broken ribs. However, we will never know at this point, unless Scott comes out and says it. But, I speculate that that could have been what happened.

Lion
Thanks, Lion. :rose:

and don't forget CHEATER! the cardinal sins of relationships if you ask me

[Wearing A Halo]

The curling iron is evidence that Laci was alive on 12/24. As are the web site searches at 8:44AM on 12/24 for a a gap scarf and sunflower motif umbrella stand.

If Laci was alive that morning, at the very least, her being alive at that time works heavily against the State's theory that this was a long thought out premeditated murder by Scott. Because its ridiculous to think that a plan is executed that left behind absolutely no forensic evidence or scent anywhere, yet the murderer was so stupid that they hsd to carry a body out to their truck in broad daylight when they could have transferred it to the truck under the cover of darkness.

"If Laci was alive "

So now the possibility that Laci was not alive exists.

According to you, what are the parameters to establish premeditation of murder? Is premeditation years, months, weeks, days, hours, minutes or seconds before the act of murder?

[Miss Bootsie]

The curling iron is evidence that Laci was alive on 12/24. As are the web site searches at 8:44AM on 12/24 for a a gap scarf and sunflower motif umbrella stand.



There were not any web site searches for a gap scarf and sunflower umbrella stand at 8:44AM on 12/24.


You should review Wall's testimony. Read very carefully.

[Hey Paula]

I'm just curious, have you ever taken your own curling iron to a salon? Do you know anyone who has? In all my visits to the salon, I have never seen somebody bring their own curling iron, nor do I know anyone who has. "Their own equipment" :confused: A curling iron is a culing iron.

Laci has been described as a perfectionist, and as such, I can envision her wanting to learn a hairdo technque using her own equipment. Although I don't use a curling iron, I've seen a few, and they vary in circumference size as well as material, ranging from metal to to non-stick. I think, given that Amy was her sister, Laci would have felt comfortable bringing her own equipment to the salon, and having Amy teach her the technique using her own equipment.

IMO

[accordn2me]

The Trial -- Guilt Phase: Witnesses for Defendant's Case in Chief



In Alphabetical Order by Surname



Bertalotto, Kevin / DA Investigator / Oct 20 & 21

Buehler, Jon / MPD / Oct 25

Cavallero, James Anthony / Britz Fertilizer / Oct 18

Cordova, Ricardo / Neighbor & Judge / Oct 21

Gebler, Steven Howard / CTL Engineer / Oct 18

Grogan, Craig / MPD / Oct 25

Hicks, Michael / MPD Tactical Patrol / Oct 25 & 26

Jensen, Carl / Private Investigator / Oct 18

Laffer, Martin G. / CPA / Oct 18 & 19

March, Charles Michael / Gyn-Infertility-Reproduction / Oct 21

Peterson, Jacqueline / Scott's Mother / Oct 25

Peterson, Lee / Scott's Dad / Oct 25

Phillips, Timothy / East Bay Reg Park / Oct 19, 20

Seitz, Ronald / Dog Handler / Oct 20

Is this a complete list of ALL the witnesses the defense presented during the criminal phase of the trial?

[Miss Bootsie]

There were not any web site searches for a gap scarf and sunflower umbrella stand at 8:44AM on 12/24.


You should review Wall's testimony. Read very carefully.

Allow me to clarify.

Wall testified that someone looked at a page.
He did not testify that anyone did a site search for the gap scarf and umbrella stand.

[attorneywan2be]

Media Influence:

1, Satanists kidnapped laci
2. Garegos would announce the true killer in 3 weeks
3. Homelelss people kidnapped Laci
4. Laci had a sonogram on December 23, 2002
5. Scott knew who did it but couldn't tell Amber cuz it would "hurt" too many people
6. Scott "lost" his wife before Dec 9th
7. This would be his first Christmas without his wife.
8. The baby was cut out of Laci's body
9. Donnie and the brown van took Laci

I have many more but those are the ones off the top of my head


Sources: media, Mark Garegos and Scott's own words.

Scott got the fairest trial that could be. Hearsay, ordinarily was allowed in his defense many times.

As for the judge warning the prosecution, the prosecution answered ALL of Garegos's discovery claims with the Bates stamp number on the document. Nothing was withheld no matter what Garegos says. That was proven in the replies by the prosecution.

When you quoted my initial post on this thread, you edited it by removing some words..you are not supposed to do that, you can snip it..but you can't remove words or part of a paragraph leaving it out of context from someone's else post..for example, you removed the headings of "prosecutorial misconduct" leaving the content of that paragraph under "police misconduct" ...then you removed the paragraph that has to do with jury misconduct leaving the part where I listed the name of the source of the info under "police misconduct"..

[LionRun]

Laci has been described as a perfectionist, and as such, I can envision her wanting to learn a hairdo technque using her own equipment. Although I don't use a curling iron, I've seen a few, and they vary in circumference size as well as material, ranging from metal to to non-stick. I think, given that Amy was her sister, Laci would have felt comfortable bringing her own equipment to the salon, and having Amy teach her the technique using her own equipment.

IMO

This is what I was thinking. I heard one of her friends in an interview once, telling about how if Laci were throwing a party that she expected her guests to arrive nicely dressed, and if they didn't she would have a talk with them about it. This was just one example of how Laci appeared to need perfection and organization in her life, at least in some areas.

It takes me time to adjust to a new curling iron, styling brush or blow dryer. I have a certain way that I do my hair, and if I were to change styles or do something different using a curling iron, I might bring my curling iron, too.

But, what am I missing when it comes to the curling iron relating to evidence? TIA for anyone's help with this.

Lion

[Beebee]

Allow me to clarify.

Wall testified that someone looked at a page.
He did not testify that anyone did a site search for the gap scarf and umbrella stand.

So you think all the items were listed on bookmarks or what? And Scott used bookmarks to give an impression? What are you saying?

[One2Snoop]

The curling iron is evidence that Laci was alive on 12/24. As are the web site searches at 8:44AM on 12/24 for a a gap scarf and sunflower motif umbrella stand.

If Laci was alive that morning, at the very least, her being alive at that time works heavily against the State's theory that this was a long thought out premeditated murder by Scott. Because its ridiculous to think that a plan is executed that left behind absolutely no forensic evidence or scent anywhere, yet the murderer was so stupid that they hsd to carry a body out to their truck in broad daylight when they could have transferred it to the truck under the cover of darkness.

:shrug: How does a curling iron prove If Laci was alive on 12/24?

[Wudge]

:shrug: How does a curling iron prove If Laci was alive on 12/24?

The curling iron goes to Laci being alive on 12/24, because the maid, Margarita Nava, testified that on 12/23 she had put everything away that was out in the bathroom. Amy testified after Margarita and said that when Laci was at the salon the night before, she had taught Laci how to use a curling iron to do a fun flip. She further testified that the flip was something you would do when styling your hair for the day after getting up in the morning.

Finally, pictures taken after Laci went missing show the curling iron had been taken out.

Geragos made this linkage in his closing argument. It caught Distaso totally off guard. So he tried to provide cover by telling a total lie just before he ended his rebuttal argument.

[Hey Paula]

The curling iron goes to Laci being alive on 12/24, because the maid, Margarita Nava, testified that on 12/23 she had put everything away that was out in the bathroom. Amy testified after Margarita and said that when Laci was at the salon the night before, she had taught Laci how to use a curling iron to do a fun flip. She further testified that the flip was something you would do when styling your hair for the day after getting up in the morning.

Finally, pictures taken after Laci went missing show the curling iron had been taken out.

Geragos made this linkage in his closing argument. It caught Distaso totally off guard. So he tried to provide cover by telling a total lie just before he ended his rebuttal argument.

Hi Wudge!

Laci returned from the salon after Ms Nava had already cleaned the house, and might have even practiced a bit with the curling while the technique was still fresh in her mind. In any case, since Laci planned on using the curling iron the next morning, she will have left it out, so I don't think it's proof that Laci was alive on the morning of 12/24.

IMO

[attorneywan2be]

The curling iron goes to Laci being alive on 12/24, because the maid, Margarita Nava, testified that on 12/23 she had put everything away that was out in the bathroom. Amy testified after Margarita and said that when Laci was at the salon the night before, she had taught Laci how to use a curling iron to do a fun flip. She further testified that the flip was something you would do when styling your hair for the day after getting up in the morning.

Finally, pictures taken after Laci went missing show the curling iron had been taken out.

Geragos made this linkage in his closing argument. It caught Distaso totally off guard. So he tried to provide cover by telling a total lie just before he ended his rebuttal argument.

Exactly! I hope they can use that in the appeal..

[Wudge]

Exactly! I hope they can use that in the appeal..

Undoubtedly Distaso's wrap-up lie will be part of the appeal. But given numerous other appeal issues that, I believe, are more significant and monstrous in weight, I doubt Distaso's lie would end up being the basis for reversal.

This appeal in this case is going to scream for a landmark ruling.

[attorneywan2be]

Hi Wudge!

Laci returned from the salon after Ms Nava had already cleaned the house, and might have even practiced a bit with the curling while the technique was still fresh in her mind. In any case, since Laci planned on using the curling iron the next morning, she will have left it out, so I don't think it's proof that Laci was alive on the morning of 12/24.

IMO

The jury had to work with the evidence at hand..here are the set of facts:

1- per testimony, on December 23, 2002, the maid put away everything in the bathroom

2-On December 24, 2002, the police found the curling iron on the counter..

3-Amy testified that the curling iron is something someone would use in the morning to style the hair..

Judge Delucchi told the jury, if there is a reasonable interpretation that points to innocence, you should adopt it and reject the reasonable interpretation that points to guilt..

It is reasonable to believe that the reason the curling iron was on the counter is that Laci must have used it in the morning to style her hair..people don't style their hair in the evening unless they are going out..there was no testimony that Laci went out that evening..

So if both interpretations are equally reasonable then the jury should adopt the one that points to innocence...


Mark Geragos: Excuse me for not having this down, taking a curling iron and basically flipping the hair out?
Amy Rocha: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And she was having trouble doing that?
Amy Rocha: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Can you tell me what you were showing her specifically?
Amy Rocha: She had just been using the curling iron, like she was doing it the wrong way, so I just showed her how to flip it without getting a kink in it.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Is that something because she had just recently tried this? Or what?
Amy Rocha: Well, we had just recently cut her hair, so it was like a new hairstyle for her.
Mark Geragos: Okay. So that's something that you would do in the morning when you got up in order to style the hair?
Amy Rocha: Yeah. If she were styling her hair, she would flip it out.

[TuscanDreams]

Wudge and attorneywan2be- We will just have to disagree on some of the topics we discuss. And, that's just fine with me. I love to debate!

There isn't always forensic evidence when someone is strangled, especially if that person belongs in the bed she was strangled on. That's been my experience with one case specifically.

[Hey Paula]

Hi AW2B!

The evidence and chronology was:

1) Ms Nava, on the afternoon of 12/23, had put everything away in the bathroom.

2) Prior to Scott's evening appointment at Salon Salon, Laci had taken out her curling iron, AFTER (emphasis) Ms Nava had put it away earlier.

3) Laci brought her curling iron to Salon Salon where Amy taught her how to do a Fun Flip.

4) Laci arrived home with Scott, had pizza and PERHAPS (emphasis) practiced the Fun Flip technique with her curling iron in the bathroom.

OR (emphasis) knowing, as Amy testified, since the curling was going to be used in the morning, Laci left it out on the bathroom counter.

AW2B, I do not believe a jury will view the curling iron, being left out on the bathroom counter, as PROOF (emphasis) that Laci was alive on the morning of 12/24.

IMO

[attorneywan2be]

Hi AW2B!

The evidence and chronology was:

1) Ms Nava, on the afternoon of 12/23, had put everything away in the bathroom.

2) Prior to Scott's evening appointment at Salon Salon, Laci had taken out her curling iron, AFTER (emphasis) Ms Nava had put it away earlier.

3) Laci brought her curling iron to Salon Salon where Amy taught her how to do a Fun Flip.

4) Laci arrived home with Scott, had pizza and PERHAPS (emphasis) practiced the Fun Flip technique with her curling iron in the bathroom.

OR (emphasis) knowing, as Amy testified, since the curling was going to be used in the morning, Laci left it out on the bathroom counter.

AW2B, I do not believe a jury will view the curling iron, being left out on the bathroom counter, as PROOF (emphasis) that Laci was alive on the morning of 12/24.

IMO

Hi Hey Paula!


#3: is exactly the problem with Distaso's closing argument...Amy didn't testify that Laci brought her curling iron to the salon..

#4: "Perhaps she practiced with her curling iron" that part is not in evidence as you indicated by "perhaps" and that is your theory "Laci could have left it on the counter the night before" ...the jury should not theorize that she did...

Had they followed the judge's instructions they would have considered the "curling iron location" as evidence pointing to innocence..

IMO

[attorneywan2be]

Wudge and attorneywan2be- We will just have to disagree on some of the topics we discuss. And, that's just fine with me. I love to debate!

There isn't always forensic evidence when someone is strangled, especially if that person belongs in the bed she was strangled on. That's been my experience with one case specifically.

In my previous post I quoted Dr. Lee...

He stated that he would expect forensic evidence when someone is smothered...

[One2Snoop]

Hi AW2B!

The evidence and chronology was:

1) Ms Nava, on the afternoon of 12/23, had put everything away in the bathroom.

2) Prior to Scott's evening appointment at Salon Salon, Laci had taken out her curling iron, AFTER (emphasis) Ms Nava had put it away earlier.

3) Laci brought her curling iron to Salon Salon where Amy taught her how to do a Fun Flip.

4) Laci arrived home with Scott, had pizza and PERHAPS (emphasis) practiced the Fun Flip technique with her curling iron in the bathroom.

OR (emphasis) knowing, as Amy testified, since the curling was going to be used in the morning, Laci left it out on the bathroom counter.

AW2B, I do not believe a jury will view the curling iron, being left out on the bathroom counter, as PROOF (emphasis) that Laci was alive on the morning of 12/24.

IMO

I completely agree! :beer:

[One2Snoop]

In my previous post I quoted Dr. Lee...

He stated that he would expect forensic evidence when someone is smothered...

But did you see the part of Tuscans post where she said.....

There isn't always forensic evidence when someone is strangled, especially if that person belongs in the bed she was strangled on. That's been my experience with one case specifically.

Just because Dr. Lee says its so, doesn't mean there can't be instances where there's no forensic evidence.

[attorneywan2be]

But did you see the part of Tuscans post where she said.....



Just because Dr. Lee says its so, doesn't mean there can't be instances where there's no forensic evidence.


Dr. Lee is one of the best forensic experts in this country..

[Wudge]

Hi Wudge!

Laci returned from the salon after Ms Nava had already cleaned the house, and might have even practiced a bit with the curling while the technique was still fresh in her mind. In any case, since Laci planned on using the curling iron the next morning, she will have left it out, so I don't think it's proof that Laci was alive on the morning of 12/24.

IMO

Hello Paula, LTNS. I trust you have been well.

There is no proof perfect that can definitely establish Laci was alive the morning of 12/24. However, there are many evidentiary items that separately indicate that to be the case and cumulatively provide a cast iron inference supporting that likelihood, items such as: the blouse she wore the night before being found, the wire bra on her body, her Mary Jane shoes being found, her missing walking shoes, being found wearing different pants from the night before, the curling iron being out, the blue pajamas in the hamper, the internet searches at 8:44AM for a gap scarf and a motif umbrella stand et al. Taken all together, the above circumstantial evidence strongly points to Laci being alive the morning of Xmas Eve.

Now, Scott is alleged to have long planned out Laci's murder and to also have executed the plan without leaving any forensic evidence to that effect. Yet we also supposed to believe Scott was so braindead that he forgot to carry her body out to the truck under the cover of darkness. Perhaps he got interested in the meringue Marha was making, but the evidence/actions I mentioned nukes the State's premeditation claim.

[One2Snoop]

Dr. Lee is one of the best forensic experts in this country..

Thats nice. He's human and could be wrong. He's not the only "best forensic expert" in the country. Would you believe another "expert" if they were to verify what Tuscan posted above? Just curious because if you wouldn't believe someone else then there's no reason to discuss this any further.

[Hey Paula]

This is what I was thinking. I heard one of her friends in an interview once, telling about how if Laci were throwing a party that she expected her guests to arrive nicely dressed, and if they didn't she would have a talk with them about it. This was just one example of how Laci appeared to need perfection and organization in her life, at least in some areas.

It takes me time to adjust to a new curling iron, styling brush or blow dryer. I have a certain way that I do my hair, and if I were to change styles or do something different using a curling iron, I might bring my curling iron, too.

But, what am I missing when it comes to the curling iron relating to evidence? TIA for anyone's help with this.

Lion

Hi Lion!

I apologize for not replying sooner, as I only just noticed your post.

I agree, by all accounts Laci was a perfectionist and I can understnad if she wanted to be instructed, using her own curling iron. However, I would say even if she didn't bring her own curling iron to the salon, she very well could have tried the technique using her curling iron when she returned home, and might have taken it out and used it on the evening of 12/23.

Even if she didn't practice that night, she could have taken the curling iron out, knowing she would be using it in the morning, and left it out on the counter.

It isn't evidence or PROOF (emphasis) that Laci was alive, inasmuch as there are several working scenarios as to how/why the curling iron was on the bathroom counter. In fact, another scenario is that Scott could have put it there himself, making it appear that Laci had taken it out, and that she was alive on 12/24.

Mark Geragos tried to convince the jury Laci was alive on the morning of 12/24, and used the curling iron, hoping it would assist him in that regard. However, the curling iron, being out on the bathroon counter, is not irrefutable evidence Laci was alive. It is subjective at best, and open to various interpretations.

IMO

[Hey Paula]

Hello Paula, LTNS. I trust you have been well.

There is no proof perfect that can definitely establish Laci was alive the morning of 12/24. However, there are many evidentiary items that separately indicate that to be the case and cumulatively provide a cast iron inference supporting that likelihood, items such as: the blouse she wore the night before being found, the wire bra on her body, her Mary Jane shoes being found, her missing walking shoes, being found wearing different pants from the night before, the curling iron being out, the blue pajamas in the hamper, the internet searches at 8:44AM for a gap scarf and a motif umbrella stand et al. Taken all together, the above circumstantial evidence strongly points to Laci being alive the morning of Xmas Eve.

