Evidence that points to other suspects

[accordn2me]

Thanks, Wudge. I'm still confused, though. Is there other testimony about this? Are they saying that one in 112 people in the world would match this hair, and Laci was one who did? Because that's very different from saying it's a 112-to-1 chance it was her hair, I think.
How? See I don't even understand the difference! :shrug:

sorry for the smilie...:rose:

[Wudge]

Sufficient inculpatory evidence? :shrug:

I'm familiar with the Menendez brothers who killed their parents. I'm with you on guilty. However, I do believe abuse, especially sexual/physical abuse is grounds for justifiable homicide. IMO, sitting on the couch watching TV with your wife, even porn, does not constitute sexual/physical abuse of the children. Weren't they, and the others you mentioned, found guilty, except maybe for that last one? I know in the Menendez brothers' case, it was not a case of "who did it." That was stipulated, right? The issue there was...justifiable homocide vs. murder one, IIRC.

This is probably not the place for me to ask you about two others, which is why I asked permission to PM you. However, I'm curious how you would call Darlie Routier, and Cynthia Sommers (not sure how to spell CS last name)? I think the glaring difference is...defendants who maintain innocence vs. those who we know did it but want a free pass for whatever their excuse is (e.g. retarded, impaired - mentally or physically (drugs/alcohol), age, abuse - physical/sexual, emotional).


Suffiicient inculpatory evidence = proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Darlie Routier is in my current top ten list of verdicts that I consider to be wrongful convictions.

[JustMyOpinion]

Net, the hair was less than worthless as evidence to the prosecution. After all that had gone on with the hair, any reasonable juror should have held it against Distaso that he was brazen enough to represent the hair to be Laci's hair without (really no dispute) dispute.

I don't know what individual jurors thought about the mit DNA evidence, because I haven't read any comments from them referencing it. I disagree the hair was worthless to the State, and since Distaso's statements are not evidence ( and jurors were well instructed on this point) I don't think it's reasonable that they "hold it against him" that he referenced it this way in his closing remarks. ( nor do I think Distaso was brazen, he reminded jurors to check his statements against the evidence) IIRC.

[JustMyOpinion]

I don't know if SP is guilty or not but IMO there was not enough evidence to convict him and there is no evidence to release him. He can't be proven innocent my DNA. I was very surprised with the verdict and how fast it did come back when each juror that was replaced they had to start over. I couldn't imagine them being able to do that. I'm not expert on this case but I have to say that why not make sure the burglars were eliminated of committing this crime of killing Lacy? It would have been a stronger case for the prosecution or would that not have been allowed into evidence that they were cleared? I'm mainly going to read because I'm learning from both sides of the debate. If anyone can answer the question about the burglars I would appreciate it. Thanks. JMHO

Hi Results,
I don't think "burglars" would abduct Laci, murder her, and drive 90 miles away from Modesto, put her in the SF Bay near Berkeley to frame Scott Peterson. I don't know why Geragos didn't call "the burglars" as witnesses, perhaps he didn't believe they'd be credible, or..that their testimony might actually hurt his defense. Maybe the "implication" that the burglars "could have" abducted Laci was all he wanted to show the jurors, but I'm just speculating.

[Anne2719]

Thanks a second time, Wudge!

Now here's the thing. I believe you are misunderstanding the significance of that 112 number. I think that because it's mitochondrial DNA and not nuclear, they can determine a "match" to the point where one in 112 people in the world can match it, as opposed to the one in 14 quintillion (or whatever) match that's possible with nuclear DNA. And even though it WAS determined to be a match, there remains a possibility that there are many other people in the world who might also be a match.

To say that it's not a match and that it's 112-to-one against it being Laci's is inaccurate, if I'm understanding this correctly (and I think I am, now). Since it couldn't be narrowed down any further than one in 112, that wasn't good enough. But it was a match to Laci. As well as to a bunch of other people in the world.

[Wudge]

I don't know what individual jurors thought about the mit DNA evidence, because I haven't read any comments from them referencing it. I disagree the hair was worthless to the State, and since Distaso's statements are not evidence ( and jurors were well instructed on this point) I don't think it's reasonable that they "hold it against him" that he referenced it this way in his closing remarks. ( nor do I think Distaso was brazen, he reminded jurors to check his statements against the evidence) IIRC.


Dr Constance Fisher provided the 112-1 detailing of the odds (around 1814/10 as I recall for caucasian sequencing). In any event, it represent less than a 1% chance that the hair was Laci's hair.

Put yet another way, if you went to the track and bet $2 on a horse with 112-1 odds to win, you would get back $224 if it won. In other words, you would be placing a bet on horse to win that a super long-shot. So for Distaso to have told the jury, "there really is not dispute" is like a con man at the track telling people that there really is no dispute the horse with 112-1 one odds will win.

Brazen? ... I was being nice.

[Anne2719]

Dr Constance Fisher provided the 112-1 detailing of the odds (around 1814/10 as I recall for caucasian sequencing). In any event, it represent less than a 1% chance that the hair was Laci's hair.

Put yet another way, if you went to the track and bet $2 on a horse with 112-1 odds to win, you would get back $224 if it won. In other words, you would be placing a bet on horse to win that a super long-shot. So for Distaso to have told the jury, "there really is not dispute" is like a con man at the track telling people that there really is no dispute the horse with 112-1 one odds will win.

Brazen? ... I was being nice.
I believe you are misinterpreting this.

[JustMyOpinion]

Dr Constance Fisher provided the 112-1 detailing of the odds (around 1814/10 as I recall for caucasian sequencing). In any event, it represent less than a 1% chance that the hair was Laci's hair.

Put yet another way, if you went to the track and bet $2 on a horse with 112-1 odds to win, you would get back $224 if it won. In other words, you would be placing a bet on horse to win that a super long-shot. So for Distaso to have told the jury, "there really is not dispute" is like a con man at the track telling people that there really is no dispute the horse with 112-1 one odds will win.

Brazen? ... I was being nice.

I think there really is no dispute that the hair was a match to Laci, ( as well as a match to lots of other people).

[Wudge]

Thanks a second time, Wudge!

Now here's the thing. I believe you are misunderstanding the significance of that 112 number. I think that because it's mitochondrial DNA and not nuclear, they can determine a "match" to the point where one in 112 people in the world can match it, as opposed to the one in 14 quintillion (or whatever) match that's possible with nuclear DNA. And even though it WAS determined to be a match, there remains a possibility that there are many other people in the world who might also be a match.

To say that it's not a match and that it's 112-to-one against it being Laci's is inaccurate, if I'm understanding this correctly (and I think I am, now). Since it couldn't be narrowed down any further than one in 112, that wasn't good enough. But it was a match to Laci. As well as to a bunch of other people in the world.


Anne, you are correct. The numbers were certainly not nuclear DNA derived. I never said that anywhere, ever. I know better than to have said that, and I never implied the numbers were nuclear DNA derived either.

There are volumes of data on mitochondrial DNA. In net, it is not nearly as accurate as nuclear DNA. Dr. Fisher's testimony gave sufficient evidence to that. Nonetheless, she testified the FBI's database does serve as the best in the U.S. in that regard. That claim went unchallenged. So the 112-1 representation is the best anyone could say.

To have Distaso accept the 112-1 number without dispute, then tell the jury: "There's really no dispute that Laci Peterson's hair was found in those pliers." was brazen gross misrepresentation.

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

[Wudge]

I believe you are misinterpreting this.

Anne, if you think I am misrepresenting what 112-1 odds means, you have to show the error or cite exactly what number you think I erred in.

[SamCat]

MCDNA which is what was tested in this case is used to track matrilineage which shows female line of decent in other words the hair was consistent with Sharon's MCDNA so if true then the hair would have to belong to someone who was descended from Sharon Rocha's female ancestor or Sharon.

As for the hair being one that turned into two, I believe it was stated that it was thought to be two hairs that were stuck together due to hairspray or possibly one hair that broke..Either way the amount is not significant it is the results of testing that mattered. I assume none of us were there so we can not say for a fact it was one hair.

Brocchini was not impeached for excising notes out of his report. Did Brocchini lie on the stand and say he did not take the notes out? If not then he could not have been impeached since he did not lie. In fact they should not have been there in the first place. When doing their reports they are suppose to only include what they did not what other officers did. Brocchini did not talk to the woman at the warehouse. That information was in the report of the officer who did talk to her. Did Mark Geragos call the other officer to the stand to question him about that report? NO.

Brocchini was not impeached on the stand about the duct tape, the judge ruled that it was a slip of the tongue nothing more. To say he lied would mean we could read his mind and know for a fact he meant to say duct tape...I can't read minds.

I don't recall Detective Hendee being impeached about the anchors but I will look at that testimony. But here again in order for him to be impeached it would have to be shown that he lied. Do you have proof that “He absolutely knew that to be untrue” Or is that your opinion?

As for Dave Harris “conspired with him to perpetrate a fraud upon the Court” Do you have proof of that or is that just your opinion?

[Anne2719]

Dr Constance Fisher provided the 112-1 detailing of the odds (around 1814/10 as I recall for caucasian sequencing). In any event, it represent less than a 1% chance that the hair was Laci's hair.

Put yet another way, if you went to the track and bet $2 on a horse with 112-1 odds to win, you would get back $224 if it won. In other words, you would be placing a bet on horse to win that a super long-shot. So for Distaso to have told the jury, "there really is not dispute" is like a con man at the track telling people that there really is no dispute the horse with 112-1 one odds will win.

Brazen? ... I was being nice.

In my opinion, your racetrack comparison is like comparing apples and oranges. To use a betting analogy, one would have to say that out of every 112 people who bet on this race, one will win, and Person X was one who won. Now let's say that 6.6 billion people bet on this race. If one out of 112 people won, then 58 million people out of that 6.6 billion won. Person X was one of those 58 million. While that doesn't narrow it down nearly enough to say Person X was the only one, it doesn't take away from the fact that this person did win. Same with Laci; while she is far from the only one who would match that mcDNA, she was a match. The defense's argument was that it didn't narrow it down enough to say she was the only possible match.

[Wudge]

[QUOTE=SamCat;8838207]MCDNA which is what was tested in this case is used to track matrilineage which shows female line of decent in other words the hair was consistent with Sharon's MCDNA so if true then the hair would have to belong to someone who was descended from Sharon Rocha's female ancestor or Sharon.

As for the hair being one that turned into two, I believe it was stated that it was thought to be two hairs that were stuck together due to hairspray or possibly one hair that broke..Either way the amount is not significant it is the results of testing that mattered. I assume none of us were there so we can not say for a fact it was one hair.

Brocchini was not impeached for excising notes out of his report. Did Brocchini lie on the stand and say he did not take the notes out? If not then he could not have been impeached since he did not lie. In fact they should not have been there in the first place. When doing their reports they are suppose to only include what they did not what other officers did. Brocchini did not talk to the woman at the warehouse. That information was in the report of the officer who did talk to her. Did Mark Geragos call the other officer to the stand to question him about that report? NO.

Brocchini was not impeached on the stand about the duct tape, the judge ruled that it was a slip of the tongue nothing more. To say he lied would mean we could read his mind and know for a fact he meant to say duct tape...I can't read minds.

SNIP

[QUOTE]












To claim that Detective Brocchini was not impeached is absurd (that is accepted case knowledge). Even the most die-hard SIG cannot defend Detective Brocchini excising exculpatory evidence from his notes. Distaso did not rehabilitate him either.

Detective Brocchini both added fictitious inculpatory evidence and excised evidence at his will, re: meringue, duct tape, multiplying hair, excising exculpatory evidence from his notes (which is clearly evidence tampering and a felony), etc..

[Wudge]

SNIP

As for Dave Harris “conspired with him to perpetrate a fraud upon the Court” Do you have proof of that or is that just your opinion?

I have said elsewhere that it was more than a a coincidence that Birgit Fladager was seated just before Detective Grogan revealed the Court had been defrauded.

Conveniently, in the days immediately after Geragos exposed the water pitcher fraud, the second chair prosecutor, David Harris, quickly went out with the flu and when the time came for Grogan to testify, Distaso was unceremoniously dumped and Fladager took over.

The reality is that because Geragos immediately exposed the water pitcher fraud, he was certain to bring out the fact that both Detective Grogan and LE knew the prosecution's storyline about the water pitcher was a total fraud. And that would put Distaso (the lead prosecutor) in the untenable position of conducting the direct on Grogan knowing that when Grogan went under cross-examination he would testify that LE knew for over a year that Scott's anchor was not cast in the water pitcher as claimed by the prosecution.

In other words, Grogan was certain to impeach the prosecutors. A State's witness impeaching the prosecutors ... lol ... it doesn't get any worse than that. And when Grogan impeached Distaso while Distaso was looking him in the eye as he conducted his direct, the eyes of every juror would be looking straight at Distaso (and then over to David Harris) knowing full well that the prosecutors had tried to defraud the Court by, knowingly and in collusion with Detective Brocchini, attempting to pass off the water pitcher as inculpatory evidence.

The prosecutors used Detective Hendee to show a picture to the jury of Detective Brocchini inserting Scott's anchor into the water picture and then proclaiming that the anchor fit the water pitcher perfectly. However, they full well knew that to be a bold-faced lie, for a petrographer, Robert O'Neill, later testified that he had told Detective Grogan that there was no way that the pitcher was the mold for the anchor, no way.

Given O'Neill's testimony, representing the water pitcher to be inculpatory evidence could be nothing less than a clear and knowing fraud.

Hendee, Dave Harris, Brocchini, Grogan and Distaso all knew that the water pitcher did not fit the mold in any way. Therefore, to represent, in any way, that it was the cast for their mythical anchors represents the perepertration of a clear fraud upon the Court.


Sept 15th testimony of Robert O’Neill, petrographer

306. Now, as you made this determination, did you contact Detective
Grogan and advise him that, in your examination, that pitcher had been excluded?

307. Yes.
308. And did you have some discussion as to what it was that you
found in terms of the corners and that particular dimple?
309. We spoke on the phone, and I told him of my findings. And I
said that there is no way that that pitcher is the mold for the concrete anchor.


Given that neither Distaso nor David Harris could handle the direct, they were extricated by Brazelton and Fladager took over.

Further, Detective Hendee admitted undr oath that he knew he had knowingly fallsely implied the water pitcher fit the anchor mold.


Cross Of Detective Hendee

0 Q. Now, the pitcher here -- so that I've got it
21 correct, when you were on direct last week, when Mr. Harris
22 was asking you questions, when you testified, you were
23 aware at that point that the pitcher that you had up there
24 today that was marked as 122 G, the one that was marked on
25 direct, had -- this one right here?
26 A. Yes, sir.

13070
1 Q. Mr. Harris asked you about this, and this is
2 Brocchini's hand, and that's the weight and the anchor and
3 that's the pitcher itself?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Okay. When you testified -- before I started
6 asking you questions on cross-examination, were you aware
7 that that was not a fit? Were you aware?
8 A. That it's not a perfect fit?
9 Q. Yeah.
10 A. Yeah.
11 Q. Okay. When did you learn that?
12 A. Sometime possibly after the preliminary hearing,
13 I believe.
14 Q. The preliminary hearing was sometime in October
15 of last year, correct?
16 A. Somewhere around that time span, I believe.
17 Q. Okay. So this case went to preliminary hearing
18 over in Modesto in October, roughly, November of 2000 and
19 3, correct?
20 A. Somewhere in that time. Whenever the guy did his
21 examination, I heard afterwards that it wasn't the pitcher
22 for sure.
23 Q. That it wasn't the pitcher for sure?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay. And when you testified in front of this
26 jury last week, you also knew at that point that the

13071
1 pitcher and the anchor were not a perfect fit and that they
2 weren't made in there for sure, correct?
3 A. That's correct.

[Anne2719]

My case knowledge is woefully insufficient, so forgive me for asking what are probably stupid questions . . .

Why would Brocchini want to frame Scott, instead of getting to the truth and finding the "real killers"?

[Wudge]

In my opinion, your racetrack comparison is like comparing apples and oranges. To use a betting analogy, one would have to say that out of every 112 people who bet on this race, one will win, and Person X was one who won. Now let's say that 6.6 billion people bet on this race. If one out of 112 people won, then 58 million people out of that 6.6 billion won. Person X was one of those 58 million. While that doesn't narrow it down nearly enough to say Person X was the only one, it doesn't take away from the fact that this person did win. Same with Laci; while she is far from the only one who would match that mcDNA, she was a match. The defense's argument was that it didn't narrow it down enough to say she was the only possible match.

Anne, I will let anyone else chip in on what the odds represent. I am not going to belabor this further other than to say: 112-1 is a real long shot.

[Wudge]

My case knowledge is woefully insufficient, so forgive me for asking what are probably stupid questions . . .

Why would Brocchini want to frame Scott, instead of getting to the truth and finding the "real killers"?

Career builder via a monster high-profile case is one explanation. I think it is safe to say from his testimony: Detective Brocchini is no Saint.

[Anne2719]

Sorry, Wudge. I still think you are misunderstanding the significance of this evidence.

[Anne2719]

Career builder via a monster high-profile case is one explanation. I think it is safe to say from his testimony: Detective Brocchini is no Saint.
Doesn't career building come from being right? Why would he decide from the beginning to be wrong?

[Wudge]

Doesn't career building come from being right? Why would he decide from the beginning to be wrong?

Closing cases means advancement. That does not mean the case is closed with the right person behind bars. Moreover, LE does not wear white hats.

[Anne2719]

Closing cases means advancement. That does not mean the case is closed with the right person behind bars. Moreover, LE does not wear white hats.
To have started a framing scenario from Day One makes no sense at all.

[Wudge]

To have started a framing scenario from Day One makes no sense at all.



This case become a monster ratings hit overnight. Detective Brocchini's ship came in. He not only had his 15 minutes, he was getting big-time coverage most everyday.

[Anne2719]

This case become a monster ratings hit overnight. Detective Brocchini's ship came in. He not only had his 15 minutes, he was getting big-time coverage most everyday.
That makes no sense. Seriously. That could have blown up in his face at any moment in the early days. This was well before Amber's existence became known. I think you are grabbing at straws.

[Wudge]

That makes no sense. Seriously. That could have blown up in his face at any moment in the early days. This was well before Amber's existence became known. I think you are grabbing at straws.

Against your question, I only offered one possible explanation. I will not pretend to "know" for sure why people do things such as could have happened here.

I do know that a weak circumstantial evidence case can easily result in a wrongful conviction. That's why I continue to follow this case.

Anne, it is getting late. I am going to say good night to you. Sleep well.

[Anne2719]

I assume that Bates 14765 is Garegos's claim that Todd told Tenbrink he was there on the 24th. Please tell me how that happened when they were in separate prisons on opposite sides of the state. In addition EVERY phone conversation by an inmate is recorded yet there is no record of this conversation. You are basing your assumptions on air. They can't even tell you the dates that the conversation took place yet the KNOW the burglary was on the 24th. Todd was with his children on the 24th and could not have managed that burglary on that day. He has an alibi.
Please provide links or some other substantion/back-up, or else state that this is your opinion.

[Anne2719]

Do I detect a tad of the green-eyed monster about Brocchini. He is still hard at work catching bad guys and doing it very successfully. You ignore all the other hard-working officers in Modesto involved in this case. Brocchini was onlly one detective and not even the lead detective. He was just the detective that Garegos played word games with. Go ahead, attack Grogan. He wasn't that easy to attack, now, was he.


I think it's the fact that they police DID catch the bad guy in this case is what gets you. You think all wife murderers should go free ala MacDonald, Michael Peterson, et al. Those are the two other murderers that you think are innocent, aren't they.:lol:
PS: This is not acceptable, either. You're officially warned.

[accordn2me]

earth goddess, i have some extra IMOs if you want some of mine. :seeya:

[Anne2719]

Thank you.

And Todd's alibi? Link?
All calls from inmates are recorded? Link?
Prisoners on opposite sides of the state: link?

TIA.

[Anne2719]

Sorry Anne, I only have the Bates information, so far.
That's okay. Earth Goddess is responsible for coming up with her own backup.

[Anne2719]

I'm just trying to help - she knows this case backwards and forwards and lives right there.
I don't doubt that for a moment -- but everyone here is expected to follow the same rules.

[attorneywan2be]

In my opinion, your racetrack comparison is like comparing apples and oranges. To use a betting analogy, one would have to say that out of every 112 people who bet on this race, one will win, and Person X was one who won. Now let's say that 6.6 billion people bet on this race. If one out of 112 people won, then 58 million people out of that 6.6 billion won. Person X was one of those 58 million. While that doesn't narrow it down nearly enough to say Person X was the only one, it doesn't take away from the fact that this person did win. Same with Laci; while she is far from the only one who would match that mcDNA, she was a match. The defense's argument was that it didn't narrow it down enough to say she was the only possible match.


You said: "it doesn't take away from the fact that this person did win. Same with Laci; while she is far from the only one who would match that mcDNA, she was a match"

I don't think that's what Wudge meant by his racetrack example..

You are looking at it from the angle of who matched the hair..since you could have millions of winners as to your racetrack analogy..you can also have millions of people that could match the hair..BUT, since we are talking about one single hair, there is only one person out of those millions that could have contributed this hair...

[attorneywan2be]

My case knowledge is woefully insufficient, so forgive me for asking what are probably stupid questions . . .

Why would Brocchini want to frame Scott, instead of getting to the truth and finding the "real killers"?

I recommend that you read this:

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/dershowitz_test_981201.htm

http://www.truthinjustice.org/p-pmisconduct.htm

http://www.deathpenalty.org/index.php?pid=Innocence&menu=1%22

[cookiewench]

Cookie, not only do we have the 112-1 accepted by Distaso without argument


I still don't understand.

DNA results are usually given in millions and billions, aren't they?

Does the 112 - 1 mean that one out of every 112 people could be a match for that hair?

I know that it's nothing like odds - shooting dice, etc.

It's a definite number of people in this world who could have been the owner of that hair (which I, personally, absolutely believe was Laci's)

[Anne2719]

I still don't understand.

DNA results are usually given in millions and billions, aren't they?

Does the 112 - 1 mean that one out of every 112 people could be a match for that hair?

I know that it's nothing like odds - shooting dice, etc.

It's a definite number of people in this world who could have been the owner of that hair (which I, personally, absolutely believe was Laci's)
Yes, that's exactly what it means. Thank you!

[Anne2719]

Thanks for the links -- very interesting reading. I totally accept that there is plenty of police misconduct going on, and perjury by police officers anxious to convict someone they think is guilty (or should be put away for whatever reason).

But this case . . . if Brocchini decided from the start to frame an innocent man, then he had to know there was a fair possibility he was endangering a woman who had been abducted by someone else and might be waiting to be rescued. You think he knowingly concentrated on putting away the innocent husband while the wife was still in the hands of the REAL evil-doers? Why would he do that? It doesn't make sense.

[accordn2me]

Thank you.

And Todd's alibi? Link?
All calls from inmates are recorded? Link?Prisoners on opposite sides of the state: link?

TIA.Post #15 page 1 this thread....I read it first here! Does this qualify as "proof?"

[cookiewench]

Okay. If a hair was found in the street 3 blocks away that was a 1 - 112 for Laci, I'd think - eh.

But then, put in the other variables:

What are the chances that a hair found in Scott's pliers in Scott's secret boat right after Scott's wife went "missing" that is a 1 - 112 match for Laci's?

I'd think, about maybe 0 in a billion.

I think the jury believed that hair was Laci's - and with good reason.

[accordn2me]

Thanks for the links -- very interesting reading. I totally accept that there is plenty of police misconduct going on, and perjury by police officers anxious to convict someone they think is guilty (or should be put away for whatever reason).

But this case . . . if Brocchini decided from the start to frame an innocent man, then he had to know there was a fair possibility he was endangering a woman who had been abducted by someone else and might be waiting to be rescued. You think he knowingly concentrated on putting away the innocent husband while the wife was still in the hands of the REAL evil-doers? Why would he do that? It doesn't make sense.I agree. Why frame Never-before-in-trouble, nonviolent, taxpaying Scott and miss the chance to take these thieving, repeat offenders who are virtually certain to reoffend, off the streets and out of the neighborhoods?

In my opinion, these burglars could have confessed to this crime, yet the right person would still be on death row.

[accordn2me]

Okay. If a hair was found in the street 3 blocks away that was a 1 - 112 for Laci, I'd think - eh.

But then, put in the other variables:

What are the chances that a hair found in Scott's pliers in Scott's secret boat right after Scott's wife went "missing" that is a 1 - 112 match for Laci's?

I'd think, about maybe 0 in a billion.

I think the jury believed that hair was Laci's - and with good reason.

The hair is driving me crazy(ier). I can't figure out what the "odds" mean, even with repeated explanations from Anne who seems to have gotten it immediately, which does zip, zilch, nothing, nada for the ole ego here....

I think it's her hair. When Wudge first posted the "odds" I thought...but, but...those sound like great odds for it being her hair!:shrug:

But what is that vegetable stuff?

[attorneywan2be]

Thanks for the links -- very interesting reading. I totally accept that there is plenty of police misconduct going on, and perjury by police officers anxious to convict someone they think is guilty (or should be put away for whatever reason).

But this case . . . if Brocchini decided from the start to frame an innocent man, then he had to know there was a fair possibility he was endangering a woman who had been abducted by someone else and might be waiting to be rescued. You think he knowingly concentrated on putting away the innocent husband while the wife was still in the hands of the REAL evil-doers? Why would he do that? It doesn't make sense.

The point you are missing Anne..is that Brocchini decided that Scott did it on day one, from that point on, he had to prove he was right....that is the common problem among detectives/police that commit perjuries..that tamper with evidence..etc.etc....IMO, once they decide that whoever did it, they would do whatever it takes to pin it on their prime suspect...of course, sometimes they are right..and sometimes they are dead wrong resulting in wrongful convictions..however, in either case, it is wrong and they should be held accountable for their actions..


IMO

[SamCat]

[QUOTE=SamCat;8838207]MCDNA which is what was tested in this case is used to track matrilineage which shows female line of decent in other words the hair was consistent with Sharon's MCDNA so if true then the hair would have to belong to someone who was descended from Sharon Rocha's female ancestor or Sharon.

As for the hair being one that turned into two, I believe it was stated that it was thought to be two hairs that were stuck together due to hairspray or possibly one hair that broke..Either way the amount is not significant it is the results of testing that mattered. I assume none of us were there so we can not say for a fact it was one hair.

Brocchini was not impeached for excising notes out of his report. Did Brocchini lie on the stand and say he did not take the notes out? If not then he could not have been impeached since he did not lie. In fact they should not have been there in the first place. When doing their reports they are suppose to only include what they did not what other officers did. Brocchini did not talk to the woman at the warehouse. That information was in the report of the officer who did talk to her. Did Mark Geragos call the other officer to the stand to question him about that report? NO.

Brocchini was not impeached on the stand about the duct tape, the judge ruled that it was a slip of the tongue nothing more. To say he lied would mean we could read his mind and know for a fact he meant to say duct tape...I can't read minds.

SNIP

[QUOTE]

To claim that Detective Brocchini was not impeached is absurd (that is accepted case knowledge). Even the most die-hard SIG cannot defend Detective Brocchini excising exculpatory evidence from his notes. Distaso did not rehabilitate him either.

Detective Brocchini both added fictitious inculpatory evidence and excised evidence at his will, re: meringue, duct tape, multiplying hair, excising exculpatory evidence from his notes (which is clearly evidence tampering and a felony), etc..


To claim he was impeached is absurd….Please provide a link where Brocchini lied and said that he did not take that out of his report.…Did MG bring anyone to the stand to say that Brocchini should not have taken that information out of his report? NO. How do you think MG knew that he took that out of his report? Gee I wonder if the DA shared that information with him?

Do you want Homicide Detectives putting things in their reports that they didn't do and had no direct knowledge of? The MPD doesn't they want that information to come from the person who did the work and talk to the witness.

Meringue...mentioned 1 time on the 24th out of the whole show, on the 23rd they did a whole show about it....Brocchini testified that when he watched the tape from the 24th he didn't hear it.....isn't it amazing that SP heard that one word out of that whole program that day.

Duct Tape...the judge ruled that a slip are you saying you could read his mind and know for a fact he meant to say that? What evidence do you have that he did that on purpose? If it is your opinion then you should say so.

You say the one hair suddenly turned into two...do you know for a fact or have any evidence that there wasn't two hairs and he only thought there was one? What purpose would it serve Brocchini to lie about the hair? What purpose would it serve for any police officer to lie about how many strands of hair was there?

The so-called impeachment of Al Brocchini may be accepted case knowledge among the supporters of SP but that doesn't mean it is true. IMO

To impeach someone you must show that they lied. That means you need to provide proof that they lied. Where is your proof?

Brocchini saying he didn't hear the word meringue but someone else heard it is not proof of a lie.... Saying you saw only one hair when later it turns out to be two hairs is not proof of lying.... To say duct tape instead of just tape is also not proof that he deliberately lied.

[Anne2719]

The point you are missing Anne..is that Brocchini decided that Scott did it on day one, from that point on, he had to prove he was right....that is the common problem among detectives/police that commit perjuries..that tamper with evidence..etc.etc....IMO, once they decide that whoever did it, they would do whatever it takes to pin it on their prime suspect...of course, sometimes they are right..and sometimes they are dead wrong resulting in wrongful convictions..however, in either case, it is wrong and they should be held accountable for their actions..


IMO
Okay, I see your point. But accepting the assumption that he did this seems to beg the question of who arranged the back half of the frame, if that's what it was. Was Brocchini part of the conspiracy that placed the bodies on the shores of the SF Bay, or was that a coincidence that worked out nicely for him? He couldn't have asked for a better result, actually. I really have to question the likelihood of this perfect dovetailing of two unconnected evil forces.

Or Scott may have done it.

[accordn2me]

IIRC, experts said the hair could have been broken by the teeth of the pliers.

I have not read the hair/plier testimony. That must have come from opening or closing statements...can't say for sure.

Hope everyone has a Happy Easter.:rose:

[attorneywan2be]

Okay, I see your point. But accepting the assumption that he did this seems to beg the question of who arranged the back half of the frame, if that's what it was. Was Brocchini part of the conspiracy that placed the bodies on the shores of the SF Bay, or was that a coincidence that worked out nicely for him? He couldn't have asked for a better result, actually. I really have to question the likelihood of this perfect dovetailing of two unconnected evil forces.

Or Scott may have done it.

IMO, there is overwhelming evidence that the burglars/accomplices abducted Laci..of course, Scott's alibi was all over the news, what better place for them to get rid of the bodies than the place where her husband went fishing? it was a sure bet that the investigation would end...they gave the police the evidence needed to arrest Scott..

Overwhelming evidence that -----> burglars

The timing, Diane Jackson's report to the police that on Dec 24th at 11:40 am she saw 3 men, a van and a safe being removed from the Medina's house a + Lt. Aponte's report to the police that an inmate told his brother that Laci confronted Todd as he was burglarizing her neighbor's house + Mr. R's letter to the prosecution that he had info about Laci's abduction ..