Now, Scott is alleged to have long planned out Laci's murder and to also have executed the plan without leaving any forensic evidence to that effect. Yet we also supposed to believe Scott was so braindead that he forgot to carry her body out to the truck under the cover of darkness. Perhaps he got interested in the meringue Marha was making, but the evidence/actions I mentioned nukes the State's premeditation claim.

Yes, Wudge, it's been awhile since our posts have crossed. I'm well, thanks, and trust you are too.

I've always believed Laci met her demise while she was in the process of changing into her bedclothes on the evening of 12/23, subsequent to her brief telecon with Sharon, specifically while she was removing her blouse. As she lifted it over her head, with her back to the door, I believe Scott entered the room and overtook her, where she landed on the bed and was ultimately either asphyxiated or strangled. I do believe, despite Amy's uncertainty, that the tattered tan shredded remnants, recovered with her torso, were the same pants she was wearing on 12/23 at Salon Salon. The bra was said to have been purplish which is the way black bras turn when faded. Being the fashionista she was said to have been, I don't believe Laci would have ever committed the faux pas of having worn a black bra with a white top, as Scott stated she was wearing. Neither was she wearing the black pants he told the LPD he last saw her in.

The internet searches might very well have been conducted by Scott himself, either for intended presents, or to give the illusion that Laci was alive and well using the computer.

IMO

[Wudge]

Yes, Wudge, it's been awhile since our posts have crossed. I'm well, thanks, and trust you are too.

I've always believed Laci met her demise while she was in the process of changing into her bedclothes on the evening of 12/23, subsequent to her brief telecon with Sharon, specifically while she was removing her blouse. As she lifted it over her head, with her back to the door, I believe Scott entered the room and overtook her, where she landed on the bed and was ultimately either asphyxiated or strangled. I do believe, despite Amy's uncertainty, that the tattered tan shredded remnants, recovered with her torso, were the same pants she was wearing on 12/23 at Salon Salon. The bra was said to have been purplish which is the way black bras turn when faded. Being the fashionista she was said to have been, I don't believe Laci would have ever committed the faux pas of having worn a black bra with a white top, as Scott stated she was wearing. Neither was she wearing the black pants he told the LPD he last saw her in.

The internet searches might very well have been conducted by Scott himself, either for intended presents, or to give the illusion that Laci was alive and well using the computer.

IMO


Why would Scott have waited to be bathed in full daylight before he carried her body out to the truck?


ETA: Where do you read about a purplish bra?

[Hey Paula]

Why would Scott have waited to be bathed in full daylight before he carried her body out to the truck?


ETA: Where do you read about a purplish bra?

I had always subscribed to a two trip theory. However, I later changed to a more neutral position, not closing my mind to either possibility.

During the trial, I recall discussions about the bra having been purplish, although I don't believe it was part of the evidence.

IMO

[LionRun]

Hi Lion!

I apologize for not replying sooner, as I only just noticed your post.

I agree, by all accounts Laci was a perfectionist and I can understnad if she wanted to be instructed, using her own curling iron. However, I would say even if she didn't bring her own curling iron to the salon, she very well could have tried the technique using her curling iron when she returned home, and might have taken it out and used it on the evening of 12/23.

Even if she didn't practice that night, she could have taken the curling iron out, knowing she would be using it in the morning, and left it out on the counter.

It isn't evidence or PROOF (emphasis) that Laci was alive, inasmuch as there are several working scenarios as to how/why the curling iron was on the bathroom counter. In fact, another scenario is that Scott could have put it there himself, making it appear that Laci had taken it out, and that she was alive on 12/24.

Mark Geragos tried to convince the jury Laci was alive on the morning of 12/24, and used the curling iron, hoping it would assist him in that regard. However, the curling iron, being out on the bathroom counter, is not irrefutable evidence Laci was alive. It is subjective at best, and open to various interpretations.

IMO

Thank you Hey Paula:). That makes complete sense to me. The curling iron could have been taken back out feasibly at several different times. But, no matter when it may have been taken back out, and regardless of whether or not Laci took it with her to the salon I don't see how it could prove that Laci was alive on the 24th. We have no way of knowing if the iron was left out all night on the 23d, or if it was taken out on the 24th.

Lion

[Wudge]

I had always subscribed to a two trip theory. However, I later changed to a more neutral position, not closing my mind to either possibility.

During the trial, I recall discussions about the bra having been purplish, although I don't believe it was part of the evidence.

IMO

Two-trips would support premeditation; I think few would argue with that. But the State had no evidence of two-trips.

Would you agree that murdering Laci at night but waiting until mid-morning to carry her body out to the truck works heavily against a premeditated murder?

Would you further agree that using a boat too small to safely submerge a body works against a long thought out murder plan too?

Most importantly, would you agree that submerging a body during the full daylight of high noon in a bay that has thousands of bay watchers lining the hills works massively against a long thought out plan?

[Hey Paula]

Two-trips would support premeditation; I think few would argue with that. But the State had no evidence of two-trips.

Would you agree that murdering Laci at night but waiting until mid-morning to carry her body out to the truck works heavily against a premeditated murder?

Would you further agree that using a boat too small to safely submerge a body works against a long thought out murder plan too?

Most importantly, would you agree that submerging a body during the full daylight of high noon in a bay that has thousands of bay watchers lining the hills works massively against a long thought out plan?

Frankly, I don't think the number of trips Scott made either supports or works against premeditation. I believe it is Scott's behaviors, acitions and statements which support premeditation.

Even if the State supported a two-trip theory, they might have felt it best to employ the KISS method instead. Due to the condition of Laci's body, neither a ToD, nor a CoD would be established, so the State wasn't locked into a firm theory. I do recall eyewitnesses (e.g. McDermitt), who were never called, who could have supported a two-trip theory, but the Def could have called others to refute. The single morning trip was irrefutable, supported by Scott's own cell phone records.

I have always believed Laci's body was towed through the water in lieu of being thrown over the boat. I have several friends who own the same type and size boat, who have assured me the boat could accomplish its intended purpose. In fact, one of my board buddies wanted to take me out on her boat to prove to me how easily it could be accomplished. My friend said she could even push me over effotlessy, as I could her. LOL, I said "thanks, but no thanks". The Gamefisher model boat Scott had was even more stable than the slightly older model Mark Geragos bought, made even more unstable via the installation of a floorboard and top seats, which made it easier to tip.

Planning the trip to the Bay on Christmas Eve, Scott knew many people were away traveling to family, and those who weren't, were at home preparing for the big evening. Hence, there were few people on the Bay and at the Marina that day, as evidenced by the few Marina parking tickets/receipts dispensed.

IMO

[attorneywan2be]

Judge Delucchi removed juror # 5 during deliberations..the juror asked to be removed because of comments from other jurors that caused him to be concerned about his safety..judge Delucchi didn't investigate, didn't declare a mistrial..he simply removed him and replaced him by an alternate juror..

Williams vs State of Florida is a similar case, however, it didn't even involve possible threats by other jurors...


RONALD KEITH WILLIAMS,

Appellant, vs.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee. [July 12, 2001] PER CURIAM.

We have on appeal the judgment and sentence of the trial court imposing the death penalty upon Ronald Keith Williams. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.

The facts surrounding the murder with which Williams was charged are immaterial to our resolution of the dispositive issue in this capital case: whether Williams was denied a fair trial when the trial court permitted substitution of a juror who became unable to proceed after guilt-phase deliberations had begun.

- 1 -

For the following reasons, we reverse William's conviction for first-degree murder and vacate his sentence of death, holding that, whenever a juror becomes unable to continue jury service after guilt phase deliberations have commenced but before a guilt phase verdict is returned, a new guilt phase trial is required.

Removal And Replacement of Juror Number Ten At the close of all the evidence, after the jury had retired to deliberate and deliberations had proceeded for over four hours, the trial court received a note from the jury. This note read: "Juror number ten requests that she be allowed to speak to Judge Shapiro. She feels that she's emotionally unable to make a decision, either way." When the juror explained her note, the following occurred:

THE COURT: I don't know what that means. In other words, we have sat here for approximately a month, and both sides--the State has presented evidence, the defense has cross examined State's witnesses, I have instructed you on the law.

Can you apply the law to the evidence and attempt to determine has the State proven the elements, or do you feel you're unable to do that?

[JUROR NUMBER TEN]: I can't do that. I can't bring myself to that.

THE COURT: Why not?

[JUROR NUMBER TEN]: I've been through that before and I couldn't handle it before.

THE COURT: What?

- 2 -


[JUROR NUMBER TEN]: Before my son - with my son. I was with it before with my son.

THE COURT: How come you didn't tell us about that when we were questioning you?

[JUROR NUMBER TEN]: I tell my son, he was actually before three times. . . . . [JUROR NUMBER TEN]: Okay. I've been to court with my son three years ago, I'm saying, now, for a crime he didn't commit. I'm saying now, and I can't, I just can't do it. I can't bring myself to do this. I can't do this. You understand what I'm saying?

THE COURT: No, I don't understand a word you're saying. In other words, we went into a great deal of questioning. We spent approximately two weeks questioning jurors and I want to know if you had any feelings or emotions that you didn't bring up?

[JUROR NUMBER TEN]: I had, at that time, no, I did not.

THE COURT: All right, can you listen to the other jurors discussing their views of the evidence and applying the law to it and would that help you?

[JUROR NUMBER TEN]: I cry. I couldn't. We try, but I couldn't go through that. I can't do it. So, I just cannot do it.

Thereafter, both parties declined the court's offer to question juror number ten.

Williams moved for a mistrial. This motion was denied and, over Williams'

- 3 -

objection, the court excused juror number ten and substituted an alternate. Upon the alternate's arrival, the reconstituted jury was instructed, and then deliberated for less than three hours. After deliberating, the jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty.

ANALYSIS

The dispositive issue here is whether the trial court reversibly erred in substituting an alternate juror into the jury panel to replace an original juror who was unable to proceed after the deliberative process had already begun. Because we conclude that it did, we must remand this case for a new trial.

http://www.vlex.us/caselaw/Florida-Supreme-Court/Ronald-Keith-Williams-Appellant-vs-State-of-Florida-Appellee/2100-20847155,01.html?z=07,recm_18534141

[accordn2me]

Judge Delucchi removed juror # 5 during deliberations..the juror asked to be removed because of comments from other jurors that caused him to be concerned about his safety..judge Delucchi didn't investigate, didn't declare a mistrial..he simply removed him and replaced him by an alternate juror..

Williams vs State of Florida is a similar case, however, it didn't even involve possible threats by other jurors...


RONALD KEITH WILLIAMS,

Appellant, vs.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee. [July 12, 2001] PER CURIAM.

We have on appeal the judgment and sentence of the trial court imposing the death penalty upon Ronald Keith Williams. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.

The facts surrounding the murder with which Williams was charged are immaterial to our resolution of the dispositive issue in this capital case: whether Williams was denied a fair trial when the trial court permitted substitution of a juror who became unable to proceed after guilt-phase deliberations had begun.

- 1 -

For the following reasons, we reverse William's conviction for first-degree murder and vacate his sentence of death, holding that, whenever a juror becomes unable to continue jury service after guilt phase deliberations have commenced but before a guilt phase verdict is returned, a new guilt phase trial is required.

<snipped>

Thereafter, both parties declined the court's offer to question juror number ten.

Williams moved for a mistrial. This motion was denied and, over Williams'

- 3 -

objection, the court excused juror number ten and substituted an alternate. Upon the alternate's arrival, the reconstituted jury was instructed, and then deliberated for less than three hours. After deliberating, the jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty.

ANALYSIS

The dispositive issue here is whether the trial court reversibly erred in substituting an alternate juror into the jury panel to replace an original juror who was unable to proceed after the deliberative process had already begun. Because we conclude that it did, we must remand this case for a new trial.

http://www.vlex.us/caselaw/Florida-Supreme-Court/Ronald-Keith-Williams-Appellant-vs-State-of-Florida-Appellee/2100-20847155,01.html?z=07,recm_18534141

Juror 5 asked to be removed because of LOOKS and COMMENTS. But not threats of bodily harm comments...maybe the other jurors were giving threats of bodily harm looks.

If removing a juror and substituting an alternate after deliberations for guilt have begun is a reversible error, why are alternates retained after deliberations begin? Why wouldn't alternates be dismissed once the panel has begun deliberating?

[attorneywan2be]

Juror 5 asked to be removed because of LOOKS and COMMENTS. But not threats of bodily harm comments...maybe the other jurors were giving threats of bodily harm looks.

If removing a juror and substituting an alternate after deliberations for guilt have begun is a reversible error, why are alternates retained after deliberations begin? Why wouldn't alternates be dismissed once the panel has begun deliberating?


Because of unusual events..! it is something that is unheard of..very rarely a judge would remove a juror during deliberations and he would be taking a risk being reversed...

The case I posted is very similar, a juror asked to be removed because she felt she cannot serve..however, IMO, when the reason cited has to do with possible threats from other jurors, it is crucial for the judge to declare a mistrial..!

IMO

[accordn2me]

Because of unusual events..! it is something that is unheard of..very rarely a judge would remove a juror during deliberations and he would be taking a risk being reversed...

The case I posted is very similar, a juror asked to be removed because she felt she cannot serve..however, IMO, when the reason cited has to do with possible threats from other jurors, it is crucial for the judge to declare a mistrial..!

IMOWhy do you keep saying, "possible threats from other jurors?" Juror 5 plainly said, "I was not threatened bodily..."

Juror 5 said the reason they wanted to be dismissed was because, "but the looks, comments" and they felt they could no longer weigh the evidence fairly. Juror 5 was not willing to name any other juror as the cause of those feelings. Furthermore, this second Juror 5 highly praised the jury and the progress that was being made since the judge removed the first juror 5.

[One2Snoop]

Why do you keep saying, "possible threats from other jurors?" Juror 5 plainly said, "I was not threatened bodily..."

Juror 5 said the reason they wanted to be dismissed was because, "but the looks, comments" and they felt they could no longer weigh the evidence fairly. Juror 5 was not willing to name any other juror as the cause of those feelings. Furthermore, this second Juror 5 highly praised the jury and the progress that was being made since the judge removed the first juror 5.

Good points accordin2me. This was a high profile case and with that comes alot of pressure. IMO, Juror #5 couldn't handle it and wanted out. Plain and simple.

[Anne2719]

Thank you Hey Paula:). That makes complete sense to me. The curling iron could have been taken back out feasibly at several different times. But, no matter when it may have been taken back out, and regardless of whether or not Laci took it with her to the salon I don't see how it could prove that Laci was alive on the 24th. We have no way of knowing if the iron was left out all night on the 23d, or if it was taken out on the 24th.

Lion
I agree. And if Laci was as meticulous as people have said she was, then I would think it makes more sense that she set it out the night before to use the next day as opposed to using it in the morning and neglecting to put it away.

[LionRun]

Anne, that is an excellent point that I hadn't thought of. She was known to be meticulous and would be more likely to leave it out to do her hair in the morning(then put it away afterwards), than to leave it out after using it.

Lion

[attorneywan2be]

Why do you keep saying, "possible threats from other jurors?" Juror 5 plainly said, "I was not threatened bodily..."

Juror 5 said the reason they wanted to be dismissed was because, "but the looks, comments" and they felt they could no longer weigh the evidence fairly. Juror 5 was not willing to name any other juror as the cause of those feelings. Furthermore, this second Juror 5 highly praised the jury and the progress that was being made since the judge removed the first juror 5.


I think it is obvious that he was threatened verbally..it was the judge who asked whether the threats were bodily threats..he replied "no... but..." then the judge asked him to name the jurors that made those comments..the juror stated that he preferred not to do that...the judge let it go at that..the judge had the legal power to compel him to mention the names..but judge Delucchi didn't really want to know....that's my opinion..

Juror 5: As I say, there have been comments made to me personally that -- that have made me reflect on whether or not my safety is at issue here.
The Court: You have been threatened bodily?

Juror 5: I have not been threatened bodily, but the comments, the looks --

The Court: Who is responsible for these comments?

Juror 5: Your Honor, I prefer not to do that, or go there, except to say that I have tried mightily. I think I'm at an end of what I can do reasonably with this jury to weigh this evidence fairly. I don't think I can weigh it fairly any longer

[attorneywan2be]

Good points accordin2me. This was a high profile case and with that comes alot of pressure. IMO, Juror #5 couldn't handle it and wanted out. Plain and simple.


The case that I quoted on the previous page "Williams vs State of Florida" had the same situation, a juror told the judge that she couldn't serve, she couldn't go on and wanted out..plain and simple...the judge dismissed her and didn't declare a mistrial...the appellate court reversed the verdict....IMO, this appeal issue is even more powerful in this case because it involves alleged misconduct by other jurors that was not even investigated...!

[accordn2me]

I think it is obvious that he was threatened verbally..it was the judge who asked whether the threats were bodily threats..he replied "no... but..." then the judge asked him to name the jurors that made those comments..the juror stated that he preferred not to do that...the judge let it go at that..the judge had the legal power to compel him to mention the names..but judge Delucchi didn't really want to know....that's my opinion..

Juror 5: As I say, there have been comments made to me personally that -- that have made me reflect on whether or not my safety is at issue here.
The Court: You have been threatened bodily?

Juror 5: I have not been threatened bodily, but the comments, the looks --

The Court: Who is responsible for these comments?

Juror 5: Your Honor, I prefer not to do that, or go there, except to say that I have tried mightily. I think I'm at an end of what I can do reasonably with this jury to weigh this evidence fairly. I don't think I can weigh it fairly any longer

wan2be, you might be right about said juror being threatened. However, that is NOT what the juror said. Again, Juror 5 said (in regular color and size font)

"there have been comments

made to me personally

that have made me reflect

on whether or not

my safety is at issue here."

Juror 5 did NOT, I repeat Juror 5 did not (don't want anyone to miss that) say....someone on the jury, (i.e. one of the other jurors or alternates) made the comments...comments, mind you...NOT threats. The juror could have overheard a comment comparing this to the Rodney King fiasco, or a family member could have told juror 5 something, or juror 5 could have had a dream......