IMO

[Anne2719]

But what about the discrepancies over whether the burglary took place on the 24th or the 26th? I've very confused by all this.

[Wudge]

I assume that Bates 14765 is Garegos's claim that Todd told Tenbrink he was there on the 24th. Please tell me how that happened when they were in separate prisons on opposite sides of the state. In addition EVERY phone conversation by an inmate is recorded yet there is no record of this conversation. You are basing your assumptions on air. They can't even tell you the dates that the conversation took place yet the KNOW the burglary was on the 24th. Todd was with his children on the 24th and could not have managed that burglary on that day. He has an alibi.

No, Bates #14765 dates Diane Jackson calling LE at 4;10PM on 12/26 to report she saw a safe, three men and a van in front of the Medina's home at 11:40AM on 12/24. This report of Ms. Jackson seeing a safe was made before the Medinas even knew they had been burglarized. This means the burglary took place on 12/24, thereby proving the burglars lied and were across from teh Petersons home when Laci was supposed to have been out walking McKenzie.

[Wudge]

I'm just trying to help - she knows this case backwards and forwards and lives right there.

Thanks ImSun. Obviously, that pegs who earth goddess is for me and well explains the words and tone in her post to me that she was properly warned for (thank you Anne). However, I won't let the websleuths standards prevail here, I will try to help prevent that from happening by putting earth goddess (modestogal) on ignore.

[Wudge]

[QUOTE=Wudge;8838212][QUOTE=SamCat;8838207]MCDNA which is what was tested in this case is used to track matrilineage which shows female line of decent in other words the hair was consistent with Sharon's MCDNA so if true then the hair would have to belong to someone who was descended from Sharon Rocha's female ancestor or Sharon.

As for the hair being one that turned into two, I believe it was stated that it was thought to be two hairs that were stuck together due to hairspray or possibly one hair that broke..Either way the amount is not significant it is the results of testing that mattered. I assume none of us were there so we can not say for a fact it was one hair.

Brocchini was not impeached for excising notes out of his report. Did Brocchini lie on the stand and say he did not take the notes out? If not then he could not have been impeached since he did not lie. In fact they should not have been there in the first place. When doing their reports they are suppose to only include what they did not what other officers did. Brocchini did not talk to the woman at the warehouse. That information was in the report of the officer who did talk to her. Did Mark Geragos call the other officer to the stand to question him about that report? NO.

Brocchini was not impeached on the stand about the duct tape, the judge ruled that it was a slip of the tongue nothing more. To say he lied would mean we could read his mind and know for a fact he meant to say duct tape...I can't read minds.

SNIP




To claim he was impeached is absurd….Please provide a link where Brocchini lied and said that he did not take that out of his report.…Did MG bring anyone to the stand to say that Brocchini should not have taken that information out of his report? NO. How do you think MG knew that he took that out of his report? Gee I wonder if the DA shared that information with him?

Do you want Homicide Detectives putting things in their reports that they didn't do and had no direct knowledge of? The MPD doesn't they want that information to come from the person who did the work and talk to the witness.

Meringue...mentioned 1 time on the 24th out of the whole show, on the 23rd they did a whole show about it....Brocchini testified that when he watched the tape from the 24th he didn't hear it.....isn't it amazing that SP heard that one word out of that whole program that day.

Duct Tape...the judge ruled that a slip are you saying you could read his mind and know for a fact he meant to say that? What evidence do you have that he did that on purpose? If it is your opinion then you should say so.

You say the one hair suddenly turned into two...do you know for a fact or have any evidence that there wasn't two hairs and he only thought there was one? What purpose would it serve Brocchini to lie about the hair? What purpose would it serve for any police officer to lie about how many strands of hair was there?

The so-called impeachment of Al Brocchini may be accepted case knowledge among the supporters of SP but that doesn't mean it is true. IMO

To impeach someone you must show that they lied. That means you need to provide proof that they lied. Where is your proof?



The entire legal analyst community on TV was discussing Detective Brocchini's impeachment and what effect it would have on the State's case.


June 25th, 2004

"KENDALL COFFEY, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I wouldn't say it's lost the case, Carol. But this is a big blow, and it's part of what is a very bad week. We know that one juror thought that even before this detective got impeached that the case was going poorly for the prosecution."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0406/25/lad.03.html

I am going to assume you did not follow this case closely from the beginning. Detective Brocchini's impeachemnt is common case knowledge.

[JustMyOpinion]

IMO, there is overwhelming evidence that the burglars/accomplices abducted Laci..of course, Scott's alibi was all over the news, what better place for them to get rid of the bodies than the place where her husband went fishing? it was a sure bet that the investigation would end...they gave the police the evidence needed to arrest Scott..
IMO


I disagree. I see no evidence the burglars "abducted Laci", nor any evidence they had a motive to frame Scott. And,nobody "gave police evidence", nor did the investigation/search for Laci end. "The evidence" ( Laci & Conner's remains) were in the Bay for months before coming ashore which then resulted in Scott's arrest. JMO

[Wudge]

I disagree. I see no evidence the burglars "abducted Laci", nor any evidence they had a motive to frame Scott. And,nobody "gave police evidence", nor did the investigation/search for Laci end. "The evidence" ( Laci & Conner's remains) were in the Bay for months before coming ashore which then resulted in Scott's arrest. JMO

The burglars being across the street from the Peterson home on the morning that Laci was last seen answers the question: "Who" ... if not Scott. They support reasonable doubt.

[JustMyOpinion]

The point you are missing Anne..is that Brocchini decided that Scott did it on day one, from that point on, he had to prove he was right....IMO

What evidence do you utilize to form your opinion that "Brocchini decided Scott did it" on day one"..?

[Wudge]

You said: "it doesn't take away from the fact that this person did win. Same with Laci; while she is far from the only one who would match that mcDNA, she was a match"

I don't think that's what Wudge meant by his racetrack example..

You are looking at it from the angle of who matched the hair..since you could have millions of winners as to your racetrack analogy..you can also have millions of people that could match the hair..BUT, since we are talking about one single hair, there is only one person out of those millions that could have contributed this hair...


I think some people remember Distaso said "match". What they do not remember or forgot was Judge Delucchi sustained Geragos objection to "match". Distaso then had to tell the jury "match" was not correct.

22 (END OF IN CAMERA PROCEEDINGS)
23
24 THE COURT: All right. This is the case of
25 People versus Scott Peterson. Let the record show the
26 defendant is present with counsel. The jury is in the jury

8528
1 box along with the alternates.
2 Record should reflect that we had an in-chambers
3 conference on the record with respect to the issue of the
4 ruling that Judge Girolami made in Modesto. After discussing
5 it with counsel, I'm going to sustain Mr. Geragos' objection
6 now. And I'm more well-advised what the ruling was. I'm
7 going to ask the District Attorney to clear it up so this
8 will be more accurate in accordance with Judge Girolami's --
9 MR. GERAGOS: Thank you.
10 MR. DISTASO: I'll do that. Can we dim the lights
11 a little bit?
12 THE COURT: Sure.
13 MR. DISTASO: I think I had said when I was
14 talking about the -- I believe -- I think what I said was,
15 regarding the hair that was found in the boat, I think I said
16 it matched microscopically. You are going to hear in that
17 regard the Mitochondrial DNA, it's much more complicated than
18 match or non-match. I used the word "match" to try to
19 simplify and move things along. That really wasn't the
20 appropriate term. I should have talked to you about in terms
21 of the statistics that experts used. Not going to do that
22 with you right now.
23 Suffice to say, you are going to have experts come
24 and talk about the statistics, what they mean. What they are
25 going to tell you is the hair excludes Scott Peterson. It
26 does not exclude Laci Peterson. And they are going to talk

8529
1 to you, statistical analysis they do, to whether that falls
2 in the vein of whether it matches or not. That's what they
3 are going to talk about.
4 But moving on.

[JustMyOpinion]

The burglars being across the street from the Peterson home on the morning that Laci was last seen answers the question: "Who" ... if not Scott. They support reasonable doubt.

I don't think it was proven the "burglars" were across the street from the Peterson home on 12/24, therefore I don't find it reasonable to conclude they had opportunity. JMO

[enlightenme]

No, Bates #14765 dates Diane Jackson calling LE at 4;10PM on 12/26 to report she saw a safe, three men and a van in front of the Medina's home at 11:40AM on 12/24. This report of Ms. Jackson seeing a safe was made before the Medinas even knew they had been burglarized. This means the burglary took place on 12/24, thereby proving the burglars lied and were across from teh Petersons home when Laci was supposed to have been out walking McKenzie.

Why would anyone wait 2 days to report something so important? Esp. when a neighbor you know had "disappeared" on that day?

This just doesn't make sense!

[Wudge]

I don't think it was proven the "burglars" were across the street from the Peterson home on 12/24, therefore I don't find it reasonable to conclude they had opportunity. JMO

How do you explain Bates #14765 ?

[JustMyOpinion]

No, Bates #14765 dates Diane Jackson calling LE at 4;10PM on 12/26 to report she saw a safe, three men and a van in front of the Medina's home at 11:40AM on 12/24. This report of Ms. Jackson seeing a safe was made before the Medinas even knew they had been burglarized. This means the burglary took place on 12/24, thereby proving the burglars lied and were across from teh Petersons home when Laci was supposed to have been out walking McKenzie.

Jackson didn't testify, she wasn't cross-examined. Where are you viewing Bates 14765, and where is a transcript of Jackson's exact report about what she saw & when? ( I'd like to read/view these) TIA. For me, the defense did not make a strong case that the burglars had opportunity, means of disposal, or motive to murder Laci/frame Scott. JMO

[Wudge]

Jackson didn't testify, she wasn't cross-examined. Where are you viewing Bates 14765, and where is a transcript of Jackson's exact report about what she saw & when? ( I'd like to read/view these) TIA. For me, the defense did not make a strong case that the burglars had opportunity, means of disposal, or motive to murder Laci/frame Scott. JMO

Because LE had Diane Jackson hypnotized by a non-approved hypnost, Dr Pennington, the Court agreed to let Diane Jackson's sighting at 11:40AM on 12/24 come into the trial for the truth. Judge Delucchi let Detective Grogan establish in the trial record that Diane Jackson report of that sighting (Bates #14765) had been accurately read to the jury.

[JustMyOpinion]

Because LE had Diane Jackson hypnotized by a non-approved hypnost, Dr Pennington, the Court agreed to let Diane Jackson's sighting at 11:40AM on 12/24 come into the trial for the truth. Judge Delucchi let Detective Grogan establish in the trial record that Diane Jackson report of that sighting (Bates #14765) had been accurately read to the jury.

I recall the ruling on the hypnosis, etc. Again, where is the transcript of her call to police on 12/26 detailing the sighting at 11:40 on 12/24, or Grogan's testimony about it? TIA
Also, if Jackson DID see 3 men, a van, and a safe in front of a neighbor's home on 12/24, why do you think she would wait until the afternoon of 12/26 to pick up the phone and call police? ( just curious)

[Wudge]

I recall the ruling on the hypnosis, etc. Again, where is the transcript of her call to police on 12/26 detailing the sighting at 11:40 on 12/24, or Grogan's testimony about it? TIA
Also, if Jackson DID see 3 men, a van, and a safe in front of a neighbor's home on 12/24, why do you think she would wait until the afternoon of 12/26 to pick up the phone and call police? ( just curious)

but it's being offered for the truth; all right? That's the
distinction between this tip line stuff -- this is also tip line stuff, but this
is a little different, okay? All right. Hope that explains it. Go ahead.
169. MR. GERAGOS: Crystal clear.
170. THE COURT: Right
171. MR. GERAGOS: Detective, specifically -- once again, this is a
sheet like what we had up before on Harshman's, correct?
172. Correct.
173. Okay. And specifically it's a sheet that was phoned in at --
looks like 4:10, looks like from Sergeant Ed Steele; is that right?
174. Yes.
175. And who is he?
176. He's a sergeant with the Modesto Police Department. He was
assigned to go --
177. THE COURT: Detective Grogan, you're talking away from the
microphone. I'm not sure they can hear you.
178. THE WITNESS: Assigned to go to the volunteer center after it
was opened at the hotel.
179. MR. GERAGOS: Okay. And he talked to Diane Jackson, who -- the
woman that we had pointed out, lived on this Edgebrook Street in that La Loma
neighborhood; is that correct?
180. I'm not sure if he talked to her directly when -- when she
called in, or if he received that information and then just passed it on.
181. Okay. And then he said that -- what was on the call sheet was
that she witnessed a burglary on Covena, correct? 459 is a Penal Code Section
for burglary?
182. Yes.
183. On 12:24 at 11:40 a.m.?
184. That's what it says.
185. Okay. And she said she saw the van and the safe being removed
from the house, correct?
186. That's what it says

[Lili007]

Hi Wudge,

Just wanted to say that I disagree with your opinion, but I respect the way you express it. Nevertheless, in my opinion and that of 12 jurors, Scott is guilty of killing his wife and unborn child, and is exactly where he belongs.

I don't agree with the death penalty, but LWOP is more than appropriate. After all, he didn't give Laci or Conner even that bit of choice.

JMO

[attorneywan2be]

But what about the discrepancies over whether the burglary took place on the 24th or the 26th? I've very confused by all this.

It's very simple..Diane Jackson reported the burglary BEFORE the Medinas returned to their home to discover it burglarized (Bates 14765)....she reported seeing a safe being removed from their house..the safe was indeed found in Todd's possession..she reported that she saw this burglary incident occurring at 11:40 am on December 24th, 2002.. IMO, she had no motive to lie, in addition, her report was corroborated by the fact that the safe was indeed taken from the Medina's house and was indeed found in the burglar's possession..

When the burglars were caught, Todd initially told the police that he burglarized the Medina's house on Dec 27th...IMO, after realizing that the Medinas were home on that date, he changed his date to Dec 26th..in addition, he stated that he saw the mail sticking out of their mailbox, however, Susan Medina testified that when they returned on Dec 26th there was no mail sticking out...so the only time he could have seen the mail sticking out would have been on Dec 24th, between 10:32 am (the time the Medina left after putting their outgoing mail in their mailbox) and the time the mail was picked up at around 10:35 am to 10:50 am on Dec 24th..in addition to that, on Dec 26th, the police cars were all over the place..reporters, cameras were all over the place, I hope you would agree that it was not a suitable time for burglars to do their work across the street from the house in question (Laci's house)..the house that was the center of attention..!

So you either believe Diane Jackson or you believe the burglars..it's your choice..

Mark Geragos: Okay. And then he said that, what was on the call sheet was that she witnessed a burglary on Covena, correct? 459 is a Penal Code Section for burglary?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: On 12:24 at 11:40 a.m.?
Craig Grogan: That's what it says.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And she said she saw the van and the safe being removed from the house, correct?
Craig Grogan: That's what it says.

-----------

Michael Hicks: Steven Wayne Todd.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Now specifically you talked to him, and I've got your report which is Bates stamp 4116. He was in the back, I guess at some point you got him into the back of your police vehicle; is that correct?
Michael Hicks: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And then you asked him to tell you about a burglary that occurred on Covena, correct?
Michael Hicks: Yes.
Mark Geragos: First thing he said was that he would tell you about the burglary, but he had nothing to do with the woman; is that right?
Michael Hicks: That's right.
Judge Delucchi: I want to admonish the jury now. Because here's a guy who's sitting in the back seat of a police car talking to a police officer. So there's a real issue about the trustworthiness of what he's talking to this police officer, telling this police officer, right. This is not coming in for the truth, you know, this is coming in with respect to information that this police officer received and the reasonableness of his conduct about what did he do about it. But it's certainly not coming in for the truth because there's a real issue about the trustworthiness. You think someone who is talking to a police officer is, Go ahead.
Mark Geragos: Is going to give you a straight story.
Judge Delucchi: Right.
Mark Geragos: Now, do you remember the day, I couldn't quite tell from the report, is that on the 2nd of January?
Michael Hicks: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, you've got him, and I'm not going to belabor it, but you get him into the back of the car and you ask him about the burglary. And the first thing that he says here, I'll tell you about the burglary, but he had nothing to do with the woman, right?
Michael Hicks: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And then you asked him what woman he was talking about, right?
Michael Hicks: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And he said the missing woman with the baby, right?
Michael Hicks: That's correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. So then you asked him again to tell you about the burglary; is that right?
Michael Hicks: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And he said that he rides up and down Covena hundreds of times because it's a shortcut for him, right?
Michael Hicks: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And he rides from a place called at the airport district; is that right?
Michael Hicks: That's correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And he says then he goes down Covena to the dirt path to the foot bridge and back up Covena because it's some kind of a shortcut for him?
Michael Hicks: It's an indirect shortcut to his mom's house without going around the river.
Mark Geragos: And then he told you that on Christmas, 12/25, that he was riding from his mom's house to his place at the airport district; is that right?
Michael Hicks: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And he says that at that point when he road by he noticed, and this is on Covena, he says I'm riding my bike on Covena, right?
Michael Hicks: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Then he says on Christmas day when he road by he noticed that 516 Covena appeared to be empty; is that right?
Michael Hicks: That's correct.
Mark Geragos: And 516 Covena is the Medina's house, right?
Michael Hicks: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And he says he noticed it because there was only one car in the driveway, right?
Michael Hicks: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Which he described as being either a Mercedes or a ne 4 BMW, right?
Michael Hicks: Correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And he said he also noticed that the mail in the mail box; is that right?
Michael Hicks: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And he could see when he's riding his bike down the street, not only the car, but that he could see mail in the mail box, right?
Michael Hicks: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And that led him to believe that nobody was home; is that right?
Michael Hicks: That's correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And then he stated that he road home to his residence and eventually met up with his friend Pierce, right?
Michael Hicks: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And then after he did a couple of other things that he road back to his house and stayed there until about 3:00 in the morning on December 27th, correct?
Michael Hicks: He was confused about the date initially. It was clarified later it was actually the day after Christmas, which would have been the 26th.
Mark Geragos: When he first gave you the story he told you the 27th, right?
Michael Hicks: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And he didn't say that he was confused the first time he gave you the story, did he?
Michael Hicks: Yes, he did.
Mark Geragos: Did you put that anywhere in the report?
Michael Hicks: No.


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

Susan Medina: Yes. Yes. He, he went out of the car. He told me to stay in the car; you know, don't leave the car. The car keys were in, the ignition was going on. And so he looked at the, at the mails that I had put in our mailbox.
David Harris: And when he, did he come back to the car?
Susan Medina: He did after he checked the mailbox.
David Harris: When he came back from the mailbox, did he have any mail with him?
Susan Medina: No, he didn't have any mail with him.

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

Pat Harris: And then you came back two days later on the 26th, the night of the 26th. Do I have my dates right?
Susan Medina: Yes, you do.
Pat Harris: And when you came back that night, was the outgoing mail gone?
Susan Medina: Yes.
Pat Harris: It had been picked up?
Susan Medina: Yes.
Pat Harris: In the mailbox, I believe you told the police officers that there were two or three small letters in the mailbox when you got back,
Susan Medina: Correct.
Pat Harris: is that correct? Okay. They weren't sticking out of the mailbox, were they?
Susan Medina: No, they were not.

[JustMyOpinion]

but it's being offered for the truth; all right? That's the
distinction between this tip line stuff -- this is also tip line stuff, but this
is a little different, okay? All right. Hope that explains it. Go ahead.
169. MR. GERAGOS: Crystal clear.
170. THE COURT: Right
171. MR. GERAGOS: Detective, specifically -- once again, this is a
sheet like what we had up before on Harshman's, correct?
172. Correct.
173. Okay. And specifically it's a sheet that was phoned in at --
looks like 4:10, looks like from Sergeant Ed Steele; is that right?
174. Yes.
175. And who is he?
176. He's a sergeant with the Modesto Police Department. He was
assigned to go --
177. THE COURT: Detective Grogan, you're talking away from the
microphone. I'm not sure they can hear you.
178. THE WITNESS: Assigned to go to the volunteer center after it
was opened at the hotel.
179. MR. GERAGOS: Okay. And he talked to Diane Jackson, who -- the
woman that we had pointed out, lived on this Edgebrook Street in that La Loma
neighborhood; is that correct?
180. I'm not sure if he talked to her directly when -- when she
called in, or if he received that information and then just passed it on.
181. Okay. And then he said that -- what was on the call sheet was
that she witnessed a burglary on Covena, correct? 459 is a Penal Code Section
for burglary?
182. Yes.
183. On 12:24 at 11:40 a.m.?
184. That's what it says.
185. Okay. And she said she saw the van and the safe being removed
from the house, correct?
186. That's what it says


Thanks Wudge. The rest of the testimony from Grogan shows that Slough interviewed Jackson at 6:30 p.m. on 12/27. There is no mention in that report that Jackson saw a safe ( according to testimony, if the SII transcripts are accurate/credible)
Also, there was a re-cross: ( again do not know how accurate this transcript is)

FLADAGER: All right. Next I'm going to ask you about an interview Mr. Geragos referenced, statements by Diane Jackson. Do you remember that?

GROGAN: Yes, ma'am.

FLADAGER: And I'm going to refer you to a defense report. Do you have a copy of it? There is not a Bates number on it.

JUDGE: Remind the jury, this is the testimony that was off reports. A little different from the other.

GROGAN: All right, I have that report.

FLADAGER: What is the date of that interview?

GROGAN: I believe it's January 16th. Yes.

FLADAGER: The reports, in the course of that interview, is there any indication at all by Miss Jackson that she said she saw a safe?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: Is there any indication at all in that interview that Ms. Jackson claimed to have witnessed a burglary?

GROGAN: No. It indicates that she made observations. And then she heard about the burglary and thought that the two individuals or these other vehicles and the burglary may be related.

** Seems to me Grogan testified that the report from initial telephone call had the word(s) burglary and safe written in them. When Slough interviewed Jackson, ( on 12/27)there's no mention in Grogan's testimony that his report contained anything about Jackson stating burglary or safe. On re-cross, Grogan testifies a defense report ( dated Jan 16) indicates Jackson made observations, heard about the burglary and thought the people she saw, vehicles MAY be related. I don't think Diane Jackson saw a burglary or the burglars, but that's JMO.

[Wudge]

Thanks Wudge. The rest of the testimony from Grogan shows that Slough interviewed Jackson at 6:30 p.m. on 12/27. There is no mention in that report that Jackson saw a safe ( according to testimony, if the SII transcripts are accurate/credible)
Also, there was a re-cross: ( again do not know how accurate this transcript is)

FLADAGER: All right. Next I'm going to ask you about an interview Mr. Geragos referenced, statements by Diane Jackson. Do you remember that?

GROGAN: Yes, ma'am.

FLADAGER: And I'm going to refer you to a defense report. Do you have a copy of it? There is not a Bates number on it.

JUDGE: Remind the jury, this is the testimony that was off reports. A little different from the other.

GROGAN: All right, I have that report.

FLADAGER: What is the date of that interview?

GROGAN: I believe it's January 16th. Yes.

FLADAGER: The reports, in the course of that interview, is there any indication at all by Miss Jackson that she said she saw a safe?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: Is there any indication at all in that interview that Ms. Jackson claimed to have witnessed a burglary?

GROGAN: No. It indicates that she made observations. And then she heard about the burglary and thought that the two individuals or these other vehicles and the burglary may be related.

** Seems to me Grogan testified that the report from initial telephone call had the word(s) burglary and safe written in them. When Slough interviewed Jackson, ( on 12/27)there's no mention in Grogan's testimony that his report contained anything about Jackson stating burglary or safe. On re-cross, Grogan testifies a defense report ( dated Jan 16) indicates Jackson made observations, heard about the burglary and thought the people she saw, vehicles MAY be related. I don't think Diane Jackson saw a burglary or the burglars, but that's JMO.


How do you explain Bates #14765 establishing she saw a "safe".

[attorneywan2be]

What evidence do you utilize to form your opinion that "Brocchini decided Scott did it" on day one"..?

On Dec 24th:/B]

-[B]Brocchini took Scott's gun..

Mark Geragos: And did, that call was at about, what, 2:30 in the morning?
Allen Brocchini: It was about two.
Mark Geragos: About two. It would have been about, what, half an hour after you dropped him off?
Allen Brocchini: 45 minutes or so.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And he asked you specifically if things had been taken; isn't that correct?
Allen Brocchini: He asked me if I took his gun.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Well, when did you actually take the gun, at what point?
Allen Brocchini: When I was searching his truck.
Mark Geragos: Well, was that before or after you went back to the truck? You said two times you went into the truck?
Allen Brocchini: No, I didn't. I searched the interior of the, I searched the back of the truck first. Then I searched the inside, took the gun. Then we walked away, and I walked back and got my keys out of the bed of the truck. I never went in the truck.

-Brocchini took samples off Scott's hands to test for gunshot residue

BROCCHINI: Would you be ah willing to for me to take a gunshot residue on your hands?
PETERSON: Sure no problem. Will outboard exhaust show up as gunshot residue, or would it be different?
BROCCHINI: What? Exhaust?
PETERSON: Yeah from that outboard?
BROCCHINI: Well you showered after you said, so I’m not thinkin’ this is your routine, but no it wouldn’t.
PETERSON: Okay.

-----------

Mark Geragos: And then you say Scott. And then there is some long pause. And you are putting on what appears to be gloves hike this, correct?
Allen Brocchini: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Why are you doing that?
Judge Delucchi: Do you want to describe what "like this"?
Mark Geragos: Latex gloves, yellowish in color; is that correct?
Allen Brocchini: They come in the pack for the gunshot residue. When you open it up there is a pair of gloves there. You put them on so that you don't contaminate the little sticky pad that you are using to take, do the test.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And you spent a, you broke open the package for this gunshot residue test. There is some little containers in there; is that correct?
Allen Brocchini: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And look almost like vials.
Allen Brocchini: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And what you do is, you take, for each hand, you do one container, correct?
Allen Brocchini: No. There is two for each hand.

[SamCat]

On Dec 24th:/B]

-[B]Brocchini took Scott's gun..

Mark Geragos: And did, that call was at about, what, 2:30 in the morning?
Allen Brocchini: It was about two.
Mark Geragos: About two. It would have been about, what, half an hour after you dropped him off?
Allen Brocchini: 45 minutes or so.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And he asked you specifically if things had been taken; isn't that correct?
Allen Brocchini: He asked me if I took his gun.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Well, when did you actually take the gun, at what point?
Allen Brocchini: When I was searching his truck.
Mark Geragos: Well, was that before or after you went back to the truck? You said two times you went into the truck?
Allen Brocchini: No, I didn't. I searched the interior of the, I searched the back of the truck first. Then I searched the inside, took the gun. Then we walked away, and I walked back and got my keys out of the bed of the truck. I never went in the truck.

-Brocchini took samples off Scott's hands to test for gunshot residue

BROCCHINI: Would you be ah willing to for me to take a gunshot residue on your hands?
PETERSON: Sure no problem. Will outboard exhaust show up as gunshot residue, or would it be different?
BROCCHINI: What? Exhaust?
PETERSON: Yeah from that outboard?
BROCCHINI: Well you showered after you said, so I’m not thinkin’ this is your routine, but no it wouldn’t.
PETERSON: Okay.

-----------

Mark Geragos: And then you say Scott. And then there is some long pause. And you are putting on what appears to be gloves hike this, correct?
Allen Brocchini: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Why are you doing that?
Judge Delucchi: Do you want to describe what "like this"?
Mark Geragos: Latex gloves, yellowish in color; is that correct?
Allen Brocchini: They come in the pack for the gunshot residue. When you open it up there is a pair of gloves there. You put them on so that you don't contaminate the little sticky pad that you are using to take, do the test.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And you spent a, you broke open the package for this gunshot residue test. There is some little containers in there; is that correct?
Allen Brocchini: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And look almost like vials.
Allen Brocchini: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And what you do is, you take, for each hand, you do one container, correct?
Allen Brocchini: No. There is two for each hand.

I do not see this as proof that Brocchini decided SP was guilty from the get go, instead this is proof that Brocchini was doing his job. You have to collect possible evidence that not only could point to a suspect but away from a suspect. To do otherwise would be a disservice too not only SP but to Laci's family and the community.

You have a man who has a missing wife; you find a loaded gun in the glove compartment of his vehicle...which by the way is illegal since SP had been driving around with it. The gun is not registered to this person. Had Brocchini just simply ignored the possibility that this gun could have been used to harm the missing woman he could have lost this evidence forever.

Taking that gun and doing the test on SP's hands showed that he didn't use the gun. Had they found Laci shot to death wouldn't you have wanted that gun to be tested as well as SP's hands to prove without a doubt it was or was not the murder weapon? Wouldn't you want to know for a fact whether SP had or had not fired a gun recently?

[attorneywan2be]

I disagree. I see no evidence the burglars "abducted Laci", nor any evidence they had a motive to frame Scott. And,nobody "gave police evidence", nor did the investigation/search for Laci end. "The evidence" ( Laci & Conner's remains) were in the Bay for months before coming ashore which then resulted in Scott's arrest. JMO

What evidence proves that Laci and Conner's remains were in the bay for months?

-There was no evidence of fish bite marks on either body..

-The police searched the bay extensively using the most sophisticated sonar equipments...they found things as small as a can of beer, a wooden stick..they didn't find Laci's body..because IMO, it was not there...!

-No one reported seeing Laci's body floating.. no one reported seeing Conner's body floating..

From the prelim - the medical examiner's testimony

Q. Based on what you saw from Laci's body, you were briefly describing about how the environment affects the legs and the feet. Does the marine environment have effect on causing disarticulation?

A. It certainly can. There are, obviously, animals in the marine environment that will feed on a body. Down near the bottom, there are shellfish, crabs, lobsters, that sort of thing that will produce these sort of nibble marks. Again, though, there were no specific chew marks on her body. As I examined the joints that were available for examination, there were no tool marks, there was -- there were no bite marks either. So could these disarticulations that I saw have been caused by large animal feeding, shark feeding, something on that order? I suppose it could have. I don't have any particular positive evidence to say that they were, though.

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Timelines/Prelim%20Transcripts/Prelim%20Dr%20Brian%20Peterson.htm


From the trial transcripts:

Mark Geragos: And so they found there was a target area, somebody was able to, either through side-scan, or through mapping, or something, to find something on the floor and they found a blue square bucket, right?
Rick Armendariz: Blue square bucket was the item that was recovered by the dive team that brought that up to the boat, correct.
Mark Geragos: How about the A15? What is that?
Rick Armendariz: A15 was another bucket that was recovered from the dive team.
Mark Geragos: Okay. A7?
Rick Armendariz: A7 was a beer can that was located.
Mark Geragos: So apparently they had, this was so sophisticated that they could actually spot a target as small as a beer can and recover that?
Rick Distaso: Objection, your Honor. It's argumentative.
Judge Delucchi: Sustained.
Mark Geragos: The beer can that they pulled up, you photographed. I assume you figured there was no evidentiary value, threw it away?
Rick Armendariz: That's correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. The sail we talked about. What's A45?
Rick Armendariz: A45 was a search from the 18th. That was a wooden stick.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And the B12? Right there.
Rick Armendariz: B12 was also the search that was done on September 18th. And that was a plastic bag.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And, once again, I assume these are the rulers right here, to give you a size or an idea of how large these items are?
Rick Armendariz: That's correct.
Mark Geragos: How long is that ruler?
Rick Armendariz: That's a standard ruler size. Approximately twelve inches.
Mark Geragos: Okay. So all of these items are measured up against a twelve-inch ruler that are in the pictures. How about, move it up. Here F24, what's that?
Rick Armendariz: F24 was what I described earlier. It was an item that was recovered on the 18th. And it was the metal pipe.
Mark Geragos: That's the pipe. Okay. And F26 and 25 are the two tires that you described?
Rick Armendariz: Correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, the gravel bag, it's kind of hard to read here. That's what's in this bottom picture; is that correct?
Rick Armendariz: Correct.