Had someone on the jury verbally threatened juror 5, why would juror 5 praise the jury by telling the judge how well they were progressing, and were it not for juror 5's "fit of conscious or whatever" the jury would be able to accomplish what they were sworn and obligated to do?

[accordn2me]

maybe juror 5 had a "fit of conscience, or whatever"

please pardon ALL spelling and grammatical error past, present, & future

:rose: a2me

[Lili007]

maybe juror 5 had a "fit of conscience, or whatever"

please pardon ALL spelling and grammatical error past, present, & future

:rose: a2me

:) Smile! we all make them at some time or another.

I agree with your argument. I don't think for a split-second that anyone was "strong-armed" out of that jury. I do think that some found it more difficult than others, and understandably so.

It's interesting that the people who don't seem to grasp that concept are those who will defend Scott and Scott's defense, no matter what.

JMO.

[Wudge]

The case that I quoted on the previous page "Williams vs State of Florida" had the same situation, a juror told the judge that she couldn't serve, she couldn't go on and wanted out..plain and simple...the judge dismissed her and didn't declare a mistrial...the appellate court reversed the verdict....IMO, this appeal issue is even more powerful in this case because it involves alleged misconduct by other jurors that was not even investigated...!

The removal of the jurors creates an extremely strong case for reversal upon appeal, for Judge Delucchi would not provide a good cause reason for the removal of Jackson and Falconer.

This is a top appeal issue. However, it is not clear that it is the top appeal issue. That demonstrates the strength Scott's appeal will posses; i.e., overwhelming support for both vacating (perhaps with prejudice) Scott's death penalty and reversing the jury's verdict.

[Lili007]

The removal of the jurors creates an extremely strong case for reversal upon appeal, for Judge Delucchi would not provide a good cause reason for the removal of Jackson and Falconer.

This is a top appeal issue. However, it is not clear that it is the top appeal issue. That demonstrates the strength Scott's appeal will posses; i.e., overwhelming support for both vacating (perhaps with prejudice) Scott's death penalty and reversing the jury's verdict.

Baloney... I had it for lunch and I don't feel like having it again for dinner... And I'll pass on the poppycock desert as well. IMO.

[enlightenme]

Judge Delucchi removed juror # 5 during deliberations..the juror asked to be removed because of comments from other jurors that caused him to be concerned about his safety..judge Delucchi didn't investigate, didn't declare a mistrial..he simply removed him and replaced him by an alternate juror..

Williams vs State of Florida is a similar case, however, it didn't even involve possible threats by other jurors...


RONALD KEITH WILLIAMS,

Appellant, vs.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee. [July 12, 2001] PER CURIAM.

We have on appeal the judgment and sentence of the trial court imposing the death penalty upon Ronald Keith Williams. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.

The facts surrounding the murder with which Williams was charged are immaterial to our resolution of the dispositive issue in this capital case: whether Williams was denied a fair trial when the trial court permitted substitution of a juror who became unable to proceed after guilt-phase deliberations had begun.

- 1 -

For the following reasons, we reverse William's conviction for first-degree murder and vacate his sentence of death, holding that, whenever a juror becomes unable to continue jury service after guilt phase deliberations have commenced but before a guilt phase verdict is returned, a new guilt phase trial is required.

Removal And Replacement of Juror Number Ten At the close of all the evidence, after the jury had retired to deliberate and deliberations had proceeded for over four hours, the trial court received a note from the jury. This note read: "Juror number ten requests that she be allowed to speak to Judge Shapiro. She feels that she's emotionally unable to make a decision, either way." When the juror explained her note, the following occurred:

THE COURT: I don't know what that means. In other words, we have sat here for approximately a month, and both sides--the State has presented evidence, the defense has cross examined State's witnesses, I have instructed you on the law.

Can you apply the law to the evidence and attempt to determine has the State proven the elements, or do you feel you're unable to do that?

[JUROR NUMBER TEN]: I can't do that. I can't bring myself to that.

THE COURT: Why not?

[JUROR NUMBER TEN]: I've been through that before and I couldn't handle it before.

THE COURT: What?

- 2 -


[JUROR NUMBER TEN]: Before my son - with my son. I was with it before with my son.

THE COURT: How come you didn't tell us about that when we were questioning you?

[JUROR NUMBER TEN]: I tell my son, he was actually before three times. . . . . [JUROR NUMBER TEN]: Okay. I've been to court with my son three years ago, I'm saying, now, for a crime he didn't commit. I'm saying now, and I can't, I just can't do it. I can't bring myself to do this. I can't do this. You understand what I'm saying?

THE COURT: No, I don't understand a word you're saying. In other words, we went into a great deal of questioning. We spent approximately two weeks questioning jurors and I want to know if you had any feelings or emotions that you didn't bring up?

[JUROR NUMBER TEN]: I had, at that time, no, I did not.

THE COURT: All right, can you listen to the other jurors discussing their views of the evidence and applying the law to it and would that help you?

[JUROR NUMBER TEN]: I cry. I couldn't. We try, but I couldn't go through that. I can't do it. So, I just cannot do it.

Thereafter, both parties declined the court's offer to question juror number ten.

Williams moved for a mistrial. This motion was denied and, over Williams'

- 3 -

objection, the court excused juror number ten and substituted an alternate. Upon the alternate's arrival, the reconstituted jury was instructed, and then deliberated for less than three hours. After deliberating, the jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty.

ANALYSIS

The dispositive issue here is whether the trial court reversibly erred in substituting an alternate juror into the jury panel to replace an original juror who was unable to proceed after the deliberative process had already begun. Because we conclude that it did, we must remand this case for a new trial.

http://www.vlex.us/caselaw/Florida-Supreme-Court/Ronald-Keith-Williams-Appellant-vs-State-of-Florida-Appellee/2100-20847155,01.html?z=07,recm_18534141


I've read the pertinent part of this and find quite a few differences from Scott's case.

The juror did seem to be replaced for valid reasons in as she said she emotionally was not able to continue deliberations or deliver a verdict, no matter how many days the jury tried.

She did not mention in voir dire that her son had been accused of something he was innocent of 3 years earlier. She did mention in voir dire her uncertainty about the DP. The state tried to use a strike against her and the defense cried "racial bias". She ended up being the only African-American on this jury and the defendant was also African-American.

In Florida, the alternate jurors are NOT sequestered with the rest of the 12. The can go back home and are "back in the community", so to speak.

So they had to call in a alternate that had been released, not sequestered, possilbly influenced by media, others.

I think that was the main reason this case was reversed and will probably get a new trial. From what I glean from the evidence against this OTHER woman and baby killer, it's more than likely he will be found guilty again.

[Beebee]

Baloney... I had it for lunch and I don't feel like having it again for dinner... And I'll pass on the poppycock desert as well. IMO.

Did you see the case AW2B posted about??? Do you know what issues ARE appeal issues?? Why don't you demonstrate WHY you think removing jurors in this case was legally acceptable. That would be more interesting than posting about your diet, lol.

[enlightenme]

The case that I quoted on the previous page "Williams vs State of Florida" had the same situation, a juror told the judge that she couldn't serve, she couldn't go on and wanted out..plain and simple...the judge dismissed her and didn't declare a mistrial...the appellate court reversed the verdict....IMO, this appeal issue is even more powerful in this case because it involves alleged misconduct by other jurors that was not even investigated...!


I read it and I don't believe it is the same situation at all.

MOO

[enlightenme]

Did you see the case AW2B posted about??? Do you know what issues ARE appeal issues?? Why don't you demonstrate WHY you think removing jurors in this case was legally acceptable. That would be more interesting than posting about your diet, lol.


I read it. I don't think Scott's appellate lawyers will be able to site this case as an appeal issue. Different state - different jury deliberation laws/rules.

[Beebee]

She did not mention in voir dire that her son had been accused of something he was innocent of 3 years earlier. She did mention in voir dire her uncertainty about the DP. The state tried to use a strike against her and the defense cried "racial bias". She ended up being the only African-American on this jury and the defendant was also African-American.

In Florida, the alternate jurors are NOT sequestered with the rest of the 12. The can go back home and are "back in the community", so to speak.


I think that was the main reason this case was reversed and will probably get a new trial. From what I glean from the evidence against this OTHER woman and baby killer, it's more than likely he will be found guilty again.


I didn't see the lack of sequestering as the MAIN reason, but I agree with you that it played a part. I wonder why Florida has different rules for alternates? Odd.

Still, case law is cited that deals with replacing a juror during deliberations for any reason is reversable error.

I have no doubt this will be an appeal issue for Scott, as it should.

[Wudge]

Baloney... I had it for lunch and I don't feel like having it again for dinner... And I'll pass on the poppycock desert as well. IMO.

This issue has already been ruled on by the Appellate Court in California. Judge Delucchi was required to provide a "determination of good cause" and his cause needed to be "supported by substantial evidence." He failed to provide either "good cause" or "substantial evidence".

If Califiornia's appellate court does not cure Judge Delucchi's failure by reversing the verdict, then Judge Delucchi's failure to provide cause will result in a strong 6th Amendment issue for the 9th Circuit Court.

[enlightenme]

I didn't see the lack of sequestering as the MAIN reason, but I agree with you that it played a part. I wonder why Florida has different rules for alternates? Odd.

Still, case law is cited that deals with replacing a juror during deliberations for any reason is reversable error.

I have no doubt this will be an appeal issue for Scott, as it should.

I'm sure these are not the only cases where a juror is replaced during deliberations. In fact, I'll bet there's thousands of previous cases. Most of the time a juror's bias, extra experiments, other wrong doing would not even be found out by anyone until deliberations start. JMO

[enlightenme]

I didn't see the lack of sequestering as the MAIN reason, but I agree with you that it played a part. I wonder why Florida has different rules for alternates? Odd.

Still, case law is cited that deals with replacing a juror during deliberations for any reason is reversable error.

I have no doubt this will be an appeal issue for Scott, as it should.

FL is weird. LOL! JMO! They have 6 person juries. They have majority rules in DP cases, rather than unanimous vote.

I wish all states would standardize sentencing more and there should be some type of federal laws, rather than this state by state laws. Of course, it should always be based on our awesome Constitution.

[enlightenme]

This issue has already been ruled on by the Appellate Court in California. Judge Delucchi was required to provide a "determination of good cause" and his cause needed to be "supported by substantial evidence." He failed to provide either "good cause" or "substantial evidence".

If Califiornia's appellate court does not cure Judge Delucchi's failure by reversing the verdict, then Judge Delucchi's failure to provide cause will result in a strong 6th Amendment issue for the 9th Circuit Court.


I know you're ignoring me, but I'll answer for the benefit of others.

We are not privy to everything that went on in-chambers with the jurors. We only know parts because of Geragos' motion for a mistrail and the state's rebuttal. There may very well be statements, rulings, etc. that we DON'T know.

I also think it's your opinion that Delucchi failed to provide good cause or substantial evidence for the dismissals. I think he did.

[Invrdv8]

I think it is obvious that he was threatened verbally..it was the judge who asked whether the threats were bodily threats..he replied "no... but..." then the judge asked him to name the jurors that made those comments..the juror stated that he preferred not to do that...the judge let it go at that..the judge had the legal power to compel him to mention the names..but judge Delucchi didn't really want to know....that's my opinion..

Juror 5: As I say, there have been comments made to me personally that -- that have made me reflect on whether or not my safety is at issue here.
The Court: You have been threatened bodily?

Juror 5: I have not been threatened bodily, but the comments, the looks --

The Court: Who is responsible for these comments?

Juror 5: Your Honor, I prefer not to do that, or go there, except to say that I have tried mightily. I think I'm at an end of what I can do reasonably with this jury to weigh this evidence fairly. I don't think I can weigh it fairly any longer
I think it was reported that the Dr/Lawyer was a little on the introverted side. IIRC it was said the he was kind of a loner/recluse/keep to himself type person. There absolutely had to be something not quite right with him if he "felt threatened" by comments and/or looks. How would you suggest that the judge make him "talk"? IMO the judge determined that this juror would probably fall apart from the stress of serving and it was best to dismiss him. Where is this juror now? I think it was reported that he packed up and left the country. Do you think he felt so threatened by the "comments" and "looks" that he felt he needed to leave the country for his own safety?

[Lili007]

Did you see the case AW2B posted about??? Do you know what issues ARE appeal issues?? Why don't you demonstrate WHY you think removing jurors in this case was legally acceptable. That would be more interesting than posting about your diet, lol.

Beebee, you're obviously intelligent, knowlegeable and educated enough to know that what I said had nothing to do with my diet. But please don't let me interfere with your sarcasm.

You know what? I can add to those appealable appeal issues, but it's not going to make an ounce of difference in this case. Because he killed his wife and his unborn child in the process of exploring what he wanted most, when he wanted it. What he did NOT want was being tied up to domestic life or being responsible for child support for the next 17 years, as opposed to being Jack-Cadillac-free to roam the world, make his conquests, and move on without any sense of responsability to ANYONE, particularly to a wife and child.

Nothing I say can make it any worse, and nothing you say can make it any better.

JMO

[Lili007]

This issue has already been ruled on by the Appellate Court in California. Judge Delucchi was required to provide a "determination of good cause" and his cause needed to be "supported by substantial evidence." He failed to provide either "good cause" or "substantial evidence".

If Califiornia's appellate court does not cure Judge Delucchi's failure by reversing the verdict, then Judge Delucchi's failure to provide cause will result in a strong 6th Amendment issue for the 9th Circuit Court.

Don't you find it interesting how there seems to be no shortage of avenues, legal wrigglings, wagglings and wonderings, with lashings of creativity and several pinches of fairy-dust?

Legal jargon will always save the day, though - but don't worry, non-legal-eagles, whoever you are!

All will be revealed to you in the fulness of time, one bit at a time, as you become worthy.

JMO,
Lili

[attorneywan2be]

I think it was reported that the Dr/Lawyer was a little on the introverted side. IIRC it was said the he was kind of a loner/recluse/keep to himself type person. There absolutely had to be something not quite right with him if he "felt threatened" by comments and/or looks. How would you suggest that the judge make him "talk"? IMO the judge determined that this juror would probably fall apart from the stress of serving and it was best to dismiss him. Where is this juror now? I think it was reported that he packed up and left the country. Do you think he felt so threatened by the "comments" and "looks" that he felt he needed to leave the country for his own safety?

Regardless of what you think of juror # 5 the doctor/attorney, judge Delucchi should have declared a mistrial...the case I quoted was about a juror who complained to the judge that she couldn't go on..that she was crying and was not able to deliberate..in other words, she couldn't HANDLE it...the judge dismissed her and replaced her by an alternate...the appellate court reversed the conviction...

This is the opinion of the appellate court:

For the following reasons, we reverse William's conviction for first-degree murder and vacate his sentence of death, holding that, whenever a juror becomes unable to continue jury service after guilt phase deliberations have commenced but before a guilt phase verdict is returned, a new guilt phase trial is required

[enlightenme]

Regardless of what you think of juror # 5 the doctor/attorney, judge Delucchi should have declared a mistrial...the case I quoted was about a juror who complained to the judge that she couldn't go on..that she was crying and was not able to deliberate..in other words, she couldn't HANDLE it...the judge dismissed her and replaced her by an alternate...the appellate court reversed the conviction...

This is the opinion of the appellate court:

For the following reasons, we reverse William's conviction for first-degree murder and vacate his sentence of death, holding that, whenever a juror becomes unable to continue jury service after guilt phase deliberations have commenced but before a guilt phase verdict is returned, a new guilt phase trial is required


That was in Florida, where the alternate jurors are not sequested with the original 12 during deliberations.

I doubt every case where a juror was rightfully replaced during deliberations was reversed on appeal or a mistrial granted. I'd do some research, but I really don't care to spend my valuable time trying to get a convicted murderer, who's clearly guilty, free.

[Wudge]

Don't you find it interesting how there seems to be no shortage of avenues, legal wrigglings, wagglings and wonderings, with lashings of creativity and several pinches of fairy-dust?

Legal jargon will always save the day, though - but don't worry, non-legal-eagles, whoever you are!

All will be revealed to you in the fulness of time, one bit at a time, as you become worthy.

JMO,
Lili

Lil, Courts and juries make errors. There are husbands that do murder their wife. There are husbands that are wrongfully convicted of murdering their wife or loved one. Sometimes appeals properly resolve their wrongful comvictions.

I have previously stated that the circumstancial evidence in this case is comparable to the cases against Dr. Sam Sheppard and Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald; i.e. non existent to, at best, very weak.

When a wife or girlfriend are murdered, husbands or boyfriends become natural suspects. Even when the victim barely lives, things are not always clear.

In the case of Kevin Green the fetus died but the wife lived and even testified against her husband, yet he was wrongfully convicted of murder.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/162.php

[Wearing A Halo]

Lil, Courts and juries make errors. There are husbands that do murder their wife. There are husbands that are wrongfully convicted of murdering their wife or loved one. Sometimes appeals properly resolve their wrongful comvictions.

I have previously stated that the circumstancial evidence in this case is comparable to the cases against Dr. Sam Sheppard and Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald; i.e. non existent to, at best, very weak.

When a wife or girlfriend are murdered, husbands or boyfriends become natural suspects. Even when the victim barely lives, things are not always clear.

In the case of Kevin Green the fetus died but the wife lived and even testified against her husband, yet he was wrongfully convicted of murder.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/162.php

So you agree that there is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, but in your mind it is very weak. You are not going to go off on a tangent and say that there is no evidence at all, are you? I just want to be assured that you agree that there is CE in this case. BTW-you are aware that the IP is soley based upon DNA evidence.

[Beebee]

FL is weird. LOL! JMO! They have 6 person juries. They have majority rules in DP cases, rather than unanimous vote.

I wish all states would standardize sentencing more and there should be some type of federal laws, rather than this state by state laws. Of course, it should always be based on our awesome Constitution.

I agree with you on this.

It seems to me that Constitutional laws can be violated at the state level and the appellate courts ignore it. Many, many prisoners going through appeals expect the "rubber stamp denial" on the state level and just wait, often times many years-- to get to the federal level. I think that's wrong. I think if the Feds deem error on the part of the state, there should be some kind of sanction. State judges get away with too much, imo.