[JustMyOpinion]

On Dec 24th:/B]

-[B]Brocchini took Scott's gun..

-Brocchini took samples off Scott's hands to test for gunshot residue


.

Thanks for answering, Attorneywan2be. It is my opinion that since Sgt Carter dispatched Brocchini to the scene, there was some suspicion on the officer's part that Laci may have met with foul play, and, they had some suspicion about Scott's story (ie. he had struggled with details on his fishing story, he had waited awhile before raising an alarm despite finding house dark, Laci absent, dog trailing leash.) Also, I think it's possible the mop/bucket dumping of water suggested Scott may have been cleaning up. Also, statistically, I think experienced officers/detectives do know that statistics show high incidence of foul play being committed by a spouse or someone known to the victim. There was no sign of forced entry, back door was unlocked, jewelry in plain sight, so it didn't appear there had been an intruder/burglar. I think Brocchini was dispatched to investigate a missing person report, and he confiscated the loaded gun, checked for gun-shot residue ( and had the team collect other items, take photos,questioned Scott on tape) because he was doing his job! There is no question that Brocchini's suspicions were aroused, but I disagree with your opinion that "he decided Scott did it on the first night". And, running tests on the gun, tests on Scott's hands could help rule him further in, or..could help rule him out, IMO.
Statistically, in stereotypical stranger-abduction cases police know they don't have much time to solve before a victim will likely be murdered, I think the responding officers, the Sgt and the detective were doing a great job that night. JMO

[JustMyOpinion]

How do you explain Bates #14765 establishing she saw a "safe".

Does Bates14765 refer to the report by the officer who took the initial phone call? If so, I agree that Grogan testified that it's written there that she witnessed a burglary, saw a safe. But, when Stough interviews her on 12/27 at 6:30 p.m. , Grogan does not testify there is anything in Stough's report written about a burglary or safe. It's in the remainder of Grogan's testimony ( that was offered as the truth) This is the rest of Grogan's testimony past where you ended your expert.
SNIP:
GERAGOS: Okay. And then apparently they called Sergeant Zahr. Who is Sergeant Zahr?

GROGAN: Sergeant Zahr was my supervisor in this investigation.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then Sebron Banks?

GROGAN: Is a detective assigned to burglary.

GERAGOS: Okay. And to call Diane Jackson to tell them that they would contact her on Monday, correct?

GROGAN: Correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. Then apparently at about 6:30 to talk, detective, is it "Stow"?

GROGAN: Stough.

GERAGOS: Stough took follow-up information, said he would work the case?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Now, that provided, this witness statement by Diane Jackson provided the, some of the information that led to the flyer for the information leading to, a $1,000 reward leading to the burglary that took place at the Medinas'; is that correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Once again, the people who, as we indicated yesterday, you've never located a van that comports with what she saw; is that correct?

GROGAN: That’s correct.

GERAGOS: And specifically the description that Diane Jackson had given was also placed on the flyer of the people who were in that van, correct?

GROGAN: I think so, yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. I'll have to ask that Mr. Harris see if he can find the flyer that was marked as an exhibit. Now, specifically Diane Jackson was then interviewed by Detective, I keep misprouncing this, Stough?

GROGAN: Stough, yes.

GERAGOS: And then also, in addition to that, she gave this description, and I'm at 2091, your, you've got that up on your computer?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And Stough had gone out there, I guess, as it says from the tip line here, at 6:30 on the 27th?

GROGAN: Yes, it appears so.

GERAGOS: Okay. And she said that she was driving by 516 Covena. Now, 516 Covena is directly across the street from the Peterson house, correct?

GROGAN: Yes. It's, I don't think it's, GERAGOS: The Medina, the Medina house, which is, I guess if I'm standing on the, on the driveway of the Peterson house and I'm looking across the street, it's going to be just at a slight angle right across the street?

GROGAN: I think if you were standing in the driveway you would see, yeah, the north, north property line of the Medina residence.

GERAGOS: Okay. That's 516 Covena, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And she said that as she drove by she saw three short of stature dark-skinned but not African American guys in the front yard of the residence, correct?

GROGAN: Yeah.

GERAGOS: And she stated as she drove by the guys turned and looked at her and that they were standing near a van; is that correct?

GROGAN: That's what it says, yes.

GERAGOS: And when asked to further describe them she said that's all she could remember and she wasn't thinking about that, until she called the police?

GROGAN: Correct.

GERAGOS: And asked if she was able to identify any of these subjects if she saw them again, she stated she didn't know but she doubted it, correct?

GROGAN: That's what it says, yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then your, she was asked if she saw them at the back of the van or the yard, and she said that the van was parked on the street in front of the house and not in the driveway, correct?

GROGAN: Correct.

GERAGOS: She stated that two of the individuals were standing at the back of the van, and one was standing in the front yard near the van, correct?

GROGAN: Correct.

GERAGOS: And she thought it was unusual because they looked, let's see, because they looked, or initially she thought that they were landscapers and that landscapers normally would continue working, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: But that they didn't and looked at the traffic going by, correct?

GROGAN: Correct.

GERAGOS: And that when she first saw the van, when she first stated that she had seen it, she first told the officers she believed the van was white, but, upon thinking about it, she thought it was darker than that, correct?

GROGAN: Correct.

GERAGOS: And then I guess at that point she said she thought it was darker, either a tan or a brown color, and stated it was an older van, it had a door, or both doors would open at the rear she didn't really remember, correct?

GROGAN: Correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, specifically the reward poster was previously marked as Defendant's double N, and I think I've got all this up here. This, for the most part, for the most part the information on double N was taken from Diane Jackson's, or at least, I should say, the information that is, the information that's up here, 500 block of Covena, three dark-skinned males, not African American, short in stature, older model, full sized van, tan or light brown in color, one or two possibly two doors that open at the rear; all of that came from Diane Jackson, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: This information is what was stolen from the Medina residence as reported by Mrs. Medina or Mr. Medina?

GROGAN: Correct.

[Wudge]

I do not see this as proof that Brocchini decided SP was guilty from the get go, instead this is proof that Brocchini was doing his job. You have to collect possible evidence that not only could point to a suspect but away from a suspect. To do otherwise would be a disservice too not only SP but to Laci's family and the community.

You have a man who has a missing wife; you find a loaded gun in the glove compartment of his vehicle...which by the way is illegal since SP had been driving around with it. The gun is not registered to this person. Had Brocchini just simply ignored the possibility that this gun could have been used to harm the missing woman he could have lost this evidence forever.

Taking that gun and doing the test on SP's hands showed that he didn't use the gun. Had they found Laci shot to death wouldn't you have wanted that gun to be tested as well as SP's hands to prove without a doubt it was or was not the murder weapon? Wouldn't you want to know for a fact whether SP had or had not fired a gun recently?

Consent to look does not constitute consent to take. He never asked Scott if he could take the handgun. Nor did he ever tell him he was taking it (see theft). He had no authority to collect the handgun. Detective Brocchini's taking (alleged confiscation) of the handgun was unlawful.

[accordn2me]

I do not see this as proof that Brocchini decided SP was guilty from the get go, instead this is proof that Brocchini was doing his job. You have to collect possible evidence that not only could point to a suspect but away from a suspect. To do otherwise would be a disservice too not only SP but to Laci's family and the community.

You have a man who has a missing wife; you find a loaded gun in the glove compartment of his vehicle...which by the way is illegal since SP had been driving around with it. The gun is not registered to this person. Had Brocchini just simply ignored the possibility that this gun could have been used to harm the missing woman he could have lost this evidence forever.

Taking that gun and doing the test on SP's hands showed that he didn't use the gun. Had they found Laci shot to death wouldn't you have wanted that gun to be tested as well as SP's hands to prove without a doubt it was or was not the murder weapon? Wouldn't you want to know for a fact whether SP had or had not fired a gun recently?Scott told the detective that the last time he used this .22 caliber handgun was to hunt pheasant with. The detective's hinkey meter went off, as it should have. A .22 caliber handgun is not your standard pheasant hunting equipment. Scott's pattern of not using standard equipment for his sporting activities had probably not become clear at this point in the investigation.

[One2Snoop]

Thank you for the info Wudge - I guess what I don't understand is why Diane Jackson waited two days to report a burglary? Why didn't she call LE immediately? I thought they had a neighborhood watch program? Maybe Diane Jackson isn't a part of it, but I've always been puzzled as to why she waited to report it. :shrug:

but it's being offered for the truth; all right? That's the
distinction between this tip line stuff -- this is also tip line stuff, but this
is a little different, okay? All right. Hope that explains it. Go ahead.
169. MR. GERAGOS: Crystal clear.
170. THE COURT: Right
171. MR. GERAGOS: Detective, specifically -- once again, this is a
sheet like what we had up before on Harshman's, correct?
172. Correct.
173. Okay. And specifically it's a sheet that was phoned in at --
looks like 4:10, looks like from Sergeant Ed Steele; is that right?
174. Yes.
175. And who is he?
176. He's a sergeant with the Modesto Police Department. He was
assigned to go --
177. THE COURT: Detective Grogan, you're talking away from the
microphone. I'm not sure they can hear you.
178. THE WITNESS: Assigned to go to the volunteer center after it
was opened at the hotel.
179. MR. GERAGOS: Okay. And he talked to Diane Jackson, who -- the
woman that we had pointed out, lived on this Edgebrook Street in that La Loma
neighborhood; is that correct?
180. I'm not sure if he talked to her directly when -- when she
called in, or if he received that information and then just passed it on.
181. Okay. And then he said that -- what was on the call sheet was
that she witnessed a burglary on Covena, correct? 459 is a Penal Code Section
for burglary?
182. Yes.
183. On 12:24 at 11:40 a.m.?
184. That's what it says.
185. Okay. And she said she saw the van and the safe being removed
from the house, correct?
186. That's what it says

[attorneywan2be]

Thanks for answering, Attorneywan2be. It is my opinion that since Sgt Carter dispatched Brocchini to the scene, there was some suspicion on the officer's part that Laci may have met with foul play, and, they had some suspicion about Scott's story (ie. he had struggled with details on his fishing story, he had waited awhile before raising an alarm despite finding house dark, Laci absent, dog trailing leash.) Also, I think it's possible the mop/bucket dumping of water suggested Scott may have been cleaning up. Also, statistically, I think experienced officers/detectives do know that statistics show high incidence of foul play being committed by a spouse or someone known to the victim. There was no sign of forced entry, back door was unlocked, jewelry in plain sight, so it didn't appear there had been an intruder/burglar. I think Brocchini was dispatched to investigate a missing person report, and he confiscated the loaded gun, checked for gun-shot residue ( and had the team collect other items, take photos,questioned Scott on tape) because he was doing his job! There is no question that Brocchini's suspicions were aroused, but I disagree with your opinion that "he decided Scott did it on the first night". And, running tests on the gun, tests on Scott's hands could help rule him further in, or..could help rule him out, IMO.
Statistically, in stereotypical stranger-abduction cases police know they don't have much time to solve before a victim will likely be murdered, I think the responding officers, the Sgt and the detective were doing a great job that night. JMO


IMO, Brocchini suspected Scott from day one...I have ZERO doubt..! Evidenced by the fact that on Dec 26th, the police impounded Scott's truck and boat..why would they do that at that point? Brocchini interviewed him until around 1:00 am Dec 25th..the following day, they got a search warrant and impounded both the truck and the boat...

[Wudge]

Thank you for the info Wudge - I guess what I don't understand is why Diane Jackson waited two days to report a burglary? Why didn't she call LE immediately? I thought they had a neighborhood watch program? Maybe Diane Jackson isn't a part of it, but I've always been puzzled as to why she waited to report it. :shrug:


The action by LE and/or the D.A.'s office to use a non-approved hypnotist necessarily would result in speculation.

The important thing is that Diane Jackson reported seeing the "safe" in front of the Medinas' home before they had even arrived home to find that their safe had, indeed, been taken.

Since there is no reasonable explanation for how Diane Jackson could have reported seeing the safe other than the burglars lied about not being there on 12/24, this reasonably places the burglars there the morning of 12/24. In turn, the burglars become prime suspects, which strongly goes to reasonable doubt on behalf of Scott.

[Rachel Cory]

My case knowledge is woefully insufficient, so forgive me for asking what are probably stupid questions . . .

Why would Brocchini want to frame Scott, instead of getting to the truth and finding the "real killers"?

It's true that Brocchini excised the Peggy O'Donnell incident from his notes. It's true that he added "duct tape" to his reported interview with Miguel Espedia. It's true that he stopped Merlin when he was so hot to trot onto US 580.
Cindee Valentin testified in the preliminary that it was clear to her that from December 26, Brocchini was focusing totally on Scott. The question is why Scott?

When the Tracy Tip came in, I have no doubt that Det. Brocchini knew exactly where this tip lead. He'd worked in San Leandro County for years, you know.

[Wudge]

Does Bates14765 refer to the report by the officer who took the initial phone call? If so, I agree that Grogan testified that it's written there that she witnessed a burglary, saw a safe. But, when Stough interviews her on 12/27 at 6:30 p.m. , Grogan does not testify there is anything in Stough's report written about a burglary or safe. It's in the remainder of Grogan's testimony ( that was offered as the truth)


SNIPPED FOR FOCUS



The testimony that followed I take to be, undisputedly, accurate.

The point remains: Of logical necessity, something that was "not said" at a later date cannot erase something that was "said" at an earlier date.

For example, if a noon bell ringer decides, for whatever reason, not to ring a bell at 12:00 noon on December 31st (or any later date than 12/26), the fact that a bell was not rung on 12/31 can never work against an established fact that they did ring the bell on 12/26. And Diane Jackson did ring the bell on 12/26.

If the burglars were not there on 12/24, how could she possibly have known to ring that bell?

ETA: Yes, the report (Bates 14765) is Diane Jackson's call into the call center and officer Steele did have a 459 (burglary) recorded as a result of her call.

[Wearing A Halo]

The action by LE and/or the D.A.'s office to use a non-approved hypnotist necessarily would result in speculation.

The important thing is that Diane Jackson reported seeing the "safe" in front of the Medinas' home before they had even arrived home to find that their safe had, indeed, been taken.

Since there is no reasonable explanation for how Diane Jackson could have reported seeing the safe other than the burglars lied about not being there on 12/24, this reasonably places the burglars there the morning of 12/24. In turn, the burglars become prime suspects, which strongly goes to reasonable doubt on behalf of Scott.

Where is the nexus that puts the burglars and Laci together?

Mackenzie was found by Karen Servas at 10:18. Medina's house left their house till after 10:30. The burglars where supposedly spotted by Diane Jackson at aboout 11:45. It is reasonnable to conclude that the burglars were at the Medina home from 10:45 to 11:45 well after Mackenzie was put back and no sight of Laci. The Aponte tip, IMO, is bogus. IMO, in DRISP's defense, it would have been better had a house farther along the route Laci would've taken that morning was burglarized and coincided with the same timeline of 10:00-11:00, but it didn't happen-so much for "the odds."

[attorneywan2be]

Does Bates14765 refer to the report by the officer who took the initial phone call? If so, I agree that Grogan testified that it's written there that she witnessed a burglary, saw a safe. But, when Stough interviews her on 12/27 at 6:30 p.m. , Grogan does not testify there is anything in Stough's report written about a burglary or safe. It's in the remainder of Grogan's testimony ( that was offered as the truth) This is the rest of Grogan's testimony past where you ended your expert.

Of course they were talking about the burglary to get info for the flyer..anyhow, she did report to the police that she saw a safe being removed from the Medina's house on her first contact with the police..that fact would remain a fact even if it was not mentioned again on her later contact with the police..IMO, possibly, Stough conducted the interview focusing on the description of the men and the van (I think they were getting the info for the flyer)..so there was no need for her to mention the safe again..and above all. the safe was indeed taken from Medina's house..it was indeed found in Todd's possession...!

[Rachel Cory]

Where is the nexus that puts the burglars and Laci together?

Mackenzie was found by Karen Servas at 10:18. Medina's house left their house till after 10:30. The burglars where supposedly spotted by Diane Jackson at aboout 11:45. It is reasonnable to conclude that the burglars were at the Medina home from 10:45 to 11:45 well after Mackenzie was put back and no sight of Laci. The Aponte tip, IMO, is bogus. IMO, in DRISP's defense, it would have been better had a house farther along the route Laci would've taken that morning was burglarized and coincided with the same timeline of 10:00-11:00, but it didn't happen-so much for "the odds."
IMO, Karen didn't find MacKenzie at 10:18. She's either mistaken (probable) or lying. (Who knows?) Diane Jackson reported what she had seen on the morning of the 24th. No doubt about that. IMO, the Aponte tip was planted and then not used. (So much for Geragos' million dollar fee.)

There was another witness on the street that morning that also couldn't testify because she had been hypnotized unacceptably. Kristen Dempewolf talked to Scott that morning while he loaded the umbrellas. She saw a van parked directly in front of the Medinas. Her husband was allowed to testify. He wasn't anywhere near the scene. ??? Reliable eyewitnesses were not used. ???? Pee-eww. The whole thing is still stinking to High Heaven.

[One2Snoop]

IMO, Karen didn't find MacKenzie at 10:18. She's either mistaken (probable) or lying. (Who knows?) Diane Jackson reported what she had seen on the morning of the 24th. No doubt about that. IMO, the Aponte tip was planted and then not used. (So much for Geragos' million dollar fee.)

There was another witness on the street that morning that also couldn't testify because she had been hypnotized unacceptably. Kristen Dempewolf talked to Scott that morning while he loaded the umbrellas. She saw a van parked directly in front of the Medinas. Her husband was allowed to testify. He wasn't anywhere near the scene. ??? Reliable eyewitnesses were not used. ???? Pee-eww. The whole thing is still stinking to High Heaven.

Just a few questions -

you stated, Karen Servas is lying or mistaken about the time she put the dog back, correct? Can't the same be said for Diane Jackson, she's mistaken or lying about the date and time she witnessed the burglary? It can go either way IMO.

RE: Scott was loading umbrella's in his truck and Kristen Dempewolf saw the van directly across the street during this time. Has Scott ever commented that he also saw this van across the street when he and Kristen spoke? I don't recall Scott backing up this van sighting. If he did can you please post a link to the documentation. Thank you.

[Wudge]

Just a few questions -

you stated, Karen Servas is lying or mistaken about the time she put the dog back, correct? Can't the same be said for Diane Jackson, she's mistaken or lying about the date and time she witnessed the burglary? It can go either way IMO.

SNIP




No. It cannot be said.

The burglars claim the safe was taken around 6:30 AM on 12/26.

It is definitely not reasonable to believe that a reported sighting of 11:40AM on 12/24 really was 6:30AM on 12/26.

[One2Snoop]

No. It cannot be said.

The burglars claim the safe was taken around 6:30 AM on 12/26.

It is definitely not reasonable to believe that a reported sighting of 11:40AM on 12/24 really was 6:30AM on 12/26.

I don't understand Wudge. :confused: Diane Jackson didn't make her report of the burglary until 12/26 and she said it happened on the 24th, correct? Why can't she be mistaken about the time/date? Was that the reason she was hypnotized - in order to verify what she saw, when? Just asking. Thank you.

[Lili007]

IMO, Karen didn't find MacKenzie at 10:18. She's either mistaken (probable) or lying. (Who knows?) Diane Jackson reported what she had seen on the morning of the 24th. No doubt about that. IMO, the Aponte tip was planted and then not used. (So much for Geragos' million dollar fee.)

There was another witness on the street that morning that also couldn't testify because she had been hypnotized unacceptably. Kristen Dempewolf talked to Scott that morning while he loaded the umbrellas. She saw a van parked directly in front of the Medinas. Her husband was allowed to testify. He wasn't anywhere near the scene. ??? Reliable eyewitnesses were not used. ???? Pee-eww. The whole thing is still stinking to High Heaven.


I see. So Karen lied, but Diane told the truth.

Karen had a receipt from the supermarket where she went to that morning and then she went through the detail of re-tracing her steps to make sure her timing was right. What did Diane do? "reported". But of course, Diane must have been right, as opposed to Karen who must have been wrong or lying. And the reason that must be so is because Scott is innocent, so any fact which interfers with that theory is rubbish.

With such support, Scott is not only going to remain where he is, but probably live to get the DP in the end. I don't agree with the DP. But it's not my call.

And the only thing that stinks to high heaven is what Scott did to his wife and unborn child. That's why he's sitting in SQ.

JMO

[Wudge]

I don't understand Wudge. :confused: Diane Jackson didn't make her report of the burglary until 12/26 and she said it happened on the 24th, correct? Why can't she be mistaken about the time/date? Was that the reason she was hypnotized - in order to verify what she saw, when? Just asking. Thank you.

The report was made before she was hypnotized.

She reported three men a van and a safe at 11:40AM on 12/24, not two men, a car and a safe at 6:30AM on 12/26.

[accordn2me]

I've looked and looked for the transcript of Diane Jackson's report as read in court. Would someone please provide the link?

[attorneywan2be]

I don't understand Wudge. :confused: Diane Jackson didn't make her report of the burglary until 12/26 and she said it happened on the 24th, correct? Why can't she be mistaken about the time/date? Was that the reason she was hypnotized - in order to verify what she saw, when? Just asking. Thank you.

IMO, it is unrealistic to believe that she could have been mistaken about 11:40 am, Dec 24th..vs..6:30 am, Dec 26th? why?

1-She called on Dec 26th..she would definitely remember if it was that morning she saw the burglary..

2-According to Todd, he was there at 6:30 am, well, Diane saw the burglary as she was going home not as she was leaving home..

3-On Dec 26th, police cars and media cars were all over the place, IMO, she most definitely would have remembered if what she saw was when Laci was already missing..

[Wudge]

I've looked and looked for the transcript of Diane Jackson's report as read in court. Would someone please provide the link?

The reading of Bates 14765 into the trial record was posted earlier today.

[Anne2719]

three short, dark-skinned men, two at the rear door and one in the yard. She thought they were landscapers until she realized there was no landscaping equipment in the van. If she could see into the van, she most likely would have seen a body if there was one WHICH THERE WAS NOT.

Pearce is 5'9" and Todd is 6'1" and both are fair skinned, not DARK-skinned
While I agree that there wouldn't have been a body in the van, that is my opinion. Please remember to state that it is yours.

TIA.

[attorneywan2be]

three short, dark-skinned men, two at the rear door and one in the yard. She thought they were landscapers until she realized there was no landscaping equipment in the van. If she could see into the van, she most likely would have seen a body if there was one WHICH THERE WAS NOT.

Pearce is 5'9" and Todd is 6'1" and both are fair skinned, not DARK-skinned

Where did you get this info that she could see into the van?

Please post that part of the transcripts..or post a link to it...

Thanks!

[SamCat]

[QUOTE=SamCat;8838321][QUOTE=Wudge;8838212]

The entire legal analyst community on TV was discussing Detective Brocchini's impeachment and what effect it would have on the State's case.


June 25th, 2004

"KENDALL COFFEY, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I wouldn't say it's lost the case, Carol. But this is a big blow, and it's part of what is a very bad week. We know that one juror thought that even before this detective got impeached that the case was going poorly for the prosecution."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0406/25/lad.03.html

I am going to assume you did not follow this case closely from the beginning. Detective Brocchini's impeachemnt is common case knowledge.

Your assumption woud be wrong, I followed this case very closely, I also have the original transcripts of this case, I however do not rely on the Media to tell me that someone was impeached I look at the testimony for proof.

I have read every word of Brocchini's testimony both direct and cross; I have also read other testimony and I saw no testimony that Brocchini knowingly lied, broke the law, breach department policy, manipulated evidence, or set out to railroad SP.

Witness impeachment, in the law of evidence, is the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual who is testifying in a trial. There are a number of ways that a witness may properly be impeached, and several ways that, although effective, are prohibited except under special circumstances.

A party may be impeached through INTRODUCING EVIDENCE of any of the following

BICCC, Bias( biased against one party or in favor of the other) Inconsistent Statement( has made two or more conflicting statements) Character (reputation of being dishonest) Competency(Basically show that the witness was unable to sense what he claimed to have (i.e., could not see from where he was, etc.) or that he lacked the requisite mental capacity) Contradiction(contradict his own testimony)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_impeachment

While your link shows CNN'S opinion it shows no proof that any evidence was presented in court under oath to impeach this detective.

[Anne2719]

I stated that it was my opinion in the signature line - is that not adequate>
Please see the "In my opinion" thread. Signature line statements do not count. Not everyone views them (I have them turned off, for example) and you need to couch your statements, in any case. Please follow the guidelines if you are going to continue to post here.

[accordn2me]

Where did you get this info that she could see into the van?

Please post that part of the transcripts..or post a link to it...

Thanks!Some of us might think, in my opinion, that if she could say there was no landscaping equipment in the van, that she could see into the inside of the van in order to be able to say she could not see landscaping equipment inside the van, in my opinion.

[attorneywan2be]

So, the short, dark men became tall, fair men - and cleared by the MDP. :beer: Thanks eg.

IMO, Todd and Pearce had accomplices... it's quite possible Todd and Pearce were inside the house when Diane drove by..after all, she did see the safe being removed, the safe that the police did indeed find in Todd's possession...that indicates to me, that the 3 dark-skinned men are connected to Todd and Pearce..

I also would like someone to provide a link to Todd's and Pearce's description as to how tall they are..

[attorneywan2be]

Some of us might think, in my opinion, that if she could say there was no landscaping equipment in the van, that she could see into the inside of the van in order to be able to say she could not see landscaping equipment inside the van, in my opinion.

1-Then she should state it as an opinion not a fact..

2-Provide the testimonies that indicate that Diane Jackson said there were no landscaping equipments in the van..as far as I know, no one testified to that...!

[Wudge]

[QUOTE=Wudge;8838337][QUOTE=SamCat;8838321]

Your assumption woud be wrong, I followed this case very closely, I also have the original transcripts of this case, I however do not rely on the Media to tell me that someone was impeached I look at the testimony for proof.

I have read every word of Brocchini's testimony both direct and cross; I have also read other testimony and I saw no testimony that Brocchini knowingly lied, broke the law, breach department policy, manipulated evidence, or set out to railroad SP.

Witness impeachment, in the law of evidence, is the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual who is testifying in a trial. There are a number of ways that a witness may properly be impeached, and several ways that, although effective, are prohibited except under special circumstances.

A party may be impeached through INTRODUCING EVIDENCE of any of the following

BICCC, Bias( biased against one party or in favor of the other) Inconsistent Statement( has made two or more conflicting statements) Character (reputation of being dishonest) Competency(Basically show that the witness was unable to sense what he claimed to have (i.e., could not see from where he was, etc.) or that he lacked the requisite mental capacity) Contradiction(contradict his own testimony)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_impeachment

While your link shows CNN'S opinion it shows no proof that any evidence was presented in court under oath to impeach this detective.


Given that you followed the case but reject something that is truly rudimentary case knowledge, means I have to place you on ignore.

(salute and bye)

[SamCat]

[QUOTE=SamCat;8838539][QUOTE=Wudge;8838337]


Given that you followed the case but reject something that is truly rudimentary case knowledge, means I have to place you on ignore.

(salute and bye)

Well given the fact that you accept the media as a source of proof of impeachment but continue to ignore the facts I appreciate you putting me on ignore.

[Toggie]

No, it's not. This has been discussed.

The O'Donnell stuff was IN his notes.

It was not in the report HE PREPARED from his notes.

It WAS in a report ANOTHER detective - the one that actually interviewed O'Donnell - prepared.

The defense knew about Brocchini's notes because the notes were turned over in discovery, with nothing excised. NOT putting it in his report (since he, himself, did not interview O'Donnell) is not the same as taking it out of the original notes.

adnoid, good job! You've explained this very well and you are absolutely right!

[Beebee]

Where is the nexus that puts the burglars and Laci together?

Mackenzie was found by Karen Servas at 10:18. Medina's house left their house till after 10:30. "

Check transcripts to see what Mr. and Mrs. Medina were doing before they left.

Very interesting they didn't see Servas and the dog, don't you think?

[cookiewench]

Consent to look does not constitute consent to take. He never asked Scott if he could take the handgun. Nor did he ever tell him he was taking it (see theft). He had no authority to collect the handgun. Detective Brocchini's taking (alleged confiscation) of the handgun was unlawful.


Scott having the handgun in his vehicle was illegal.

Therefore, it was not illegal for a law enforcement officer to take it - any more that it would have been illegal for a law enforcement officer to take open bottles of liquor, or anything else that it is illegal to carry around.

[Wearing A Halo]

Check transcripts to see what Mr. and Mrs. Medina were doing before they left.

Very interesting they didn't see Servas and the dog, don't you think?

Yes I do think it is very interesting that the Medinas didn't see Mackenzie and KS because, IMO, they were too busy getting ready to leave and Mac was already put back and KS left to do her errands before they left at 10:30. Most importantly, the Medinas never saw Laci before 10:30 even though Mackenzie was already put back by KS at 10:18. Don't you think?

[accordn2me]

[QUOTE=Wudge;8838337][QUOTE=SamCat;8838321]

Your assumption woud be wrong, I followed this case very closely, I also have the original transcripts of this case, I however do not rely on the Media to tell me that someone was impeached I look at the testimony for proof.

I have read every word of Brocchini's testimony both direct and cross; I have also read other testimony and I saw no testimony that Brocchini knowingly lied, broke the law, breach department policy, manipulated evidence, or set out to railroad SP.

Witness impeachment, in the law of evidence, is the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual who is testifying in a trial. There are a number of ways that a witness may properly be impeached, and several ways that, although effective, are prohibited except under special circumstances.