[Otter]

That was in Florida, where the alternate jurors are not sequested with the original 12 during deliberations.

I doubt every case where a juror was rightfully replaced during deliberations was reversed on appeal or a mistrial granted. I'd do some research, but I really don't care to spend my valuable time trying to get a convicted murderer, who's clearly guilty, free.

Its nonsensical to discuss a case in Florida. As mentioned previously, the states have their own procedures, just like Florida has a 6-person jury to decide any criminal trial excluding a DP case.

Read this please, its even about Peterson.

http://www.acsblog.org/criminal-law-the-peterson-case-did-juror-removal-manipulate-the-verdict.html

The bottom line for Peterson seems to be that, so long as there's evidence in the record that the judge had "good cause" to dismiss the jurors, he won't be able to base an appeal on the replacement of the jurors. Unfortunately, those eager for further details about the juror replacements in the Peterson case might have to wait for the appeal to get a complete accounting of what the judge considered "good cause."

Its an interesting article, and it makes clear that unless a judge abused his discretion in removing a juror, its unlikely to be a successful appeals issue. The question of "abuse" is difficult to establish, and a judge as experienced and respected as Delucchi would not have removed anyone without just cause. IMO, of course.

[Beebee]

You know what? I can add to those appealable appeal issues, but it's not going to make an ounce of difference in this case. Because he killed his wife and his unborn child in the process of exploring what he wanted most, when he wanted it. What he did NOT want was being tied up to domestic life or being responsible for child support for the next 17 years, as opposed to being Jack-Cadillac-free to roam the world, make his conquests, and move on without any sense of responsability to ANYONE, particularly to a wife and child.

Nothing I say can make it any worse, and nothing you say can make it any better.

JMO

Well we will have to agree to disagree. I think Scott had it made, and knew it, and was living a happy life, and had no desire to remove Laci from it. I think he probably would have cheated again, and probably again. I think you might be shocked to find out just how many men do that, and remain happily married. In general I think Scott is a charming, nice guy. JMO

[Wudge]

Well we will have to agree to disagree. I think Scott had it made, and knew it, and was living a happy life, and had no desire to remove Laci from it. I think he probably would have cheated again, and probably again. I think you might be shocked to find out just how many men do that, and remain happily married. In general I think Scott is a charming, nice guy. JMO

One of the great inconsistencies that exists in this case is that prior to the revelation of his affair, everyone said Scott was a truly nice and helpful guy, and that he and Laci never fought and were very happy together -- without exception, absolutely everyone.

The other great consistency is that Scott's history is totally non-violent. They could not find a fight that Scott had ever gotten into. Thus, Scott is alleged to have jumped from resolving issues without using violence to resolving an alleged issue through murder.

Not only is it humongously inconsistent with Scott's history and character, but profilers maintain massive character jumps, such as is alleged in this case, is not something that would point to Scott being the murderer.

However, Steven Todd was a prior felon. .....................

[Beebee]

One of the great inconsistencies that exists in this case is that prior to the revelation of his affair, everyone said Scott was a truly nice and helpful guy, and that he and Laci never fought and were very happy together -- without exception, absolutely everyone.
..............

I agree Wudge. He is very kind by nature. That's the reason, imo, he treated Amber the way he did... even while cheating, he's a nice guy.

[enlightenme]

Well we will have to agree to disagree. I think Scott had it made, and knew it, and was living a happy life, and had no desire to remove Laci from it. I think he probably would have cheated again, and probably again. I think you might be shocked to find out just how many men do that, and remain happily married. In general I think Scott is a charming, nice guy. JMO


Just curious, do you know him personally?

Millions of people saw his media interviews, heard the phone calls to Amber, and heard about his other lies and actions not related to the affair. No doubt they, like me, have concluded that he's a manipulative, uncaring, murderer who lies as easily as he breathes.

IMO

[Beebee]

Just curious, do you know him personally?

Millions of people saw his media interviews, heard the phone calls to Amber, and heard about his other lies and actions not related to the affair. No doubt they, like me, have concluded that he's a manipulative, uncaring, murderer who lies as easily as he breathes.

IMO

I drew the conclusion I posted during the trial, based on what I read in transcripts and what I heard on the tapes and interviews, nothing was based on knowing Scott personally. I also tend to draw my own conclusions, independent of other people's opinions, so the negative media hype didn't phase me too much.

[attorneywan2be]

People v. Burnette, 775 P.2d 583, 590-91 (Colo. 1989).

A trial by jury contemplates that once the deliberative process has begun with a set group of jurors, the decision, or the indecision, rests with that set group. If the jury is unable to reach a unanimous decision, even if it is because of the inability of a single juror to decide the case, then a mistrial must be declared. That is a contemplated and essential part of the jury system. It is part of the requirement of unanimity.

It is also important to note that this was not a case in which a juror became ill, suffered an accident or illness in her family, or was disqualified by some other unanticipated event. Here it is apparent that it was the stress of the responsibility of having to decide this case that resulted in the juror's eventual breakdown and inability to reach a decision. That this may happen is simply a risk we assume because we value the system of trial by jury. When one juror cannot decide, the jury cannot decide


http://www.vlex.us/caselaw/Florida-Supreme-Court/Ronald-Keith-Williams-Appellant-vs-State-of-Florida-Appellee/2100-20847155,01.html?z=07,recm_18534141

[accordn2me]

Just curious, do you know him personally?

Millions of people saw his media interviews, heard the phone calls to Amber, and heard about his other lies and actions not related to the affair. No doubt they, like me, have concluded that he's a manipulative, uncaring, murderer who lies as easily as he breathes.

IMOenlightenme, try to think back....i don't know at what point you started following this case...hopefully it was before Amber was disclosed to the public....if so, did you have an opinion about Scott?

Calling on others who defend the jury's conviction, especially those who followed this case from the beginning, before you heard about Amber, and certainly well before the testimony and tapes became public, what was your opinion of Scott Peterson?

Did something change that opinion?

If so, what?

[enlightenme]

I drew the conclusion I posted during the trial, based on what I read in transcripts and what I heard on the tapes and interviews, nothing was based on knowing Scott personally. I also tend to draw my own conclusions, independent of other people's opinions, so the negative media hype didn't phase me too much.


I just got a totally different "read" on him.

I also form my own independent opinions and think media hype sucks. In fact, when the media gets focused on a "juicy" story, they do it to death and I have to change the channel. I'm like that right now with the Anna Nicole deal.

Most of the time I don't see many issues in black & white. I'm somewhere in the middle or at least can appreciate both sides of a issue if someone explains their opinions rationally. Fanatics on most issues scare me. :D

There are probably many people who believe whatever they see on TV and are more "sheeple" than people, but I don't really think it's the majority. At least, I hope not! I think the folks posting HERE have read the transcripts and can form their own opinions without being "spoonfed by the media".

[accordn2me]

People v. Burnette, 775 P.2d 583, 590-91 (Colo. 1989).

A trial by jury contemplates that once the deliberative process has begun with a set group of jurors, the decision, or the indecision, rests with that set group. If the jury is unable to reach a unanimous decision, even if it is because of the inability of a single juror to decide the case, then a mistrial must be declared. That is a contemplated and essential part of the jury system. It is part of the requirement of unanimity.

It is also important to note that this was not a case in which a juror became ill, suffered an accident or illness in her family, or was disqualified by some other unanticipated event. Here it is apparent that it was the stress of the responsibility of having to decide this case that resulted in the juror's eventual breakdown and inability to reach a decision. That this may happen is simply a risk we assume because we value the system of trial by jury. When one juror cannot decide, the jury cannot decide


http://www.vlex.us/caselaw/Florida-Supreme-Court/Ronald-Keith-Williams-Appellant-vs-State-of-Florida-Appellee/2100-20847155,01.html?z=07,recm_18534141
This is very interesting wan2be. It begs the question, Once deliberations have begun, why are alternates retained? Are alternates considered part of the "set group of jurors?" Once deliberations have begun, one wouldn't think they are. So why keep 'em around?

[enlightenme]

enlightenme, try to think back....i don't know at what point you started following this case...hopefully it was before Amber was disclosed to the public....if so, did you have an opinion about Scott?

Calling on others who defend the jury's conviction, especially those who followed this case from the beginning, before you heard about Amber, and certainly well before the testimony and tapes became public, what was your opinion of Scott Peterson?

Did something change that opinion?

If so, what?


Nope, had no opinion of him until shortly after the trial started. I've always believed that people are often not what they "seem" to be also. I have read a lot of true crime and that's often the case. "He (or she) seemed like such a nice, normal person! I would never have dreamed that they could have done something like this!"

[enlightenme]

This is very interesting wan2be. It begs the question, Once deliberations have begun, why are alternates retained? Are alternates considered part of the "set group of jurors?" Once deliberations have begun, one wouldn't think they are. So why keep 'em around?

Apparently, in Florida, the do release them. At least they don't sequester them with the original 12. That sounds stupid to me. How hard is it to sequester 3 more people who have sat through the trial and heard all the evidence?

Maybe in Florida, a mistrial must be granted when any juror gets dismissed. :shrug:

Scott's alternate jurors WERE sequestered during the deliberations, so this won't be a successful appeal issue, IMO.

[accordn2me]

Nope, had no opinion of him until shortly after the trial started. I've always believed that people are often not what they "seem" to be also. I have read a lot of true crime and that's often the case. "He (or she) seemed like such a nice, normal person! I would never have dreamed that they could have done something like this!"
Did you have the rare advantage of sitting in the courtroom during trial? Or like most of the rest of the world, did you learn of the developments of the case on television, newspapers, (i.e. media)?

do y'all see where i'm goin' w/ this........

[Beebee]

Apparently, in Florida, the do release them. At least they don't sequester them with the original 12. That sounds stupid to me. How hard is it to sequester 3 more people who have sat through the trial and heard all the evidence?

Maybe in Florida, a mistrial must be granted when any juror gets dismissed. :shrug:

Scott's alternate jurors WERE sequestered during the deliberations, so this won't be a successful appeal issue, IMO.

Yes, they were sequestered, but they did not take part in deliberations, and Richelle Nice admitted, they did not start over. I think that will be an issue.

[Beebee]

Did you have the rare advantage of sitting in the courtroom during trial? Or like most of the rest of the world, did you learn of the developments of the case on television, newspapers, (i.e. media)?

do y'all see where i'm goin' w/ this........

Not really :shrug:

[attorneywan2be]

This is very interesting wan2be. It begs the question, Once deliberations have begun, why are alternates retained? Are alternates considered part of the "set group of jurors?" Once deliberations have begun, one wouldn't think they are. So why keep 'em around?

I'm just quoting what a court of appeal ruled--->if one juror cannot decide, the jury cannot decide..!

Why they need alternates at that point??..I have no idea..I can just guess...maybe a juror can be replaced in very rare circumstances where it is clear that the inability of that juror to continue deliberating is NOT due to an issue that infringes on the defendant's right to a fair trial..such as : disagreements among jurors..bias against the defendant...etc..etc..

Who knows...

[Invrdv8]

Regardless of what you think of juror # 5 the doctor/attorney, judge Delucchi should have declared a mistrial...the case I quoted was about a juror who complained to the judge that she couldn't go on..that she was crying and was not able to deliberate..in other words, she couldn't HANDLE it...the judge dismissed her and replaced her by an alternate...the appellate court reversed the conviction...

This is the opinion of the appellate court:

For the following reasons, we reverse William's conviction for first-degree murder and vacate his sentence of death, holding that, whenever a juror becomes unable to continue jury service after guilt phase deliberations have commenced but before a guilt phase verdict is returned, a new guilt phase trial is required
FTR - My comments had nothing to do with what I think of juror #5. I was recalling what I had heard reported about him Question: When the 12 juors are selected aren't there also a number of alternate jurors selected? If a judge should , IYO, declare a mistrial whenever a juror is dismissed wouldn't there be a new trial and another 12 jurors selected? If so, what is the purpose of having alternate jurors? Does the dismissal of a juror call for a mistrial in every case and in every state?

[Wudge]

Its nonsensical to discuss a case in Florida. As mentioned previously, the states have their own procedures, just like Florida has a 6-person jury to decide any criminal trial excluding a DP case.

Read this please, its even about Peterson.

http://www.acsblog.org/criminal-law-the-peterson-case-did-juror-removal-manipulate-the-verdict.html

The bottom line for Peterson seems to be that, so long as there's evidence in the record that the judge had "good cause" to dismiss the jurors, he won't be able to base an appeal on the replacement of the jurors. Unfortunately, those eager for further details about the juror replacements in the Peterson case might have to wait for the appeal to get a complete accounting of what the judge considered "good cause."

Its an interesting article, and it makes clear that unless a judge abused his discretion in removing a juror, its unlikely to be a successful appeals issue. The question of "abuse" is difficult to establish, and a judge as experienced and respected as Delucchi would not have removed anyone without just cause. IMO, of course.


Removal of jurors without good cause is recognized as grave error in every state in the nation, for it is regarded to represent extreme Constitutional error.

I will quote, in part, from the conclusion in: People v. Delamora (1996) 48 Cal. App.4th.

"We conclude that on the facts presented, the record does not support the existence of good cause to remove the juror. As a result, appellant was denied his federal and state constitutional right to a trial by a fair and impartial jury, and we see no choice but to reverse his conviction despite the heinousness of the crimes involved.

Moreover, the law is clear that “jeopardy attaches when a defendant is placed on trial in a court of competent jurisdiction, on a valid accusatory pleading, before a jury duly impaneled and sworn” and “a discharge of that jury without a verdict is equivalent in law to an acquittal and bars a retrial, unless the defendant consented thereto or legal necessity required it.” (Curry v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 707, 712.) Jeopardy attaches when the jury is empaneled and sworn because of the “need to protect the interest of an accused in retaining a chosen jury.” (Crist v. Bretz (1978) 437 U.S. 28, 35.) Although the trial court’s motives may have been well-intentioned, the fact remains that by removing a juror who, having heard nearly all the evidence, was sympathetic to the defense, the court tilted the jury toward the prosecution thereby ensuring appellant’s conviction.

Since the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy is intended to foreclose judicial attempts to garner advantage for the prosecution or afford it another more favorable opportunity to convict the accused, we are compelled to further hold that the bar of double jeopardy forecloses a new trial."

[attorneywan2be]

FTR - My comments had nothing to do with what I think of juror #5. I was recalling what I had heard reported about him Question: When the 12 juors are selected aren't there also a number of alternate jurors selected? If a judge should , IYO, declare a mistrial whenever a juror is dismissed wouldn't there be a new trial and another 12 jurors selected? If so, what is the purpose of having alternate jurors? Does the dismissal of a juror call for a mistrial in every case and in every state?

It's not whenever a juror is dismissed... the dismissal of a juror AFTER deliberations had begun calls for a mistrial..read the cases I quoted in my previous posts ...one in FL and one in Ohio..

[accordn2me]

I'm just quoting what a court of appeal ruled--->if one juror cannot decide, the jury cannot decide..!

Why they need alternates at that point??..I have no idea..I can just guess...maybe a juror can be replaced in very rare circumstances where it is clear that the inability of that juror to continue deliberating is NOT due to an issue that infringes on the defendant's right to a fair trial..such as : disagreements among jurors..bias against the defendant...etc..etc..

Who knows...well, I don't!

Let me begin by saying I have only read the highlighted portions and maybe a little more about this decision that were posted here. I didn't go to the link. From what I gather in the exchange between this judge and juror, she had issues that should have been disclosed in voir dire. Assuming the questions were properly asked, it seems that this juror was not honest or maybe didn't understand the questions, or thought they could be fair regardless of their history with the system. Whatever the case, had this juror disclosed what had happened to her son during voir dire, and stated that because of that she didn't think she would be able to fairly weigh the evidence, it's doubtful that she would have ever made it into the jury box.

[attorneywan2be]

well, I don't!

Let me begin by saying I have only read the highlighted portions and maybe a little more about this decision that were posted here. I didn't go to the link. From what I gather in the exchange between this judge and juror, she had issues that should have been disclosed in voir dire. Assuming the questions were properly asked, it seems that this juror was not honest or maybe didn't understand the questions, or thought they could be fair regardless of their history with the system. Whatever the case, had this juror disclosed what had happened to her son during voir dire, and stated that because of that she didn't think she would be able to fairly weigh the evidence, it's doubtful that she would have ever made it into the jury box.

That's not the reason the court of appeal cited..it is plain and simple..according to them, the judge should have declared a mistrial rather than replacing her because deliberations had already begun..

[accordn2me]

The phrase "without good cause" keeps coming up. Anybody have any idea what the definition of "good cause" for removing a juror would be?

Could someone who's not on Wudge's ignore list ask him this, please? Even though he's ignoring me, I still value his input. TIA (thanks in advance):seeya:

[Beebee]

Removal of jurors without good cause is recognized as grave error in every state in the nation, for it is regarded to represent extreme Constitutional error.

I will quote, in part, from the conclusion in: People v. Delamora (1996) 48 Cal. App.4th.

"We conclude that on the facts presented, the record does not support the existence of good cause to remove the juror. As a result, appellant was denied his federal and state constitutional right to a trial by a fair and impartial jury, and we see no choice but to reverse his conviction despite the heinousness of the crimes involved.

Moreover, the law is clear that “jeopardy attaches when a defendant is placed on trial in a court of competent jurisdiction, on a valid accusatory pleading, before a jury duly impaneled and sworn” and “a discharge of that jury without a verdict is equivalent in law to an acquittal and bars a retrial, unless the defendant consented thereto or legal necessity required it.” (Curry v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 707, 712.) Jeopardy attaches when the jury is empaneled and sworn because of the “need to protect the interest of an accused in retaining a chosen jury.” (Crist v. Bretz (1978) 437 U.S. 28, 35.) Although the trial court’s motives may have been well-intentioned, the fact remains that by removing a juror who, having heard nearly all the evidence, was sympathetic to the defense, the court tilted the jury toward the prosecution thereby ensuring appellant’s conviction.

Since the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy is intended to foreclose judicial attempts to garner advantage for the prosecution or afford it another more favorable opportunity to convict the accused, we are compelled to further hold that the bar of double jeopardy forecloses a new trial."


:beer:

Thank you.

[Beebee]

Delluchi removed not one but two jurors without good cause, unless "He's like a cancer in there" is good cause. (Did I dream that? lol)

A mad scientists laboratoy indeed.

[Wudge]

:beer:

Thank you.

After Gregory Jackson was removed, I researched reversible error based on juror removal. It's been 2 1/2 years since I pulled up People v. Delamora (1996) 48 Cal. App.4th, and the time seemed right to post the consequences when juror removal takes place without the Judge articulating good cause.

At the very least, as People v. Delamora (1996) 48 Cal. App.4th demonstrates, Judge Delucchi's supporters should not be cavalier on the juror removal issue.

[attorneywan2be]

Removal of jurors without good cause is recognized as grave error in every state in the nation, for it is regarded to represent extreme Constitutional error.

I will quote, in part, from the conclusion in: People v. Delamora (1996) 48 Cal. App.4th.

"We conclude that on the facts presented, the record does not support the existence of good cause to remove the juror. As a result, appellant was denied his federal and state constitutional right to a trial by a fair and impartial jury, and we see no choice but to reverse his conviction despite the heinousness of the crimes involved.

Moreover, the law is clear that “jeopardy attaches when a defendant is placed on trial in a court of competent jurisdiction, on a valid accusatory pleading, before a jury duly impaneled and sworn” and “a discharge of that jury without a verdict is equivalent in law to an acquittal and bars a retrial, unless the defendant consented thereto or legal necessity required it.” (Curry v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 707, 712.) Jeopardy attaches when the jury is empaneled and sworn because of the “need to protect the interest of an accused in retaining a chosen jury.” (Crist v. Bretz (1978) 437 U.S. 28, 35.) Although the trial court’s motives may have been well-intentioned, the fact remains that by removing a juror who, having heard nearly all the evidence, was sympathetic to the defense, the court tilted the jury toward the prosecution thereby ensuring appellant’s conviction.

Since the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy is intended to foreclose judicial attempts to garner advantage for the prosecution or afford it another more favorable opportunity to convict the accused, we are compelled to further hold that the bar of double jeopardy forecloses a new trial."


Thank you Wudge..!!

I rest my case..!

[Beebee]

After Gregory Jackson was removed, I researched reversible error based on juror removal. It's been 2 1/2 years since I pulled up People v. Delamora (1996) 48 Cal. App.4th, and the time seemed right to post the consequences when juror removal takes place without the Judge articulating good cause.

At the very least, as People v. Delamora (1996) 48 Cal. App.4th demonstrates, Judge Delucchi's supporters should not be cavalier on the juror removal issue.

I'm glad you did post it Wudge. It was very clear.

Here is a question: If Delucchi's good cause is he was persuaded by Jackson, then doesn't that show Delucchi knew of and accepted that the other jurors were interferring with Jackson's ability to be fair, as he feared for his safety??

Jackson is a lawyer, I wonder, was he hoping to invoke a mistrial?

If there was ever a trial that deemed it, it was this one.

IMO

[Wudge]

I'm glad you did post it Wudge. It was very clear.

Here is a question: If Delucchi's good cause is he was persuaded by Jackson, then doesn't that show Delucchi knew of and accepted that the other jurors were interferring with Jackson's ability to be fair, as he feared for his safety??

Jackson is a lawyer, I wonder, was he hoping to invoke a mistrial?

If there was ever a trial that deemed it, it was this one.

IMO


Beebee, a key question will be: Was it reasonable for Judge Delucchi to not have Gregory Jackson's claim investigated? Please recognize that Jackson's claim was, arguably and at best, ambiguous.

This leads into an area and series of thoughts I have kept completely to myself from the day that Jackson was removed from the jury and I pullled up cases that support reversal with jeopardy based on juror removal.

Think about the movie: No Way Out. Then think about who might have thought they needed to provide a way out and for whom?

[Wudge]

If you research CA law, you will find that Judge Delucchi did the correct/legal thing. Jurors may indeed be replaced during deliberations, however, the jurors then have to go back to the beginning. This is why the alternates are kept on, and I admit, it's not a stretch to believe that Delucchi knew what he was doing.

Please read back in this thread so as to catch up and understand that the nexus of the juror removal issue is "cause".

[accordn2me]

If you research CA law, you will find that Judge Delucchi did the correct/legal thing. Jurors may indeed be replaced during deliberations, however, the jurors then have to go back to the beginning. This is why the alternates are kept on, and I admit, it's not a stretch to believe that Delucchi knew what he was doing.
pssssst...TG..:seeya:

Wudge can't see me...ignore list...bad Acorn!:punch:

Ask him what "good cause" would be?

Some here feel the law is clear that once deliberations have begun, there is NO REASON a juror can be replaced with an alternate. I don't know if Wudge believes that or not....:shrug:

TIA

[Wudge]

Ummm........Wudge, I did read the whole thread, I stand by what I said. Btw - how's those opposed opposites doing? :no:

Top, this is not websleuths. I've enjoyed several of the members on that site since the very beginning of the case. However, in this forum, I will pull the ignore trigger here much faster than I do there.

I will not support non-value add discussion or absurdities. I say this simply so you understand that the standards are not the same.

[Wearing A Halo]

One of the great inconsistencies that exists in this case is that prior to the revelation of his affair, everyone said Scott was a truly nice and helpful guy, and that he and Laci never fought and were very happy together -- without exception, absolutely everyone.

The other great consistency is that Scott's history is totally non-violent. They could not find a fight that Scott had ever gotten into. Thus, Scott is alleged to have jumped from resolving issues without using violence to resolving an alleged issue through murder.

Not only is it humongously inconsistent with Scott's history and character, but profilers maintain massive character jumps, such as is alleged in this case, is not something that would point to Scott being the murderer.

However, Steven Todd was a prior felon. .....................

Non Sequitor above.

However:

It is not inconsistant at all. Being a "Charming Man" is a clear sign of repression. DRISP was certainly hiding something throughout his whole life and it still manefested itself during the investigation. Laci was enabling him so much because her own insecurities and I think that they were more alike than opposites. His family are enablers too. There had to be unhappiness in their (marriage) and they tried to pull it off to the point of trying so hard to be perfect. I think that they argured behind close doors and were able to just let it be. It is my contention that there is no such thing as perfection and that only 'as close to perfect' exist in life. Something changed in the lives of Laci and DRISP's life and that change was the pregnancy. It is also obvious that DRISP was dependent on others and those close to him to help him survive, but, when it came to crunch time he couldn't be there for them. DRISP was living a double life with an alter-ego (the international man of mystery). In essence, DRISP never grew up into manhood and certainly Laci was ready to grow up to be a woman, wife and mother. There were no character jumps in DRISP, but only character flaws. He just simply never changed he always had a facade and did what he thought was right in his head, but he was wrong.

[Wudge]

Wudge, I know where I'm posting, and I know what I'm saying. If you feel the need to put me on ignore, then by all means, do so. I too have enjoyed several members on that sight since way-back-when, and I assure you, my standards are just as high, if not higher than yours. I've heard enough NG non-value imput and absuridities to last for all of eternity. The difference between you and me is I don't take it personally. I will continue to voice my opinion on this case on or off your ignore list, so do what makes you feel good and enjoy your evening Wudge. :patriot:

Fine by me. Bye.

[Invrdv8]

I'm glad you did post it Wudge. It was very clear.

Here is a question: If Delucchi's good cause is he was persuaded by Jackson, then doesn't that show Delucchi knew of and accepted that the other jurors were interferring with Jackson's ability to be fair, as he feared for his safety??

Jackson is a lawyer, I wonder, was he hoping to invoke a mistrial?

If there was ever a trial that deemed it, it was this one.

IMO
How could it be determined what Jackson's "ability to be fair" is? Wasn't he the one with multiple notebooks full of his own notes? IIRC he wanted to touch on his notes one by one rather than consider the evidence. Also, weren't all his notebooks conficsated by the court when he was dismissed so who knows what his notes consisted of. From what I can gather he did have law and medical degrees but, I don't think he was into criminal law, something to do with patents maybe and I don't believe he was practicing medicine. I don't know where to begin looking for any info on Jackson if any even exists. Howard K. Stern is a lawyer too, but look at the mess Anna's legal affairs are in.:confused:

[Wudge]

How could it be determined what Jackson's "ability to be fair" is? Wasn't he the one with multiple notebooks full of his own notes? IIRC he wanted to touch on his notes one by one rather than consider the evidence. Also, weren't all his notebooks conficsated by the court when he was dismissed so who knows what his notes consisted of. From what I can gather he did have law and medical degrees but, I don't think he was into criminal law, something to do with patents maybe and I don't believe he was practicing medicine. I don't know where to begin looking for any info on Jackson if any even exists. Howard K. Stern is a lawyer too, but look at the mess Anna's legal affairs are in.:confused:

Gregory Jackson had 19 filled notebooks. Steve Cardosi said the jurors wanted to go through his evidence, which seems at odds with appearances, but no one really knows both sides on this matter.

When Jackson was accepted onto to the jury, he practiced corporate law for a medical related firm. After the trial he went and has maintained and an extremely low profile.

[accordn2me]

Allow me to clarify.

Wall testified that someone looked at a page.
He did not testify that anyone did a site search for the gap scarf and umbrella stand.Miss Bootsie, we know Scott was home at 8:44 AM Dec. 24th. Who's to say he didn't do a search for an umbrella stand to replace the one he was about to use to sink Laci in the bay with?

[Lili007]

Removal of jurors without good cause is recognized as grave error in every state in the nation, for it is regarded to represent extreme Constitutional error.

I will quote, in part, from the conclusion in: People v. Delamora (1996) 48 Cal. App.4th.

"We conclude that on the facts presented, the record does not support the existence of good cause to remove the juror. As a result, appellant was denied his federal and state constitutional right to a trial by a fair and impartial jury, and we see no choice but to reverse his conviction despite the heinousness of the crimes involved.

Moreover, the law is clear that “jeopardy attaches when a defendant is placed on trial in a court of competent jurisdiction, on a valid accusatory pleading, before a jury duly impaneled and sworn” and “a discharge of that jury without a verdict is equivalent in law to an acquittal and bars a retrial, unless the defendant consented thereto or legal necessity required it.” (Curry v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 707, 712.) Jeopardy attaches when the jury is empaneled and sworn because of the “need to protect the interest of an accused in retaining a chosen jury.” (Crist v. Bretz (1978) 437 U.S. 28, 35.) Although the trial court’s motives may have been well-intentioned, the fact remains that by removing a juror who, having heard nearly all the evidence, was sympathetic to the defense, the court tilted the jury toward the prosecution thereby ensuring appellant’s conviction.

Since the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy is intended to foreclose judicial attempts to garner advantage for the prosecution or afford it another more favorable opportunity to convict the accused, we are compelled to further hold that the bar of double jeopardy forecloses a new trial."

Maybe I speak only for myself here... but I'm not blind, nor deaf.

Your use of big bold typeface doesn't make your point. Words expressing your thoughts and opinions should stand on their own, at least if you have any confidence in your own statements.

[One2Snoop]

Removal of jurors without good cause is recognized as grave error in every state in the nation, for it is regarded to represent extreme Constitutional error.

I will quote, in part, from the conclusion in: People v. Delamora (1996) 48 Cal. App.4th.

"We conclude that on the facts presented, the record does not support the existence of good cause to remove the juror. As a result, appellant was denied his federal and state constitutional right to a trial by a fair and impartial jury, and we see no choice but to reverse his conviction despite the heinousness of the crimes involved.

Moreover, the law is clear that “jeopardy attaches when a defendant is placed on trial in a court of competent jurisdiction, on a valid accusatory pleading, before a jury duly impaneled and sworn” and “a discharge of that jury without a verdict is equivalent in law to an acquittal and bars a retrial, unless the defendant consented thereto or legal necessity required it.” (Curry v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 707, 712.) Jeopardy attaches when the jury is empaneled and sworn because of the “need to protect the interest of an accused in retaining a chosen jury.” (Crist v. Bretz (1978) 437 U.S. 28, 35.) Although the trial court’s motives may have been well-intentioned, the fact remains that by removing a juror who, having heard nearly all the evidence, was sympathetic to the defense, the court tilted the jury toward the prosecution thereby ensuring appellant’s conviction.

Since the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy is intended to foreclose judicial attempts to garner advantage for the prosecution or afford it another more favorable opportunity to convict the accused, we are compelled to further hold that the bar of double jeopardy forecloses a new trial."

Wudge,

I have to admit, this does appear as though you're shouting. Although I don't think that was your intention and you were only trying to make a point I think simply using bold minus the large letters to emphasize your point along with your opinion is all thats necessary.

Thank you.

[cookiewench]

Miss Bootsie, we know Scott was home at 8:44 AM Dec. 24th. Who's to say he didn't do a search for an umbrella stand to replace the one he was about to use to sink Laci in the bay with?

I've thought that same thing.

And the fleece scarf - maybe Laci had talked about ordering one in another color, as she really liked the one she had - and Scott was checking her bookmark to see if she had.

[Miss Bootsie]

Miss Bootsie, we know Scott was home at 8:44 AM Dec. 24th. Who's to say he didn't do a search for an umbrella stand to replace the one he was about to use to sink Laci in the bay with?

Accord, Wall (computer expert), didn't testify that anyone went shopping for an umbrella stand or a gap scarf.

Read Wall's testimony and note that when he talks about the search results for the SF Bay, fishing, shopping for a boat, etc.,he references the key words that were actually typed in the search box for the search results.

This is not the case with the gap scarf & umbrella stand.
No one typed scarf or gap scarf into the search box.
Same with the umbrella stand.

Apparently Wall saw both of these items on one shopping page.

You may have heard claims that a user of the home computer went shopping at the Gap for a scarf on the morning of the 24th. This is false.

Par the course for Mr. Geragos. He is the one who put the story out that someone went shopping the morning of the 24th.

[Miss Bootsie]

Wudge,

I have to admit, this does appear as though you're shouting. Although I don't think that was your intention and you were only trying to make a point I think simply using bold minus the large letters to emphasize your point along with your opinion is all thats necessary.

Thank you.

Thank you 2Snoop.

To be honest, most posts by Wudge are sooo long, I usually just skip over them.

[JustMyOpinion]

The curling iron is evidence that Laci was alive on 12/24. As are the web site searches at 8:44AM on 12/24 for a a gap scarf and sunflower motif umbrella stand.

If Laci was alive that morning, at the very least, her being alive at that time works heavily against the State's theory that this was a long thought out premeditated murder by Scott. Because its ridiculous to think that a plan is executed that left behind absolutely no forensic evidence or scent anywhere, yet the murderer was so stupid that they hsd to carry a body out to their truck in broad daylight when they could have transferred it to the truck under the cover of darkness.

I disagree that the curling iron is evidence of anything pertaining to when Laci last used it, or when she died. The web site searches "evidence" show it is possible Laci may have logged onto the computer and searched some sites on the morning of 12/24,but it is equally possible that Scott logged on and performed those searches. No witnesses testified to speaking with or seeing a living, Laci Peterson after she hung up the phone from her mother at approx 8:30 p.m. on 12/23. There was forensic/biological evidence, ( i.e. Scott's blood on comforter, hair compatible with Laci's in pliers found under the seat of boat, bodies of Laci & Conner found a day apart on the shoreline within miles of where Scott claimed he was "fishing" ) The evidence showed Laci & Conner were killed sometime between 8:30 p.m. on 12/23 and the afternoon of 12/24.

[JustMyOpinion]

In my previous post I quoted Dr. Lee...

He stated that he would expect forensic evidence when someone is smothered...

Dr Lee did not testify in court, or under-go cross-examination under oath. ( despite the fact he was retained by the Defense) Telling Larry King what he would "expect" is hardly the same as answering questions under oath in front of a jury, IMO. Do you think it is possible the Prosecution would have asked him more detailed questions about this issue than someone like Larry King? Do you have an opinion as to why Defense did not call Dr Lee as an expert witness?

[Wudge]

Wudge,

I have to admit, this does appear as though you're shouting. Although I don't think that was your intention and you were only trying to make a point I think simply using bold minus the large letters to emphasize your point along with your opinion is all thats necessary.

Thank you.

If emphasis is to be limited, I'm fine with that. A sticky should be created.

[JustMyOpinion]

One of the great inconsistencies that exists in this case is that prior to the revelation of his affair, everyone said Scott was a truly nice and helpful guy, and that he and Laci never fought and were very happy together -- without exception, absolutely everyone.

The other great consistency is that Scott's history is totally non-violent. They could not find a fight that Scott had ever gotten into. Thus, Scott is alleged to have jumped from resolving issues without using violence to resolving an alleged issue through murder.

Not only is it humongously inconsistent with Scott's history and character, but profilers maintain massive character jumps, such as is alleged in this case, is not something that would point to Scott being the murderer.

However, Steven Todd was a prior felon. .....................

I agree there was testimony offered that Scott was a nice & helpful guy, that he & Laci displayed no conflict in public, that they seemed happy, AND, that no history of violent behavior was brought forward. "Profilers" did not testify at this trial, although I would be interested in reading an inductive & deductive profile on this case, as well as a victimology study. Turvey ( Profiler) says there are basically two motives for domestic homicide, profit & rage ( and sometimes they blend). Turvey says there are four triggers: a pregnancy, an affair, a separation, a child custody dispute. Two of the four triggers were present in the Peterson marriage and there was evidence shown that Scott could "profit" by killing his family ( in financial and other ways). Homicide by intimate partner is the leading cause of death for pregnant women in the United States, so Scott's crime is sadly not "rare".
The prosecution did not bring evidence of a highly conflicted relationship, a hot crime of passion, or a known history of physical abuse because those were not the facts in this case. They brought evidence showing calculation, planning, cold execution, IMO.