A party may be impeached through INTRODUCING EVIDENCE of any of the following

BICCC, Bias( biased against one party or in favor of the other) Inconsistent Statement( has made two or more conflicting statements) Character (reputation of being dishonest) Competency(Basically show that the witness was unable to sense what he claimed to have (i.e., could not see from where he was, etc.) or that he lacked the requisite mental capacity) Contradiction(contradict his own testimony)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_impeachment

While your link shows CNN'S opinion it shows no proof that any evidence was presented in court under oath to impeach this detective.Disclaimer: I have a cat named Sam. She is a spitfire and SamCat brings fond memories of my little queen. I miss Samantha June so! When I get a boat, it will not be a Kingfisher, like Scott's, but a BassCat...sort of like SamCat...but not....(i promise to refrain from posting while drinking red wine...but i might as well finish this one)I am so glad SamCat posted this about witness impeachment. I just lost a bet about what impeachment is. I HATE losing...bets or whatever. I lost that bet because I didn't understand the term "impeachment." Wudge, I know you know what it is. And SamCat is happy enough to be placed on your ignore list. But I NEEDED this post, OK? In my opinion.

[Otter]

[QUOTE=SamCat;8838539][QUOTE=Wudge;8838337]Disclaimer: I have a cat named Sam. She is a spitfire and SamCat brings fond memories of my little queen. I miss Samantha June so! When I get a boat, it will not be a Kingfisher, like Scott's, but a BassCat...sort of like SamCat...but not....(i promise to refrain from posting while drinking red wine...but i might as well finish this one)I am so glad SamCat posted this about witness impeachment. I just lost a bet about what impeachment is. I HATE losing...bets or whatever. I lost that bet because I didn't understand the term "impeachment." Wudge, I know you know what it is. And SamCat is happy enough to be placed on your ignore list. But I NEEDED this post, OK? In my opinion.

Hi a2m, and happy Easter to you!

I didn't realize this, but NOT impeaching a witness, or attempting to, is grounds for appeal for ineffective counsel. I'm not a lawyer, so I would guess that's not any news flash as to my ignorance.

http://www.capdefnet.org/hat/contents/constitutional_issues/ineffective_assist/impeaching_witness9.htm

Maybe I should put the link on the MG thread. So, IMO, MG effectivly impeached a few peripheral witnesses, but the rope of CE remained tightly wound. IMO the main witnesses were not impeached, but then they couldn't be. Their testimonies was honest and grounded in fact. They were not shaken, or stirred.

[cookiewench]

When did Jackson say that she saw "a safe being removed"?

I recall that under hynosis she said she saw "a safe", but nothing about "being removed".

I think it's bogus, and I think Jackson was confused by the rumors.


She's attentive enough that she noticed the van, the race of the men, their facial expressions and demeanor, the back door of the van being open, the fact that there was no landscaping equipment to be seen - and yet, something as odd as a safe, she needs hypnosis to remember?

Come on......the scene doesn't even seem worth glancing at, without the safe. If you remembered all that, you would not forget the safe.

[Wearing A Halo]

Check transcripts to see what Mr. and Mrs. Medina were doing before they left.

Very interesting they didn't see Servas and the dog, don't you think?

Yes I do think it is very interesting that the Medinas didn't see Mackenzie and KS because, IMO, they were too busy getting ready to leave and Mac was already put back and KS left to do her errands before they left at 10:30. Most importantly, the Medinas never saw Laci before 10:30 even though Mackenzie was already put back by KS at 10:18. Don't you think?

[One2Snoop]

Disclaimer: I have a cat named Sam. She is a spitfire and SamCat brings fond memories of my little queen. I miss Samantha June so! When I get a boat, it will not be a Kingfisher, like Scott's, but a BassCat...sort of like SamCat...but not....(i promise to refrain from posting while drinking red wine...but i might as well finish this one)I am so glad SamCat posted this about witness impeachment. I just lost a bet about what impeachment is. I HATE losing...bets or whatever. I lost that bet because I didn't understand the term "impeachment." Wudge, I know you know what it is. And SamCat is happy enough to be placed on your ignore list. But I NEEDED this post, OK? In my opinion.

:no: Didn't you know its against the law to drink and post? That's almost as bad as driving. ;) "LOL" - sorry I couldn't resist. Moving on.......

Happy Easter everyone! :rose:

[Wudge]

Scott having the handgun in his vehicle was illegal.

Therefore, it was not illegal for a law enforcement officer to take it - any more that it would have been illegal for a law enforcement officer to take open bottles of liquor, or anything else that it is illegal to carry around.

When a person gives LE their "consent to look", it does not constitute "consent to take".

As for the particulars in this case that surround Scott's pistol, no laws were broken, so there was no basis for confiscation. Detective Brocchini simply found it necessary to secretly take or direct others to secretly take the: pistol, mop, towels, and rags. This is the kind of behavior that police states engage in, and it should not be a surprise that rogue detectives would also favor this approach.

As regards the confiscation issue, two relevant California penal codes apply. California's PC 12025 establishes it to be a crime if you are found to have a handgun concealed in your vehicle's glove compartment. But there are exceptions as provided for in PC 12026, and because of the following facts surrounding the handgun's discovery in this case, PC 12026 does override PC 12025 .

Scott gave Detective Brocchini permission to search his truck, which was sitting in his driveway. Hence, Scott's truck was on his own property. Thus, the handgun in the truck's glove compartment was on his property as well.

Since the gun was on Scott's property, the provisions in PC 12026 take precedent over PC 12025. If you drill down into PC 12026, it will reveal the provisions in section 12026 (a) and (b) permit most citizens or legal residents [Scott does not fall within excepted classes of citizens or residents] to lawfully posses "anywhere" within the citizen's or legal resident's place of residence, place of business, or on private property owned or lawfully possessed by the citizen any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

Had Scott been transporting the gun at the time of the search, PC 12026 would not take precedent. However, the truck was not transporting anything at the time of the search, for the truck was sitting quietly in the driveway on Scott's property. Therefore, the fact that the handgun was in Scott's glove compartment does not matter, for the key provision of PC 12026 then applies, which is that the owner of the property can keep a handgun "anywhere" on his own property, and this includes the glove compartment of a parked truck.

Obviously, Detective Brocchini knew he was on Scott's property, and he did not determine that Scott's possession was, in any way, otherwise unlawful. Ergo, Brocchini almost assuredly knew that he could not legally confiscate Scott's pistol. Nevertheless, Detective Brocchini simply decided to take the pistol when Scott was not looking and without informing him.

This is likely the reason that Judge Delucchi sided with Geragos after he had chided Distaso by directing the Court reporter to strike the words "legally taken" from the record, which was the last direction or ruling the Court gave or rendered on this matter.

I only highlighted “anywhere" twice in case Distaso is reading here. It seemed to work for Geragos when he publicly humiliated Distaso regarding “meringue”. ..... (chuckle)



[Re: chiding see: “Of course there is” (snicker)]

10 THE COURT: There is an issue whether it was
11 legally taken or not.
12 MR. DISTASO: There is no issue of that.
13 MR. GERAGOS: Of course there is.
14 THE COURT: I think there may be. I'm going to
15 strike that "legally taken".
16 MR. GERAGOS: Thank you.

[One2Snoop]

Why didn't Scott protest if it was illegally taken? I guess he didn't know better. But, according to the transcript above it doesn't appear to be a major issue IMO, otherwise I think Geragos would've dragged it into the ground. JMO

[Wudge]

Why didn't Scott protest if it was illegally taken? I guess he didn't know better. But, according to the transcript above it doesn't appear to be a major issue IMO, otherwise I think Geragos would've dragged it into the ground. JMO

Detective Brocchini secretly took (see "stole") the pistol.

The words "legally taken" had been stricken from the record. Thus, this issue was in Distaso's corner. As best I know, there is no record of him pursuing the issue. Why?

Why pursue another beating.

(chuckle)

[One2Snoop]

Detective Brocchini secretly took (see "stole") the pistol.

The words "legally taken" had been stricken from the record. Thus, this issue was in Distaso's corner. As best I know, there is no record of him pursuing the issue. Why?

Why pursue another beating.

(chuckle)

LOL - ok - but thats not what I meant about it being a non-issue. It couldn't be proven the gun was previously fired and it couldn't be proved that Laci was shot - so IMO it was a non-issue, although I certainly can understand why Brochini took the weapon - IMO it needed to be tested. I guess I don't understand why it would be illegal for him to do that? Wife is missing - a gun is found in the glovebox of Scott's car. That certainly would make me suspicious if I were a detective, IMO. JMO :patriot:

[Wudge]

LOL - ok - but thats not what I meant about it being a non-issue. It couldn't be proven the gun was previously fired and it couldn't be proved that Laci was shot - so IMO it was a non-issue, although I certainly can understand why Brochini took the weapon - IMO it needed to be tested. I guess I don't understand why it would be illegal for him to do that? Wife is missing - a gun is found in the glovebox of Scott's car. That certainly would make me suspicious if I were a detective, IMO. JMO :patriot:

You are absolutely correct. It was not only not a big evidentiary issue, it was not even an evidentiary issue as regards Laci's death.

So why did Distaso bring it up only to get slapped by the Court. Like his "meringue" fiasco, he had not down his homework on the handgun.

Honestly, it was dull of him to do this, dull to the point of blunt, about as sharp as a bowling ball. And that is a kind assessment.

[cookiewench]

The gun wasn't even registered to Scott. He was not the legal owner. Scott SAID his father was, but this was never verified.

And Scott's father never verified that they had gone pheasant hunting a month before that. He kept his mouth shut.

Who goes pheasant hunting with a pistol? I think that was one of Scott's more obvious lies.


If it was loaded, it doesn't make sense that it could have been in that glovebox legally under any circumstances.

And who leaves a pistol in the glove compartment of their vehicle - which is sitting right out in the driveway and not in a garage?


He had it there for a reason, IMO. It was for his protection during the disposal process of Laci's body.

[One2Snoop]

Originally Posted by SamCat

Your assumption woud be wrong, I followed this case very closely, I also have the original transcripts of this case, I however do not rely on the Media to tell me that someone was impeached I look at the testimony for proof.

I have read every word of Brocchini's testimony both direct and cross; I have also read other testimony and I saw no testimony that Brocchini knowingly lied, broke the law, breach department policy, manipulated evidence, or set out to railroad SP.

Witness impeachment, in the law of evidence, is the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual who is testifying in a trial. There are a number of ways that a witness may properly be impeached, and several ways that, although effective, are prohibited except under special circumstances.

A party may be impeached through INTRODUCING EVIDENCE of any of the following

BICCC, Bias( biased against one party or in favor of the other) Inconsistent Statement( has made two or more conflicting statements) Character (reputation of being dishonest) Competency(Basically show that the witness was unable to sense what he claimed to have (i.e., could not see from where he was, etc.) or that he lacked the requisite mental capacity) Contradiction(contradict his own testimony)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_impeachment

While your link shows CNN'S opinion it shows no proof that any evidence was presented in court under oath to impeach this detective.




Given that you followed the case but reject something that is truly rudimentary case knowledge, means I have to place you on ignore.

(salute and bye)

Wudge, isn't this a bit harsh/rude? No disrepect to anyone here but can you please tell me what/where in SamCat's post he/she said that was rude enough for you to place them on ignore. I don't see it - :shrug: TIA.

[One2Snoop]

i think Wudge is onto something big.:read:

Wudge has been very helpful in many aspects, but what do you mean you think he's on to something? Please explain - :shrug:

[Wudge]

Wudge, isn't this a bit harsh/rude? No disrepect to anyone here but can you please tell me what/where in SamCat's post he/she said that was rude enough for you to place them on ignore. I don't see it - :shrug: TIA.


It was not meant to advisory not rude.

People need to intelligently decide how to best select and participate from amongst many of the various discussions inside the forum. I consider a number of things and decide accordingly.

In choosing to use ignore, a person could stay silent and say nothing or advise the other person. The latter option could easily result in the other person continually posting without response. I think it is more courteous to advise people.

That said, if the forum leaders want to get together and set a forum standard on advising or not advising, I am fine with that.

(salute)

[JustMyOpinion]

The testimony that followed I take to be, undisputedly, accurate.

The point remains: Of logical necessity, something that was "not said" at a later date cannot erase something that was "said" at an earlier date.

For example, if a noon bell ringer decides, for whatever reason, not to ring a bell at 12:00 noon on December 31st (or any later date than 12/26), the fact that a bell was not rung on 12/31 can never work against an established fact that they did ring the bell on 12/26. And Diane Jackson did ring the bell on 12/26.

If the burglars were not there on 12/24, how could she possibly have known to ring that bell?

ETA: Yes, the report (Bates 14765) is Diane Jackson's call into the call center and officer Steele did have a 459 (burglary) recorded as a result of her call.

Hello Wudge,
I'm not suggesting it's my opinion the bell can be unrung, Grogan testified clearly as to content of report he was reading on the telephone tip. It IS my own opinion ( after looking at all the testimony on this issue, and what is known about the persons arrested/charged with burglary) that Diane Jackson did not see "the burglars" at 11:40 on 12/24. JMO

[JustMyOpinion]

IMO, Todd and Pearce had accomplices... it's quite possible Todd and Pearce were inside the house when Diane drove by..after all, she did see the safe being removed, the safe that the police did indeed find in Todd's possession...that indicates to me, that the 3 dark-skinned men are connected to Todd and Pearce..

I also would like someone to provide a link to Todd's and Pearce's description as to how tall they are..

Had Diane Jackson detailed for Officer Stough ( on 12/27) or later in January for the defense investigators that she saw a safe and thought she was witnessing a burglary, I'd find this testimony about her tip more compelling. The reports of her interview(s) are not consistent with report of her initial tip, IMO. I see no evidence that these three men Jackson saw are connected to Todd and Pearce, but that's JMO.

[JustMyOpinion]

Consent to look does not constitute consent to take. He never asked Scott if he could take the handgun. Nor did he ever tell him he was taking it (see theft). He had no authority to collect the handgun. Detective Brocchini's taking (alleged confiscation) of the handgun was unlawful.

If it was unlawful, why was it allowed into evidence? ( loaded gun, Scott admitted not belonging to him,concealed in glove box, no registration/permit).
I don't think Brocchini's collection of the gun and other items ( and taking of photos) proves Brocchini "decided Scott did it". I think it shows Brocchini was suspicious about Scott's story and was taking investigatory steps. JMO

[JustMyOpinion]

What evidence proves that Laci and Conner's remains were in the bay for months?

.

For me, the whole of the testimony from Brian Peterson, Alison Galloway. ( and, no forensice anthropologist or pathologist contradicting their findings)
I realize you didn't find their testimony compelling.
Had these "burglars" wanted to set Scott up, they wouldn't have needed to drive 90 miles away from Modesto, risk detection in a site that might be under observation,weight the body, dispose of it so it might never come ashore, IMO.

[JustMyOpinion]

No, Bates #14765 dates Diane Jackson calling LE at 4;10PM on 12/26 to report she saw a safe, three men and a van in front of the Medina's home at 11:40AM on 12/24. This report of Ms. Jackson seeing a safe was made before the Medinas even knew they had been burglarized. This means the burglary took place on 12/24, thereby proving the burglars lied and were across from teh Petersons home when Laci was supposed to have been out walking McKenzie.

Wudge, I don't see that date/time ( 12/26 4:10 p.m.) in the testimony about the tip report. Where are you obtaining this time/date? TIA.

[JustMyOpinion]

IMO, Brocchini suspected Scott from day one...I have ZERO doubt..! Evidenced by the fact that on Dec 26th, the police impounded Scott's truck and boat..why would they do that at that point? Brocchini interviewed him until around 1:00 am Dec 25th..the following day, they got a search warrant and impounded both the truck and the boat...

I agree with your opinion here that Brocchini suspected him on the first night, I just disagreed with your previous posted opinion that Brocchini decided Scott DID IT on the first night.

[Wudge]

If it was unlawful, why was it allowed into evidence?

SNIP

JMO

I never said it was.

[Wudge]

Wudge, I don't see that date/time ( 12/26 4:10 p.m.) in the testimony about the tip report. Where are you obtaining this time/date? TIA.