[Wudge]

I disagree that the curling iron is evidence of anything pertaining to when Laci last used it, or when she died. The web site searches "evidence" show it is possible Laci may have logged onto the computer and searched some sites on the morning of 12/24,but it is equally possible that Scott logged on and performed those searches. No witnesses testified to speaking with or seeing a living, Laci Peterson after she hung up the phone from her mother at approx 8:30 p.m. on 12/23. There was forensic/biological evidence, ( i.e. Scott's blood on comforter, hair compatible with Laci's in pliers found under the seat of boat, bodies of Laci & Conner found a day apart on the shoreline within miles of where Scott claimed he was "fishing" ) The evidence showed Laci & Conner were killed sometime between 8:30 p.m. on 12/23 and the afternoon of 12/24.


I agree that Laci could have been murdered in the aftermoon of 12/24.

[Wudge]

I agree there was testimony offered that Scott was a nice & helpful guy, that he & Laci displayed no conflict in public, that they seemed happy, AND, that no history of violent behavior was brought forward. "Profilers" did not testify at this trial, although I would be interested in reading an inductive & deductive profile on this case, as well as a victimology study. Turvey ( Profiler) says there are basically two motives for domestic homicide, profit & rage ( and sometimes they blend). Turvey says there are four triggers: a pregnancy, an affair, a separation, a child custody dispute. Two of the four triggers were present in the Peterson marriage and there was evidence shown that Scott could "profit" by killing his family ( in financial and other ways). Homicide by intimate partner is the leading cause of death for pregnant women in the United States, so Scott's crime is sadly not "rare".
The prosecution did not bring evidence of a highly conflicted relationship, a hot crime of passion, or a known history of physical abuse because those were not the facts in this case. They brought evidence showing calculation, planning, cold execution, IMO.

Cite the evidence that would allow you to develop premises necessary to deductively derive a valid and true conclusion that Scott calculated, planned and coldly executed Laci's murder.

If that cannot be achieved through deduction, then cite the evidence and necessary inferences that would allow you to inductively form a reliable (at the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt) conclusion that Scott calculated, planned and coldly executed Laci's murder.

[thinkaboutit]

Thank you 2Snoop.

To be honest, most posts by Wudge are sooo long, I usually just skip over them.

Definitely your loss.

[TuscanDreams]

Wudge,
I have to admit, this does appear as though you're shouting. Although I don't think that was your intention and you were only trying to make a point I think simply using bold minus the large letters to emphasize your point along with your opinion is all thats necessary.

Thank you.

I agree with Snoop.

[thinkaboutit]

Beebee, you're obviously intelligent, knowlegeable and educated enough to know that what I said had nothing to do with my diet. But please don't let me interfere with your sarcasm.

You know what? I can add to those appealable appeal issues, but it's not going to make an ounce of difference in this case. Because he killed his wife and his unborn child in the process of exploring what he wanted most, when he wanted it. What he did NOT want was being tied up to domestic life or being responsible for child support for the next 17 years, as opposed to being Jack-Cadillac-free to roam the world, make his conquests, and move on without any sense of responsability to ANYONE, particularly to a wife and child.

Nothing I say can make it any worse, and nothing you say can make it any better.

JMO

You adding to those "appealable appeal issues" may not make an ounce of difference in this case - but that's not what we're here for is it? I thought we were here to discuss - or even debate - but if you're not going to support your argument - it won't do much for your credibility here.

[thinkaboutit]

Accord, Wall (computer expert), didn't testify that anyone went shopping for an umbrella stand or a gap scarf.

Read Wall's testimony and note that when he talks about the search results for the SF Bay, fishing, shopping for a boat, etc.,he references the key words that were actually typed in the search box for the search results.

This is not the case with the gap scarf & umbrella stand.No one typed scarf or gap scarf into the search box.
Same with the umbrella stand.

Apparently Wall saw both of these items on one shopping page.

You may have heard claims that a user of the home computer went shopping at the Gap for a scarf on the morning of the 24th. This is false.

Par the course for Mr. Geragos. He is the one who put the story out that someone went shopping the morning of the 24th.


Of course he didn't - Wall was a prosecution expert - his investigation of the activity on Scott and Laci's computer was one-sided - it was obvious the only thing he was trying to accomplish was to help the prosecution's case. Geragos was a fool for not hiring his own computer expert.

There is no testimony, Miss Bootsie that says Wall saw both of these items on one shopping page. Please provide the testimony instead of asking people to go find it.

[Lili007]

Definitely your loss.

Ummm.... NO.

A time saver, if anything - MAYBE, but I don't think so....

JMO
Lili

[thinkaboutit]

Non Sequitor above.

However:

It is not inconsistant at all. Being a "Charming Man" is a clear sign of repression. DRISP was certainly hiding something throughout his whole life and it still manefested itself during the investigation. Laci was enabling him so much because her own insecurities and I think that they were more alike than opposites. His family are enablers too. There had to be unhappiness in their (marriage) and they tried to pull it off to the point of trying so hard to be perfect. I think that they argured behind close doors and were able to just let it be. It is my contention that there is no such thing as perfection and that only 'as close to perfect' exist in life. Something changed in the lives of Laci and DRISP's life and that change was the pregnancy. It is also obvious that DRISP was dependent on others and those close to him to help him survive, but, when it came to crunch time he couldn't be there for them. DRISP was living a double life with an alter-ego (the international man of mystery). In essence, DRISP never grew up into manhood and certainly Laci was ready to grow up to be a woman, wife and mother. There were no character jumps in DRISP, but only character flaws. He just simply never changed he always had a facade and did what he thought was right in his head, but he was wrong.

Being a charming man is a clear sign of repression? Since when? There had to be unhappiness in their marriage? Why?

There may be no such thing as perfection....I agree. But there is such a thing as being perfect for each other. And everybody that knew them (prior to finding out about Amber) said they were.

Scott never grew up into manhood? Every indication suggests the opposite (except the circle argument that he murdered his wife). He had a college education, he had a good job, he did things around the house, he even was the guy who helped the neigbors when they needed it. This was not superficial charm - Scott was charming and helpful- there is a difference.

[Miss Bootsie]

Definitely your loss.

Sorry, but I disagree.

[JustMyOpinion]

Cite the evidence that would allow you to develop premises necessary to deductively derive a valid and true conclusion that Scott calculated, planned and coldly executed Laci's murder.

If that cannot be achieved through deduction, then cite the evidence and necessary inferences that would allow you to inductively form a reliable (at the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt) conclusion that Scott calculated, planned and coldly executed Laci's murder.

I believe the prior inconsistent statements that he lost his wife are telling, especially since around the time he claimed this to Amber, he bought the boat w/ cash & searched the tides of the Bay. He told nobody about the boat, stored it away from home. He purchased a fishing permit, filled it out for 12/23 - 12/24. Concrete anchor ( made at warehouse) evidence that more were made. Dog w/ leash found wandering in street approx 10 min after cell phone records show Scott was at or near the home. No biological evidence at home of a protracted violent fight, a shooting, a knifing, a beathing. Laci's blouse in hamper, necklace on dresser, but body found in remnats of bra, panties, pants. Blood on comforter, cut on hand. Probable method smothering or strangulation, IMO.

[Miss Bootsie]

Of course he didn't - Wall was a prosecution expert - his investigation of the activity on Scott and Laci's computer was one-sided - it was obvious the only thing he was trying to accomplish was to help the prosecution's case. Geragos was a fool for not hiring his own computer expert.

There is no testimony, Miss Bootsie that says Wall saw both of these items on one shopping page. Please provide the testimony instead of asking people to go find it.

As predicted, you now make an attempt to discredit the witness.

Who asked anyone to go find the testimony?
I asked that they read the testimony of Wall.
Not specifically the testimony that referenced the scarf and umbrella stand, but a request that they read the testimony from beginning to end.


Just because Wall didn't say, "I saw both of those items on one page", does not mean he didn't see both items on one page.

Hmmm, do you honestly think Geragos failed to hire his own computer expert? You probably just failed to hear about it.

[Wudge]

I'm glad you did post it Wudge. It was very clear.

Here is a question: If Delucchi's good cause is he was persuaded by Jackson, then doesn't that show Delucchi knew of and accepted that the other jurors were interferring with Jackson's ability to be fair, as he feared for his safety??

Jackson is a lawyer, I wonder, was he hoping to invoke a mistrial?

If there was ever a trial that deemed it, it was this one.

IMO

Juror removal is an action of last resort. Because he did remove Jackson from the jury, Judge Delucchi had to secure the trial record with clear articulation of the just cause upon which he based Jackson's removal. Moreover, such articulation would have had to take in account that Jackson's removal came after Jackson expressed concern for his safety.

Judge Delucchi was responsible to do all that he could to cure Jackson's safety concern. Once Jackson expressed concern for his safety, properly removing Jackson could only come after Judge Delucchi exhausted all other reasonable options.

If the Court finds upon appeal that Judge Delucchi did not exhaust all other reasonable options, then, undoubtedly, Peterson would prevail, jeopardy would attach, and Scott would be forever free.

[cookiewench]

Being a charming man is a clear sign of repression? Since when? There had to be unhappiness in their marriage? Why?

There may be no such thing as perfection....I agree. But there is such a thing as being perfect for each other. And everybody that knew them (prior to finding out about Amber) said they were.



A man who habitually cheats on and lies to his wife is "perfect" for her?

[Wudge]

A man who habitually cheats on and lies to his wife is "perfect" for her?


Laci accepted the fact that Scott was not faithful to her.

[JustMyOpinion]

Scott never grew up into manhood? Every indication suggests the opposite (except the circle argument that he murdered his wife). He had a college education, he had a good job, he did things around the house, he even was the guy who helped the neigbors when they needed it. This was not superficial charm - Scott was charming and helpful- there is a difference.

There was testimony that at times, Scott behaved in a manner that was charming and helpful. Without knowing Scott personally, I am not sure how you can determine whether his charm is/ was superficial, and Scott did not choose to testify, not sure how his personality would have come across during questioning, or when being challenged. It did take Scott almost 8 years to obtain that college degree, ( no explanation offered as to why)testimony shows he was not successful at TradeCorp ( only had met 20 percent of his quota) Jurors have said he does know how to come across as helpful/charming ( based on some of his demeanor in court), but many of them determined this was superficial & possibly manipulative after listening to him tell lie after lie on recorded tapes, IMO.

[accordn2me]

I agree that Laci could have been murdered in the aftermoon of 12/24.Get ready, y'all. I agree with Wudge!

It's entirely possible Laci was, bound, gagged, and alive when Scott dumped her and Conner in the bay that December afternoon.:flamemad:

[JustMyOpinion]

Laci accepted the fact that Scott was not faithful to her.

How can you know this? Laci is not here to speak for herself. There was evidence that Laci knew about one affair early in the marriage, and clearly she chose to stay with him at that time. Are you purporting to know Laci's precise knowledge and state of mind regarding Scott's womanizing in the weeks/days before she was murdered by Scott?

[accordn2me]

Accord, Wall (computer expert), didn't testify that anyone went shopping for an umbrella stand or a gap scarf.

Read Wall's testimony and note that when he talks about the search results for the SF Bay, fishing, shopping for a boat, etc.,he references the key words that were actually typed in the search box for the search results.

This is not the case with the gap scarf & umbrella stand.
No one typed scarf or gap scarf into the search box.
Same with the umbrella stand.

Apparently Wall saw both of these items on one shopping page.

You may have heard claims that a user of the home computer went shopping at the Gap for a scarf on the morning of the 24th. This is false.

Par the course for Mr. Geragos. He is the one who put the story out that someone went shopping the morning of the 24th.

I'll tell you what's par the course for me Boots....I'll read something the NGs claim, think....OK, there's something in Scott's favor, go read the only transcripts I know of, and it becomes more clear than ever, the prosecution presented a rock-solid case beyond a reasonable doubt, in fact, after reading the transcripts, which I had never read, I have NO doubt, Scott Peterson murdered Laci and Conner Peterson.

Furthermore, it's painfully obvious the defense did not have a defense to present. MG had to run himself ragged trying to refute the evidence presented by the prosecution. He promised he would present witnesses and prove SP stone cold innocent. And present witnesses he did, 14 in all. And not a single one supported the burglars did it, or anyone other than Scott did it!

[Wudge]

I believe the prior inconsistent statements that he lost his wife are telling, especially since around the time he claimed this to Amber, he bought the boat w/ cash & searched the tides of the Bay. He told nobody about the boat, stored it away from home. He purchased a fishing permit, filled it out for 12/23 - 12/24. Concrete anchor ( made at warehouse) evidence that more were made. Dog w/ leash found wandering in street approx 10 min after cell phone records show Scott was at or near the home. No biological evidence at home of a protracted violent fight, a shooting, a knifing, a beathing. Laci's blouse in hamper, necklace on dresser, but body found in remnats of bra, panties, pants. Blood on comforter, cut on hand. Probable method smothering or strangulation, IMO.

The boat was purchased with cash at the request of the prior owner, Bruce Peterson. The transfer of the boat had been recorded with the State. The State had made the transfer from Bruce Peterson to Scott Peterson. The address for Scott was 523 Covena Ave, which is his home address. Thus, all Dept Of Motor Vehicle mail would have gone there. Moreover, Distaso never said or argued that the boat was not registered. That's case mythology. There was nothing sinister in the transaction, and Scott immediately told LE about the boat. It was not a secret. There is no form of predicative logic that would allow such an inference (boat was a secret) to be developed at the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt as required by the jury instructions.

Scott is a lifelong fisherman. There was neither testimony nor claim from the prosecutors this was not true.

As a fisherman would do, Scott bought a fishing license. He bought lures, including a lure for stripers. He bought a new fishing rod. He researched the tides. He researched fishing camps. He bought a fishing boat. All are common and reasonable actions of a fisherman. Thus, per jury instructions all such actions must accrue to the defense. Therfore, these actions could not be used to support guilt.

Please recognize that absence of inculpatory evidence is not evidence. Notwithstanding that truth, not only was there not biological evidence as you stated, there was no forensic evidence to support the charge that Scott murdered Laci .

Please cite your "probable" proof of smothering or strangulation.

Please cite the proof beyond a reasonable doubt (necessary trial standard for each item of inculpatory evidence) that more than one anchor was made.

[Wudge]

How can you know this? Laci is not here to speak for herself. There was evidence that Laci knew about one affair early in the marriage, and clearly she chose to stay with him at that time. Are you purporting to know Laci's precise knowledge and state of mind regarding Scott's womanizing in the weeks/days before she was murdered by Scott?

Laci knew that Scott was not faithful to her long before she was murdered. Laci was free to leave Scott at any point after acquiring that knowledge. That she did not is prima facie support that she accepted the fact that her husband had been unfaithful to her.

[thinkaboutit]

As predicted, you now make an attempt to discredit the witness.

Who asked anyone to go find the testimony?
I asked that they read the testimony of Wall.
Not specifically the testimony that referenced the scarf and umbrella stand, but a request that they read the testimony from beginning to end.


Just because Wall didn't say, "I saw both of those items on one page", does not mean he didn't see both items on one page.

Hmmm, do you honestly think Geragos failed to hire his own computer expert? You probably just failed to hear about it.


As predicted - you offer your opinion of the testimony with no quotes from the testimony to support your argument.

So can you explain to me how you know that Wall saw those items on the same page - even though (according to you) he never said he did? Are you using your expertise in computers to come to this conclusion? Would you mind providing the testimony that supports your conclusion? If not then state that it is your opinion - or your interpretation.

Are you forgetting about Wall's testimony that he did not make any attempt to establish whether it was Laci or Scott on the computer that day? Even though he testified that it was possible? Don't you think that if it was possible to establish that SCOTT was on the computer, and he was a prosecution witness, he would have established that it was Scott on the computer?

You doubt that Geragos DIDN'T hire an expert.....I doubt that Wall DIDN'T establish who was on the computer that day based on previous habits - and I'm willing to bet that he established it was Laci on the computer - otherwise he would have testified it was Scott.

Here's my testimony to back up what I say - now where's yours?

GERAGOS: Okay. And that's one, and so if I understand correctly, what you've, what you were saying earlier when I asked you to figure out who was the person who maybe logged on at 8:40, I mean, we show an e-mail by Scott at 8:45, but to find out who it was who logged on and looked at the weather and looked at the sunflower item and looked at the, the other, fleece scarf, you would have to analyze certain things that were done on that day, correct?

WALL: That's correct.

GERAGOS: And compare them historically with that user to try to differentiate between Laci and Scott, correct?

WALL: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. And I assume that there's computer trails of some kind that you would use in order to do that, correct?

WALL: If it's requested, yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And the, that was never requested in this case, if I'm correct?

WALL: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. The computer trails that you would go to look at that would give you kinds of signposts or indications whether or not it was Laci who signed on or whether it was Scott would be what? Give me some examples of what you would do.

WALL: What I would do?

GERAGOS: What you would do in order to try to determine that or to make a comparison?

WALL: Yes. Like I mentioned earlier, we would look at e-mails that were accessed during that time frame, different web surfing habits. We would, there would just be a variety of files created by an individual user. So there's a lot of different variables that we would potentially look at.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then what you would do is compare, if I understand you correctly, you would compare the usage, if somebody goes to weather, you go back and take a look, did Laci do that in the past, correct?

WALL: That's correct. How many instances were there in the past where, say, for example, the weather of the South Bay, San Jose area was checked.

GERAGOS: Okay. You could also compare, I suppose, the times that the computer is accessed to see if there's a pattern first thing in the morning, or somebody gets up before they go for a walk, they want to check the weather?

WALL: That's correct.

GERAGOS: You could compare and see if this particular person, if it's Laci, had actually accessed a GAP web site before, they actually made a purchase, correct?

WALL: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, but none of that was done in this case, as far as you know? You weren't asked to do it?

WALL: A specific time line, no.



http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/Pwitnesses/Wall.htm

[JustMyOpinion]

Laci knew that Scott was not faithful to her long before she was murdered. Laci was free to leave Scott at any point after acquiring that knowledge. That she did not is prima facie support that she accepted the fact that her husband had been unfaithful to her.

It is obvious that early in the marriage, Laci was made aware of a relationship Scott was having with another woman. It is obvious that at that time, for her own reasons, she chose to stay in the marriage. There has been no evidence that five years later a pregnant Laci was aware of other infidelities, aware of his new relationship with Amber, or that her state of mind was that she accepted his conduct.

[thinkaboutit]

I'll tell you what's par the course for me Boots....I'll read something the NGs claim, think....OK, there's something in Scott's favor, go read the only transcripts I know of, and it becomes more clear than ever, the prosecution presented a rock-solid case beyond a reasonable doubt, in fact, after reading the transcripts, which I had never read, I have NO doubt, Scott Peterson murdered Laci and Conner Peterson.

Furthermore, it's painfully obvious the defense did not have a defense to present. MG had to run himself ragged trying to refute the evidence presented by the prosecution. He promised he would present witnesses and prove SP stone cold innocent. And present witnesses he did, 14 in all. And not a single one supported the burglars did it, or anyone other than Scott did it!


Accordn2me - so you have read the transcripts - or you haven't?

[thinkaboutit]

Unless Scott actually registered the boat, it would not have been recorded with the State as Scott being the new owner. Bruce Peterson sent in the transfer of liability, which releases him from any and all liability as regards the boat. The California DMV doesn't automatically register the new owner, nor does it send anything to the address UNTIL the new owner resisters the vehicle. We have not seen any proof that Scott did in fact register the boat.

Is there a certain amount of time that a new owner has to register a boat with the California DMV?

[Wudge]

It is obvious that early in the marriage, Laci was made aware of a relationship Scott was having with another woman. It is obvious that at that time, for her own reasons, she chose to stay in the marriage. There has been no evidence that five years later a pregnant Laci was aware of other infidelities, aware of his new relationship with Amber, or that her state of mind was that she accepted his conduct.

After acquiring knowledge of his unfaithfulness, her willingness to stay in the marriage evidences her acceptance.

Regarding Laci knowing or not knowing about Amber, she may well have or not.

[JustMyOpinion]

The boat was purchased with cash at the request of the prior owner, Bruce Peterson. The transfer of the boat had been recorded with the State. The State had made the transfer from Bruce Peterson to Scott Peterson. The address for Scott was 523 Covena Ave, which is his home address. Thus, all Dept Of Motor Vehicle mail would have gone there. Moreover, Distaso never said or argued that the boat was not registered. That's case mythology. There was nothing sinister in the transaction, and Scott immediately told LE about the boat. It was not a secret. There is no form of predicative logic that would allow such an inference (boat was a secret) to be developed at the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt as required by the jury instructions.

Scott is a lifelong fisherman. There was neither testimony nor claim from the prosecutors this was not true.

As a fisherman would do, Scott bought a fishing license. He bought lures, including a lure for stripers. He bought a new fishing rod. He researched the tides. He researched fishing camps. He bought a fishing boat. All are common and reasonable actions of a fisherman. Thus, per jury instructions all such actions must accrue to the defense. Therfore, these actions could not be used to support guilt.

Please recognize that absence of inculpatory evidence is not evidence. Notwithstanding that truth, not only was there not biological evidence as you stated, there was no forensic evidence to support the charge that Scott murdered Laci .

Please cite your "probable" proof of smothering or strangulation.

Please cite the proof beyond a reasonable doubt (necessary trial standard for each item of inculpatory evidence) that more than one anchor was made.

You asked, I answered. I am not a sworn juror, I have not been instructed by the judge in a court of law, this is a message board. You disagree with my interpretation of the evidence, and my conclusions which is okay with me. I think the photo showing a horizontal imprint at the foot of the comforter the size of a body, the cuts on Scott's hands, Scott's blood on the comforter, clothing found in home, & on the body are evidence showing she was possibly strangled while dressing or un-dressing , tried to remove his hands from her throat and her body rested across the bed for a time. I do not believe the one concrete anchor found in the boat with a six foot length of rope was sufficient to anchor the boat in the waters of the bay. ( per testimony). The photo with imprints of concrete residue in the warehouse suggest others were made. Testimony of medical examiner states his opinion Laci's body was in the bay for a long period of time, there fore I believe it was weighted down with at least four anchor which eventually led to her limbs becoming detached ( tidal movement, decomposition)

[cookiewench]

Laci accepted the fact that Scott was not faithful to her.


I think you need to back that up with some evidence other than the fact that she stayed with him.

Women stay with cheaters/liars for a number of reasons - one of them being that the man has convinced them that he has changed and would never consider doing it again.

At any rate, her acceptance does not in any way make him the "perfect" man for her - or for any woman.

The relationship itself was nowhere near perfect, else he wouldn't have been not only cheating on her and not only coming on to women at conventions, but he wouldn't have been leading people to believe she was dead while she was still alive.

That's fairly obvious.

[cookiewench]

Is there a certain amount of time that a new owner has to register a boat with the California DMV?

You have to register it before you pull it along the highway with a boat trailer.

Of course.

[thinkaboutit]

I think you need to back that up with some evidence other than the fact that she stayed with him.

Women stay with cheaters/liars for a number of reasons - one of them being that the man has convinced them that he has changed and would never consider doing it again.

At any rate, her acceptance does not in any way make him the "perfect" man for her - or for any woman.

The relationship itself was nowhere near perfect, else he wouldn't have been not only cheating on her and not only coming on to women at conventions, but he wouldn't have been leading people to believe she was dead while she was still alive.

That's fairly obvious.


Interesting that you agree with me (believe it or not) that Scott was coming on to Shawn Sibley at the convention. Since Shawn testified that he wasn't, what does that do for you in regards to Shawn Sibley's credibility?

So your opinion that Laci wouldn't have stayed with Scott if she had known about Amber is based on what previous actions of Laci's?

[cookiewench]

And, it was Scott's, not Laci's email that was checked on the morning of the 24th.

How many people would check someone else's email - but not their own?

And how many cheaters would even let their wife know their email password?

[thinkaboutit]

You have to register it before you pull it along the highway with a boat trailer.

Of course.

Your sarcastic answer makes me doubt you - mind providing a quote from where you are getting your information from?

[Wudge]

Is there a certain amount of time that a new owner has to register a boat with the California DMV?

There are time limits. But the limited facts passed on via testimony never seemed to allow anyone, anywhere, to ascertain with 100% certainty what the particular date was for Scott's boat.

However, given that Distaso had precious little probative evidence to work with and given that Distaso never said the boat was not registered in his opening statement, nor did he claim such in his closing argument, it is fair to infer that it either had been registered or had been effectively registered (check in the mail or something similar).

Also, I think it is safe to say Distaso would have been very careful to avoid another "meringue" moment.

:)

[cookiewench]

Your sarcastic answer makes me doubt you - mind providing a quote from where you are getting your information from?

There was nothing at all sarcastic in my answer - it was a simple statement.

In my state, and in any state I've ever been in - a trailer MUST BE registered before it can be pulled down a highway with a vehicle.

That's common sense.


Who would be responsible if that trailer came loose and did property damage or injured someone?

You can't just go pulling boats and trailers down the highway in any state, without them being registered and covered by liability insurance in some way.

[cookiewench]

Interesting that you agree with me (believe it or not) that Scott was coming on to Shawn Sibley at the convention. Since Shawn testified that he wasn't, what does that do for you in regards to Shawn Sibley's credibility?

So your opinion that Laci wouldn't have stayed with Scott if she had known about Amber is based on what previous actions of Laci's?

You're getting your posters confused. I never stated, and don't have, an opinion on whether Laci would have stayed with Scott if she knew about Amber.

I was responding to a comment made that Scott & Laci were "perfect" for each other. Obviously, cheaters/liars are never "perfect" for anyone, simply by definition.

[JustMyOpinion]

[QUOTE=Wudge;8834747]The boat was purchased with cash at the request of the prior owner, Bruce Peterson. The transfer of the boat had been recorded with the State. The State had made the transfer from Bruce Peterson to Scott Peterson. The address for Scott was 523 Covena Ave, which is his home address. Thus, all Dept Of Motor Vehicle mail would have gone there. Moreover, Distaso never said or argued that the boat was not registered. That's case mythology. There was nothing sinister in the transaction, and Scott immediately told LE about the boat. It was not a secret. There is no form of predicative logic that would allow such an inference (boat was a secret) to be developed at the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt as required by the jury instructions.

Scott is a lifelong fisherman. There was neither testimony nor claim from the prosecutors this was not true.

As a fisherman would do, Scott bought a fishing license. He bought lures, including a lure for stripers. He bought a new fishing rod. He researched the tides. He researched fishing camps. He bought a fishing boat. All are common and reasonable actions of a fisherman. Thus, per jury instructions all such actions must accrue to the defense. Therfore, these actions could not be used to support guilt.

QUOTE]
That Scott immediatley told LE about the boat has nothing to do with my opinion that I believe he purchased it with the intention to utilize it in disposing of his family in the Bay. ( especially since he purchased it around the same date he told Amber he had lost his wife and would spend his first Xmas alone) Scott did not explain why he told Amber this, he did not explain the "other kinds of loss", he did not explain why ( since he claimed the decision to fish was last minute, too cold to golf) he filled in 12/23 & 12/24 on the permit, he did not explain why he chose the Bay rather than the many other closer waterways, he did not explain why he told nobody about the boat, and he reported his wife "missing" ( SHE WAS "LOST" on 12/24) and HE DID spend his first Christmas alone. Her body was found on the shoreline a few miles from where he took the boat on 12/24 before reporting her missing. ME testified it had been in the water a significant length of time, and forensic anthropologist & high-risk obstetrical expert both testified as to Conner's remains ( i.e. skeletal measurement) being consistent with his death as early as 12/23 or 12/24.

[thinkaboutit]

And, it was Scott's, not Laci's email that was checked on the morning of the 24th.

How many people would check someone else's email - but not their own?

And how many cheaters would even let their wife know their email password?

Buehler testified that Karen Servas told him that that she communicated with both Laci and Scott at that same e-mail address.

Jon Buehler: Mr. Geragos, I don't know if she did any investigation. But she revised what she originally told me about the package there earlier, that she drew the conclusion that it was a postal service delivery because of the time of day that she saw it there in front of the residence, versus the time of day when UPS was making their deliveries.
Mark Geragos: Now, she also told you that she would communicate with Laci and Scott via an e-mail site called SOPETE1, correct?
Jon Buehler: That's correct.
Mark Geragos: That's what she knew Laci and Scott's MSN Messenger e-mail site to be?
Jon Buehler: That's correct.
Mark Geragos: She knew that because she was involved in an internet group with other neighbors in the area; is that what she told you?
Jon Buehler: Yes.

[thinkaboutit]

You're getting your posters confused. I never stated, and don't have, an opinion on whether Laci would have stayed with Scott if she knew about Amber.

I was responding to a comment made that Scott & Laci were "perfect" for each other. Obviously, cheaters/liars are never "perfect" for anyone, simply by definition.


Sorry about that - how about the other question in regards to Shawn Sibley's credibility?

[One2Snoop]

Laci accepted the fact that Scott was not faithful to her.

:eek: How absurd. I don't know any woman in this world who would find that acceptable.

[Wudge]

Unless Scott actually registered the boat, it would not have been recorded with the State as Scott being the new owner. Bruce Peterson sent in the transfer of liability, which releases him from any and all liability as regards the boat. The California DMV doesn't automatically register the new owner, nor does it send anything to the address UNTIL the new owner resisters the vehicle. We have not seen any proof that Scott did in fact register the boat.


The trial record lacked 100% proof that the boat had or had not been registered. However, I believe the fact that Distaso did not claim it had not been registered highly favors that it had been -- either actually or effectively.

The liability transfer paperwork from Bruce Peterson would have reflected a need in the State's tax system for a "transfer" tax to be paid. I do not know how long the State would hold back mailing a notice of an account receivable that was in their system. It seems unlikely it would be held forever. I will let you go on from there.

[cookiewench]

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

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

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

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

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

[Wudge]

[QUOTE=Wudge;8834747]The boat was purchased with cash at the request of the prior owner, Bruce Peterson. The transfer of the boat had been recorded with the State. The State had made the transfer from Bruce Peterson to Scott Peterson. The address for Scott was 523 Covena Ave, which is his home address. Thus, all Dept Of Motor Vehicle mail would have gone there. Moreover, Distaso never said or argued that the boat was not registered. That's case mythology. There was nothing sinister in the transaction, and Scott immediately told LE about the boat. It was not a secret. There is no form of predicative logic that would allow such an inference (boat was a secret) to be developed at the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt as required by the jury instructions.

Scott is a lifelong fisherman. There was neither testimony nor claim from the prosecutors this was not true.

As a fisherman would do, Scott bought a fishing license. He bought lures, including a lure for stripers. He bought a new fishing rod. He researched the tides. He researched fishing camps. He bought a fishing boat. All are common and reasonable actions of a fisherman. Thus, per jury instructions all such actions must accrue to the defense. Therfore, these actions could not be used to support guilt.

QUOTE]
That Scott immediatley told LE about the boat has nothing to do with my opinion that I believe he purchased it with the intention to utilize it in disposing of his family in the Bay

SNIP




By definition, a secret is only known by one person (State knew, Bruce Peterson knew, LE knew).

Obviously, the fact that Sott immediately told LE attaches to the facts previously noted that support the boat not being a secret.

[One2Snoop]

[QUOTE=JustMyOpinion;8834778]


By definition, a secret is only known by one person (State knew, Bruce Peterson knew, LE knew).

Obviously, the fact that Sott immediately told LE attaches to the facts previously noted that support the boat not being a secret.

It doesn't matter if it wasn't a secret from the people you listed - the point is, it was a secret from Laci, from her family and Scott's family and their friends. No one in their circle of life knew about the boat.

[cookiewench]

Sorry about that - how about the other question in regards to Shawn Sibley's credibility?


What did Shawn say? From the conversation at the convention, I think it's pretty apparent that Scott was on the make.

I think the Shawn's credibility is just fine, and if she said that Scott didn't try to put moves on her, then in her estimation of what "moves" are (different for all women), he wasn't.

[Wudge]

Again, the State would not send anything to anyone until the boat was actually re-registered. You can buy a vehicle and never register it if you don't plan to use it on public property. The previous registration becomes null and void once the vehicle is sold.

Unless vital need arises, I will defer to billing powers far greater than I.

(chuckle)

[cookiewench]

Again, the State would not send anything to anyone until the boat was actually re-registered. You can buy a vehicle and never register it if you don't plan to use it on public property. The previous registration becomes null and void once the vehicle is sold.

Right. What Bruce Peterson sent in was a Release Of Liability. The new owner would have to register & insure it before he took it on any pubic roadway or waterway.

And we can be pretty sure that if Scott had, Geragos would have been waving that registration around as if it were The Declaration Of Independence.

[cookiewench]

Wudge - the fact that Scott never registered the boat actually was presented in court.

It was read by Grogan from his list of 41 reasons why they thought Laci was in the bay.

I realize that you may now say that because Grogan and not Distaso said it, that it doesn't count.

But it does. It was presented as LE testimony, and Geragos didn't even try to refute it (because he couldn't).

[Wudge]

Right. What Bruce Peterson sent in was a Release Of Liability. The new owner would have to register & insure it before he took it on any pubic roadway or waterway.

And we can be pretty sure that if Scott had, Geragos would have been waving that registration around as if it were The Declaration Of Independence.

Distaso did not ever state, claim or argue that Scott did not register the boat because:

A) He liked Geragos's legs

B) To do so was not in his job description

C) The boat was registered or effectively registered

[cookiewench]

....and if there'd been any registration in Scott's name, it would have been presented as part of the evidence - that evidence that we all saw posted all over the internet. We also would have heard about it on the news shows.

Geragos tried to put out there that Scott registered the boat (defense attornies are allowed to lie), but no registration was ever produced.

[Wudge]

Wudge - the fact that Scott never registered the boat actually was presented in court.

It was read by Grogan from his list of 41 reasons why they thought Laci was in the bay.

I realize that you may now say that because Grogan and not Distaso said it, that it doesn't count.

But it does. It was presented as LE testimony, and Geragos didn't even try to refute it (because he couldn't).

There is an old lawyer's trick known as impressionistic questioning. If you examine the transcript closely, you will find that is what took place as regards Detective Grogan's testimony on this matter.

[cookiewench]

I'm not going to argue with you about it any more, Wudge.

Scott never registered the boat, as was testified to be Grogan. There was no registration in Scott's name for a boat - period. A person would also have to have that trailer added to their auto insurance policy before they took it on the road, also.

But since you're the only person in the entire reason who refuses to accept that, I guess it's not worth arguing about.

[Wudge]

GERAGOS: There's already been testimony that Bruce Peterson said he filled it out. I think what he's looking at, it appears to me at least, to be the DMV printout. So I don't know –
JUDGE: Unless he is related to the defendant –
FLADAGER: Stipulate Mr. Peterson is not related.
GERAGOS: Original owner, Bruce Peterson.
JUDGE: Bruce Peterson.
FLADAGER: Was there any indication in the DMV documents that you have in front of you, Detective Grogan, that the vehicle was ever subsequently registered by Scott Peterson with the Department of Motor Vehicles?
GROGAN: No


Thank you.

Grogan's response was limited to: the documents you have in front of you. A nice bit of impressionistic questioning by Ms. Fladager. But not sufficient to establish a fact introduced at trial upon which Distaso could argue in his closing argument that the boat was not registered.

(He had already met his quota of "meringue" moments in this trial.)

[Wudge]

I'm not going to argue with you about it any more, Wudge.

Scott never registered the boat, as was testified to be Grogan. There was no registration in Scott's name for a boat - period. A person would also have to have that trailer added to their auto insurance policy before they took it on the road, also.

But since you're the only person in the entire reason who refuses to accept that, I guess it's not worth arguing about.

(I'll accept a win in silence. ... shhhhhhhhhhh .. chuckle)

[Wudge]

Only way to prove the boat was in fact registered is to produce a copy of the registration. Until we see that, I maintain the boat was not registered.


You have a Constitutional right to do so.

Unfortunately, Distaso needed to prove during the course of the trial that the boat was not registered. Then he could have included it in his closing argument without fear of hearing an objection from Geragos that was not true (facts not in evidence).

I really think Distaso had enough "meringue" moments and admonishments from Judge Delucchi to last a lifetime. He had already been yanked right out of the trial by the D.A., James Brazelton. I don't blame him for being afraid of telling yet more falsehoods only to be shot down in flames yet again.

[Wudge]

LMAO!!! I don't think you won, Wudge. Good try, tho!

I have my moment once every millenium. I can rest now.

:patriot:

[thinkaboutit]

Interesting - I won't get sassy about this - since I may have missed it. But the website at the link I am providing - does not say anything about a used boat, already registered with the dmv in the state of California, needing to be registered by the new owner. It only talks about new vessels and vessels that have been brought in from other states.

If anyone else would like to take a look - here's the link:

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/boatsinfo/boatreg.htm

Edited to add:
Okay - still reading - it does say you have to file - still reading

[accordn2me]

Accordn2me - so you have read the transcripts - or you haven't?Think about it, I've posted parts of the transcript with links to the particular part discussed. I've not read the transcript from beginning to end. Is there something specific in the transcript that will be favorable to Scott that you would like me to read? Post the link and tell me what to look for. I'm starting to wonder if there is any such material there.

[Wudge]

[QUOTE=Wudge;8834789]

It doesn't matter if it wasn't a secret from the people you listed - the point is, it was a secret from Laci, from her family and Scott's family and their friends. No one in their circle of life knew about the boat.

If Detective Brocchini thought the boat was a secret from Laci, why did he admit excising Brady material (exculpatory evidence) from his notebook?

[TuscanDreams]

I live in California and I assure you that when a new/used vehicle is purchased it MUST be registered by the NEW OWNER. In addition, you must insure it as well. You can't just leave the vehicle in the previous owner's name. I don't know that you could do that in any state.

Good point.

[thinkaboutit]

I really don't see what the big deal is that two weeks after Scott bought this boat - he had not yet gone to the DMV office to register. The DMV had his name and address (which he gave to Bruce Peterson) when Bruce Peterson sent in his Notice of Release of Liability to the DMV. And Scott gave his home address - guaranteed, if he didn't go down to DMV by a certain date - the DMV would have sent a notice to the address of the new owner provided by the seller - and that would have been the house - not the warehouse.

Doesn't sound sinister to me at all. Now if he had given a fake name - or a fake address - that would have been suspicious to me.

[accordn2me]

I'm not going to argue with you about it any more, Wudge.

Scott never registered the boat, as was testified to be Grogan. There was no registration in Scott's name for a boat - period. A person would also have to have that trailer added to their auto insurance policy before they took it on the road, also.

But since you're the only person in the entire reason who refuses to accept that, I guess it's not worth arguing about.And since Geragos never offered any impressionistic cross-examination suggesting the boat was in fact registered - like the documents existed they just weren't in front of the detective, or the defense could have simply produced the registration. Since they didn't, the jury, like us, have to go with the actual evidence presented in court. :shrug:

[Wudge]

I really don't see what the big deal is that two weeks after Scott bought this boat - he had not yet gone to the DMV office to register. The DMV had his name and address (which he gave to Bruce Peterson) when Bruce Peterson sent in his Notice of Release of Liability to the DMV. And Scott gave his home address - guaranteed, if he didn't go down to DMV by a certain date - the DMV would have sent a notice to the address of the new owner provided by the seller - and that would have been the house - not the warehouse.

Doesn't sound sinister to me at all. Now if he had given a fake name - or a fake address - that would have been suspicious to me.



The fact is, it was never established during the trial (or elsewhere) that Scott did not register the boat. That's but more case fable.

Regarding the boat's transaction not being sinister, you are 100% correct. No one ever testified it there were any sinister aspects regarding the transaction between Bruce Peterson and Scott Peterson.

(darn these black helicopters that continually circle my house)

[Invrdv8]

I live in California and I assure you that when a new/used vehicle is purchased it MUST be registered by the NEW OWNER. In addition, you must insure it as well. You can't just leave the vehicle in the previous owner's name. I don't know that you could do that in any state.
That may be the rule about a new/used vehicle. I don't believe a boat is classified as a vehicle in Calif. or any other state.:punch:

[Invrdv8]

The CA DMV doesn't send a notice, or anything else, to the new owner until the new owner registers the vehicle/vessel. The Release of Liability is for the protection of the previous owner.
I think that's absolutely correct. The Release of Liability is for the protection of the previous owner and has nothing to do with the boat being registered in the new owner's name. :no: Registering the boat is the responsiblity of the new owner. I don't live in Calif. and even I know that.:D

[thinkaboutit]

The CA DMV doesn't send a notice, or anything else, to the new owner until the new owner registers the vehicle/vessel. The Release of Liability is for the protection of the previous owner.

Then what is the point of the seller providing the buyers address?

And can you agree that there is still a record with the DMV of Scott Peterson purchasing this boat - or at least a record of Bruce Peterson selling the boat to Scott Peterson of 523 Covena?

[thinkaboutit]

I have no idea how long DMV keeps those kind of records.

Very tricky answer - I'm not going to let you get off that easy.....can you at least agree that at one time the DMV had record of Bruce Peterson selling a boat to Scott Peterson of 523 Covena?

[Anne2719]

[QUOTE=JustMyOpinion;8834778]


By definition, a secret is only known by one person (State knew, Bruce Peterson knew, LE knew).

Obviously, the fact that Sott immediately told LE attaches to the facts previously noted that support the boat not being a secret.
Wudge, I'm wondering what dictionary you're using for your definition of "secret." Because the American Heritage Dictionary defines it as "Something kept hidden from others or known only to oneself or to a few."

[accordn2me]

[QUOTE=Wudge;8834789]
Wudge, I'm wondering what dictionary you're using for your definition of "secret." Because the American Heritage Dictionary defines it as "Something kept hidden from others or known only to oneself or to a few."Yeah! And wasn't the boat supposed to be a "surprise?" (for Ron) Think about a surprise birthday party. Everybody but the honoree knows about the surprise.

[Wudge]

[QUOTE=Wudge;8834789]
Wudge, I'm wondering what dictionary you're using for your definition of "secret." Because the American Heritage Dictionary defines it as "Something kept hidden from others or known only to oneself or to a few."



I'm very good with keeping a secret. It's the people I tell who can't keep a secret.

(chuckle)

[Invrdv8]

Then what is the point of the seller providing the buyers address?

And can you agree that there is still a record with the DMV of Scott Peterson purchasing this boat - or at least a record of Bruce Peterson selling the boat to Scott Peterson of 523 Covena?
The point would be that the seller is requesting a release from liability for a specific boat that he/she no longer owns. I would think the name and address of the new owner would have to be supplied. One couldn't legally own a boat, request release from liability and continue to leave the boat in his/her name as owner of the boat.
I don't think anyone has a problem agreeing that there is a record that Bruce Peterson sold the boat and gave Scott's name and address as the new owner. The problem is this does NOT prove that the boat was NOT a secret from the people CLOSEST to Scott. The DMV records have NO connection to Scott's family and friends whatsoever. He could have 25 boats registered in his name but, if he doesn't tell family and friends that he has those 25 boats then that is his secret that he's keeping from them. Why is that so hard to understand?

[attorneywan2be]

GERAGOS: There's already been testimony that Bruce Peterson said he filled it out. I think what he's looking at, it appears to me at least, to be the DMV printout. So I don't know –
JUDGE: Unless he is related to the defendant –
FLADAGER: Stipulate Mr. Peterson is not related.
GERAGOS: Original owner, Bruce Peterson.
JUDGE: Bruce Peterson.
FLADAGER: Was there any indication in the DMV documents that you have in front of you, Detective Grogan, that the vehicle was ever subsequently registered by Scott Peterson with the Department of Motor Vehicles?
GROGAN: No

What is the point of all that? ..I mean, what's the point of the debate about whether or not he registered the boat?! IMO, that is totally irrelevant because Scott didn't take any actions that suggest he was trying to get rid of the boat or hide it from the police...

Did Scott get rid of the boat on Dec 24th?.... NO, the boat was in his warehouse, meaning it was in his possession...


Did Scott inform the police that he had a boat?...Yes, he did inform them on December 24th, 2002..


Did Scott take the police to the warehouse to show them his boat on December 24th?..Yes, Brocchini and Evers went to the warehouse with him..


Did the police have a search warrant on Dec 24th? ....NO, Scott allowed them to search..to take pictures...etc..etc..WITHOUT a search warrant..

With that being said..

Mark Geragos: As of December 9th the State of California had a record that Scott Peterson had bought a boat?

Bruce Peterson: Yes

[Invrdv8]

[QUOTE=Anne2719;8834863]



I'm very good with keeping a secret. It's the people I tell who can't keep a secret.

(chuckle)
And the DMV immediately went running to those closest to Scott to tell them that they just received his name and address as the new owner of a boat. I think NOT.:punch:

[Wudge]

What is the point of all that? ..I mean, what's the point of the debate about whether or not he registered the boat?! IMO, that is totally irrelevant because Scott didn't take any actions that suggest he was trying to get rid of the boat or hide it from the police...

Did Scott get rid of the boat on Dec 24th?.... NO, the boat was in his warehouse, meaning it was in his possession...


Did Scott inform the police that he had a boat?...Yes, he did inform them on December 24th, 2002..


Did Scott take the police to the warehouse to show them his boat on December 24th?..Yes, Brocchini and Evers went to the warehouse with him..


Did the police have a search warrant on Dec 24th? ....NO, Scott allowed them to search..to take pictures...etc..etc..WITHOUT a search warrant..

With that being said..

Mark Geragos: As of December 9th the State of California had a record that Scott Peterson had bought a boat?

Bruce Peterson: Yes



I agree. The key point is that there was nothing sinister in Scott's transaction with Bruce Peterson, and Scott immediately told LE about the boat.

The families also did not know that in the week before Laci disappeared, Scott bought a mortiser.

Sharon testified that Scott liked to make things. Yet he did not tell her he bought the mortiser to make a table.

I am surprised that no one has ever claimed the mortiser was a secret and had a clear sinister purpose. It's obvious what Scott could have made with the mortiser and how damaging that could have been to his defense.

[attorneywan2be]

Nope. Wrong. But you know that.


Bruce Peterson's testimony:...(no relation to Scott, the seller of the boat)

Mark Geragos: As of December 9th the State of California had a record that Scott Peterson had bought a boat?

Bruce Peterson: Yes

[cookiewench]

Bruce Peterson's testimony:...(no relation to Scott, the seller of the boat)

Mark Geragos: As of December 9th the State of California had a record that Scott Peterson had bought a boat?

Bruce Peterson: Yes

Yep. The state had the release of liability form from the old owner.

The new owner never registered or insured the boat & trailer, though - and it was not legal to take it on the road or water by ANYONE at the time of the murder.

[Toggie]

I have a question to ask. If this has been asked and answered, please forgive me...I must have missed it.

I went to the MPD website and viewed Scott's truck and boat. It looks to me like there is a license plate on the boat trailer. The plate# looks different from the license plate# on the truck. Does this mean that Scott did in fact register his boat?

TIA

[Anne2719]

I find that I really can't hold the registration (or lack thereof) against Scott, since the used SUV I bought six months ago is still in the previous owners' name, as far as the Colorado DMV is concerned. And my other car is still bearing New York plates, even though I moved here a year ago. Some of us are slower than others when it comes to red tape.

[Wudge]

I have a question to ask. If this has been asked and answered, please forgive me...I must have missed it.

I went to the MPD website and viewed Scott's truck and boat. It looks to me like there is a license plate on the boat trailer. The plate# looks different from the license plate# on the truck. Does this mean that Scott did in fact register his boat?

TIA

Toggie, that is an excellent question. I have never heard anyone ask that question before. There are a good number of posters here who have followed the case for a long time who might have that answer.

[Wudge]

The license plates for the truck and the trailer would be different, no matter what. The previous owner obviously registered it, thus the plates. It does not mean that Scott registered it.

I am very impressed with Toggie's question in that after all these years, new and excellent questions/observations continue to come forth.

[Toggie]

The license plates for the truck and the trailer would be different, no matter what. The previous owner obviously registered it, thus the plates. It does not mean that Scott registered it.

Thank you for your reply!

[Toggie]

I am very impressed with Toggie's question in that after all these years, new and excellent questions/observations continue to come forth.

Thank you Wudge!

I have been hooked on this case since day 1. I've been on the fence & off the fence so many times! I think the G's & NG's make excellent points and most know the case inside and out!

[One2Snoop]

Toggie this is was it says - officially on the Ca DMV site for a vehicle, I assume its the same for boats....

What do I do with the license plate?

Most vehicles have sequentially issued “standard” license plates that remain with the vehicle when ownership is transferred. If the license plate is a special interest or personalized license plate, you must decide if you want to retain the plate for use on another vehicle, or release your interest in the plate.

[Wudge]

Thank you Wudge!

I have been hooked on this case since day 1. I've been on the fence & off the fence so many times! I think the G's & NG's make excellent points and most know the case inside and out!


It's a great human interest story and a dazzling murder case.

:patriot:

[Wudge]

Toggie this is was it says - officially on the Ca DMV site for a vehicle, I assume its the same for boats....

What do I do with the license plate?

Most vehicles have sequentially issued “standard” license plates that remain with the vehicle when ownership is transferred. If the license plate is a special interest or personalized license plate, you must decide if you want to retain the plate for use on another vehicle, or release your interest in the plate.


We cannot tell from here if the license plate was registered to Scott or to Bruce Peterson.

[One2Snoop]

We cannot tell from here if the license plate was registered to Scott or to Bruce Peterson.

This isn't the question I was trying to answer - but thanks anyway.

[Wudge]

The only way to know would be to look at the registration, or run the plate numbers through DMV.


I agree. It's too bad someone did not ask Bruce Peterson what his boat license was.

[Toggie]

Toggie this is was it says - officially on the Ca DMV site for a vehicle, I assume its the same for boats....

What do I do with the license plate?

Most vehicles have sequentially issued “standard” license plates that remain with the vehicle when ownership is transferred. If the license plate is a special interest or personalized license plate, you must decide if you want to retain the plate for use on another vehicle, or release your interest in the plate.


Thank you One2Snoop! It's really bugging me now because I want to know if Bruce gave Scott his plate to use or if Scott did in fact register his own plate.

I've never owned a boat so I'm not too familiar with the sale/registration of a boat. I know how my car registration works.:lol:

[Wudge]

This isn't the question I was trying to answer - but thanks anyway.


Yes, I should have added a lead in.

:patriot:

[Wudge]

Thank you One2Snoop! It's really bugging me now because I want to know if Bruce gave Scott his plate to use or if Scott did in fact register his own plate.

I've never owned a boat so I'm not too familiar with the sale/registration of a boat. I know how my car registration works.:lol:

Toggie, if you can read the license plate number on the boat's trailer, please post the number here.

Thank you

[cookiewench]

I find that I really can't hold the registration (or lack thereof) against Scott, since the used SUV I bought six months ago is still in the previous owners' name, as far as the Colorado DMV is concerned. And my other car is still bearing New York plates, even though I moved here a year ago. Some of us are slower than others when it comes to red tape.


Are you saying that you're driving around with someone else's plates and no auto insurance?

[Anne2719]

Are you saying that you're driving around with someone else's plates and no auto insurance?
No, I have my own insurance, which I got immediately (that could be done via phone call and fax). But I haven't gone to the DMV to get my own plates.

[Wudge]

Well, it probably would be the same license # that Bruce had, irregardless if it was re-registered or not. When you register a USED vehicle/vessel you are given new tags, not plates, unless there are no plates with the vehicle/vessel. And, of course, a new registration certificate.


I'm enjoying watching minds spinning on this one.

[Lili007]

I agree. The key point is that there was nothing sinister in Scott's transaction with Bruce Peterson, and Scott immediately told LE about the boat.

The families also did not know that in the week before Laci disappeared, Scott bought a mortiser.

Sharon testified that Scott liked to make things. Yet he did not tell her he bought the mortiser to make a table.

I am surprised that no one has ever claimed the mortiser was a secret and had a clear sinister purpose.

SNIP....................



I'm not. The mortiser wasn't involved in the disposal of Laci's body after she was killed.

[Lili007]

We cannot tell from here if the license plate was registered to Scott or to Bruce Peterson.

"From here"? No.

Bet you LE did, though... :D

[Wudge]

I'm not. The mortiser wasn't involved in the disposal of Laci's body after she was killed.

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

[One2Snoop]

I agree. It's too bad someone did not ask Bruce Peterson what his boat license was.

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

[One2Snoop]

I also think its important to remember what Bruce Peterson said about the boat after he and his wife inspected it and after Laci was discovered missing.

Bruce said Modesto police did ask that he and his wife examine the boat, which is still impounded, for any changes since they sold their boat.

The couple says they found a life vest missing, auxiliary wheels missing and a powdery substance on the floor of the boat.

"In the boat, on the bottom of the boat, it looked to us like it may be cement residue," Bruce said.

Police are reported to have found cement products at Scott Peterson's warehouse and home, but they will not comment on what was found on the boat.

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Media/articles/boat.htm

[attorneywan2be]

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

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

[One2Snoop]

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

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

[cookiewench]

I'm enjoying watching minds spinning on this one.


It doesn't take any mind-spinning to know that a trailer that's going to be pulled by a truck needs a tag that is registered to the current owner, or that a boat that is big enough to need a registration - needs to have that registration changed before it is put on any public waterways.

The fact that the seller's last name was Peterson was just an added bonus to Scott (he could have claimed it was his brother's or father's if he'd been stopped by LE) and was probably a deciding factor in not bothering to get the boat registered in his own name.

Scott probably thought it was a sign from his personal god - that this murder was supposed to happen and that his guardian angel was watching over him.

[One2Snoop]

It doesn't take any mind-spinning to know that a trailer that's going to be pulled by a truck needs a tag that is registered to the current owner, or that a boat that is big enough to need a registration - needs to have that registration changed before it is put on any public waterways.

The fact that the seller's last name was Peterson was just an added bonus to Scott (he could have claimed it was his brother's or father's if he'd been stopped by LE) and was probably a deciding factor in not bothering to get the boat registered in his own name.

Scott probably thought it was a sign from his personal god - that this murder was supposed to happen and that his guardian angel was watching over him.

Thank you cookiewench, I totally agree! :beer:

[Wudge]

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

Did prosecutors ask Bruce Peterson this question?

[One2Snoop]

Did prosecutors ask Bruce Peterson this question?

It really doesn't matter, remember? :D

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