1 Got Bates stamp 14765.
2 And I would just ask if I could, do you remember
3 what date, Mr. Harris -- my Mr. Harris, do you remember
4 what date that's from?
5 MR. PAT HARRIS: Which one? What's the dates?
6 MR. GERAGOS: For Diane Jackson.
7 MR. PAT HARRIS: Looks like 12-26.
8 MR. GERAGOS: Okay.
9 Q. Does it appear that at 4:10 that Diane Jackson
10 called and said that she witnessed the 459 on Covena at
11 11:40? She saw the van and the safe being removed from the
12 house?

[JustMyOpinion]

1 Got Bates stamp 14765.
2 And I would just ask if I could, do you remember
3 what date, Mr. Harris -- my Mr. Harris, do you remember
4 what date that's from?
5 MR. PAT HARRIS: Which one? What's the dates?
6 MR. GERAGOS: For Diane Jackson.
7 MR. PAT HARRIS: Looks like 12-26.
8 MR. GERAGOS: Okay.
9 Q. Does it appear that at 4:10 that Diane Jackson
10 called and said that she witnessed the 459 on Covena at
11 11:40? She saw the van and the safe being removed from the
12 house?

Thanks for answering and posting information. I don't consider convo between Harris & Geragos as factual evidence establishing the date, especially since Pat Harris ( according to this transcript ) said "LOOKS LIKE 12/26." How is this conversation ( when did it take place) connected to Grogan's testimony ( offered as the truth) about the report? ( where I did not read a date of report confirmed in his testimony?)

[Wudge]

Thanks for answering and posting information. I don't consider convo between Harris & Geragos as factual evidence establishing the date, especially since Pat Harris ( according to this transcript ) said "LOOKS LIKE 12/26." How is this conversation ( when did it take place) connected to Grogan's testimony ( offered as the truth) about the report? ( where I did not read a date of report confirmed in his testimony?)

The prosecutors did not argue, try to correct or indicate in any way that they had an issue with the accuracy of 4:10PM on 12/26. They knew the date and time would be trial record if they did not correct it. Moreover, they knew too that the trial record has to be certified by both the defense and the prosecution, which subsequently took place.

[JustMyOpinion]

The prosecutors did not argue, try to correct or indicate in any way that they had an issue with the accuracy of 4:10PM on 12/26. They knew the date and time would be trial record if they did not correct it. Moreover, they knew too that the trial record has to be certified by both the defense and the prosecution, which subsequently took place.

Well, since nobody asked Grogan under oath to verify the date ( 12/26), I don't consider it came into evidence "for the truth". but that's JMO.

[attorneywan2be]

I agree with your opinion here that Brocchini suspected him on the first night, I just disagreed with your previous posted opinion that Brocchini decided Scott DID IT on the first night.

To me..

Brocchini decided on day one that Scott, missing woman's husband, is their prime suspect = he decided that Scott did it ..


Greg Reed was testifying about events on Dec 24, 2002

Pat Harris: I said at that point you were told by one of these police officers that they already knew what had happened in this case, correct?
Greg Reed: I don't know if you would actually use the word he "knew." The comment that I recall was that they had a good idea what had already happened.
Pat Harris: Had a good idea what had already happened in this case?
Greg Reed: Uh-huh, yes.
Pat Harris: And he made it pretty clear to you at that point that what they thought had happened in this case involved Scott Peterson doing something with his wife, correct?
Rick Distaso: Objection. It calls for speculation.
Judge Delucchi: Sustained.
Pat Harris: At that point you walked out of the house and actually told your wife, strike that. You came back shortly thereafter, a couple hours later, is that right?
Greg Reed: Yes.
Pat Harris: And once again you spoke with Modesto police?
Greg Reed: There was an officer on site.
Pat Harris: And did they ask you to do anything at that point?
Greg Reed: No, they did not.
Pat Harris: So your involvement with Modesto police was approximately the search of the house earlier in the evening, and then when you came back you just had a conversation with the police, is that an accurate,
Greg Reed: Yes.
Pat Harris: And you recall getting in the car with your wife and looking at her and saying, They think Scott did it?
Rick Distaso: Objection, your Honor. It's,
Pat Harris: What basis?
Rick Distaso: Has no relevance.
Judge Delucchi: No, overruled.
Pat Harris: Has no relevance?
Judge Delucchi: No, overruled. I don't like, just, just ask your question, let me rule on it, don't argue with counsel.
Pat Harris: I'll try not to argue.
Judge Delucchi: The objection is overruled. Do you remember if you made a comment to your wife?
Greg Reed: I'm quite positive, as much as I share with my wife, I mentioned that to her.
Pat Harris: You did say, They think Scott did it?
Greg Reed: Um, yes.

[Wudge]

Well, since nobody asked Grogan under oath to verify the date ( 12/26), I don't consider it came into evidence "for the truth". but that's JMO.


Appeals are based on the trial record. That's why certification is so important.

[SamCat]

Well, since nobody asked Grogan under oath to verify the date ( 12/26), I don't consider it came into evidence "for the truth". but that's JMO.

Since the Judge instructed the jury that DJ's statements were coming in for the truth of it I would say that would not need Grogon to verify anything.

1) Judge Delucchi: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I have to sort of, in order to put all this evidence we've been receiving the last couple days back into context. A lot of this information that the, Detective Grogan got on the tip line is not being offered for the truth, okay? It's being offered to explain the reasonableness of Detective Grogan's conduct; what did he do as a result of this information that he received, okay? With respect to the testimony, and it's going to come in now as it relates to Ms. Jackson, that is being offered for the truth, okay? A little different from the other, other stuff. You can give this evidence whatever weight you think it's entitled to. That's for you to decide. Whatever you want, but it's being offered for the truth; all right? That's the distinction between this tip line stuff, this is also tip line stuff, but this is a little different, okay? All right. Hope that explains it. Go ahead.
2) Mark Geragos: Crystal clear.
3) Judge Delucchi: Right

[enlightenme]

Since the Judge instructed the jury that DJ's statements were coming in for the truth of it I would say that would not need Grogon to verify anything.

1) Judge Delucchi: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I have to sort of, in order to put all this evidence we've been receiving the last couple days back into context. A lot of this information that the, Detective Grogan got on the tip line is not being offered for the truth, okay? It's being offered to explain the reasonableness of Detective Grogan's conduct; what did he do as a result of this information that he received, okay? With respect to the testimony, and it's going to come in now as it relates to Ms. Jackson, that is being offered for the truth, okay? A little different from the other, other stuff. You can give this evidence whatever weight you think it's entitled to. That's for you to decide. Whatever you want, but it's being offered for the truth; all right? That's the distinction between this tip line stuff, this is also tip line stuff, but this is a little different, okay? All right. Hope that explains it. Go ahead.
2) Mark Geragos: Crystal clear.
3) Judge Delucchi: Right


"You can give this evidence whatever weight you think it's entitled to. That's for you to decide."

That is a point I think some are missing, IMO.

:read:

[Lily Rose]

Had Diane Jackson detailed for Officer Stough ( on 12/27) or later in January for the defense investigators that she saw a safe and thought she was witnessing a burglary, I'd find this testimony about her tip more compelling. The reports of her interview(s) are not consistent with report of her initial tip, IMO. I see no evidence that these three men Jackson saw are connected to Todd and Pearce, but that's JMO.

Still doesn't change the fact that she reported a safe in her initial report, which at the time was in the possession of the three men with the van and was later found to be in the possession of Steven Todd.

It is a perfectly reasonable assumption that these men are all connected.

[Lily Rose]

Well, since nobody asked Grogan under oath to verify the date ( 12/26), I don't consider it came into evidence "for the truth". but that's JMO.

He asked him to look at the tip that came in on that day, at that time, and he found the tip they were discussing. Why would he have to then verify the date and time?

[JustMyOpinion]

Still doesn't change the fact that she reported a safe in her initial report, which at the time was in the possession of the three men with the van and was later found to be in the possession of Steven Todd.

It is a perfectly reasonable assumption that these men are all connected.

I think Grogan's testimony about content of Defense report on re-direct could explain why Jackson called in a tip including the word "safe". ( she knew about the burglary, she thought the three men might have been connected. )
The van was not found to be in the possession of Steven Todd, & Pearce & Todd admitted they took the safe ( used a dolly, loaded in front seat of car) Jackson described the men as "dark-skinned" ( not African American, possibly Asian)
I accept your opinion that it's a reasonable assumption that these men are all connected, I simply disagree. For me, there is no evidence which establishes a connection. JMO

[Lily Rose]

I think Grogan's testimony about content of Defense report on re-direct could explain why Jackson called in a tip including the word "safe". ( she knew about the burglary, she thought the three men might have been connected. )
The van was not found to be in the possession of Steven Todd, & Pearce & Todd admitted they took the safe ( used a dolly, loaded in front seat of car) Jackson described the men as "dark-skinned" ( not African American, possibly Asian)
I accept your opinion that it's a reasonable assumption that these men are all connected, I simply disagree. For me, there is no evidence which establishes a connection. JMO

Whatever way you wants to spin it, Diane Jackson called the tipline before the burglary had been discovered by the Medinas, and would have no way of even knowing that the Medinas had a safe, much less that it had been stolen.

[JustMyOpinion]

Whatever way you wants to spin it, Diane Jackson called the tipline before the burglary had been discovered by the Medinas, and would have no way of even knowing that the Medinas had a safe, much less that it had been stolen.


I see no proof that Jackson called the tipline before the Medina's discovered the burglary. Grogan did not specifiy a date of the tip in his sworn testimony.
Words between lawyers about what the date "looks like" on a Bates stamped report are not evidence, IMO. You appear to believe Jackson called the tipline prior to Medina's discovering the burglary, IMO, it's not a fact.

[Wudge]

I see no proof that Jackson called the tipline before the Medina's discovered the burglary. Grogan did not specifiy a date of the tip in his sworn testimony.
Words between lawyers about what the date "looks like" on a Bates stamped report are not evidence, IMO. You appear to believe Jackson called the tipline prior to Medina's discovering the burglary, IMO, it's not a fact.

Prosecutors did not object to Bates 14765 having its date set at 4:10PM on 12/26 in the trial record. In fact, they certified the trial record was accurate.

[attorneywan2be]

I think Grogan's testimony about content of Defense report on re-direct could explain why Jackson called in a tip including the word "safe". ( she knew about the burglary, she thought the three men might have been connected. )
The van was not found to be in the possession of Steven Todd, & Pearce & Todd admitted they took the safe ( used a dolly, loaded in front seat of car) Jackson described the men as "dark-skinned" ( not African American, possibly Asian)
I accept your opinion that it's a reasonable assumption that these men are all connected, I simply disagree. For me, there is no evidence which establishes a connection. JMO

That was not a defense report, that was a police report that was turned over to the defense in discovery..

[One2Snoop]

Did Kim McGregor have an alibi on the 24th?

Do you suppose she was in love with Scott?

Did Kim McGregor have an alibi on the 24th? - Don't know but I'm sure she was thoroughly checked out once she became known to authorities.

Do you suppose she was in love with Scott?

According to the following she didn't even know Scott Peterson....

Kim McGregor (Kim Ann McGregor) 30, pediatric medical assistant; identified in early accounts as a neighbor of Scott and Laci Peterson; met Sharon Rocha at the volunteer command center; recommended by Sharon Rocha as someone who could walk McKenzie; stated concerning search efforts in early January 2003: "Everyone wants to fix it and help—people are genuinely concerned and want to see Laci come home safely, have her baby and come back to her husband"; in a February 26, 2003, report, told ABC: "You just want it to be over—the more time goes by, the more you wonder just what the heck happened"; publicly identified in July 2003 as the woman who broke into Scott and Laci Peterson's home on January 19, 2003;
snip

told investigators she had not met Scott Peterson prior to December 24, 2002, but that she had met Laci Peterson; stated concerning Laci Peterson: "She's a kind person, and you can see it when you look at her"; considered as a potential witness for Scott Peterson's prosecution,
snip

http://www.crimenews2000.com/lacipeterson/who/who2.htm#kim

[JustMyOpinion]

That was not a defense report, that was a police report that was turned over to the defense in discovery..

Birgit Fladager: All right. Next I'm going to ask you about an interview Mr. Geragos referenced, statements by Diane Jackson. Do you remember that?
Craig Grogan: Yes, ma'am.
Birgit Fladager: And I'm going to refer you to a defense report. Do you have a copy of it? There is not a Bates number on it.
Judge Delucchi: Remind the jury, this is the testimony that was off reports. A little different from the other.
Craig Grogan: All right, I have that report.
Birgit Fladager: The reports, in the course of that interview, is there any indication at all by Miss Jackson that she said she saw a safe?
Craig Grogan: No.
Birgit Fladager: Is there any indication at all in that interview that Ms. Jackson claimed to have witnessed a burglary?
Craig Grogan: No. It indicates that she made observations. And then she heard about the burglary and thought that the two individuals or these other vehicles and the burglary may be related.
Birgit Fladager: Is that because she saw a van?

Craig Grogan: Yes, it appears so.
Birgit Fladager: And that she saw three short, dark-skinned males by the van?
Craig Grogan: Yes.

[attorneywan2be]

Birgit Fladager: All right. Next I'm going to ask you about an interview Mr. Geragos referenced, statements by Diane Jackson. Do you remember that?
Craig Grogan: Yes, ma'am.
Birgit Fladager: And I'm going to refer you to a defense report. Do you have a copy of it? There is not a Bates number on it.
Judge Delucchi: Remind the jury, this is the testimony that was off reports. A little different from the other.
Craig Grogan: All right, I have that report.
Birgit Fladager: The reports, in the course of that interview, is there any indication at all by Miss Jackson that she said she saw a safe?
Craig Grogan: No.
Birgit Fladager: Is there any indication at all in that interview that Ms. Jackson claimed to have witnessed a burglary?
Craig Grogan: No. It indicates that she made observations. And then she heard about the burglary and thought that the two individuals or these other vehicles and the burglary may be related.
Birgit Fladager: Is that because she saw a van?

Craig Grogan: Yes, it appears so.
Birgit Fladager: And that she saw three short, dark-skinned males by the van?
Craig Grogan: Yes.



I was referring to Bates 14765 where she stated she saw a safe..that was a police report...!


Mark Geragos: Okay. And specifically it's a sheet that was phoned in at, looks like 4:10, looks like from Sergeant Ed Steele; is that right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And who is he?
Craig Grogan: He's a sergeant with the Modesto Police Department. He was assigned to go –
Judge Delucchi: Detective Grogan, you're talking away from the microphone. I'm not sure they can hear you.
Craig Grogan: Assigned to go to the volunteer center after it was opened at the hotel.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And he talked to Diane Jackson, who, the woman that we had pointed out, lived on this Edgebrook Street in that La Loma neighborhood; is that correct?
Craig Grogan: I'm not sure if he talked to her directly when, when she called in, or if he received that information and then just passed it on.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And then he said that, what was on the call sheet was that she witnessed a burglary on Covena, correct? 459 is a Penal Code Section for burglary?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: On 12:24 at 11:40 a.m.?
Craig Grogan: That's what it says.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And she said she saw the van and the safe being removed from the house, correct?
Craig Grogan: That's what it says.

[JustMyOpinion]

The defense attorneys also certified the trial record. Using your "logic", I will take this to mean they agree with everything the prosecution presented.

Grogan never testified as to a date of "Bates 14765". It appears to me that some posters believe the tip was called in on 12/26 based on a communication between Defense lawyers Geragos & Harris which occured earlier in the trial during Ron Cloward's testimony where Harris tells Geragos the date "looks like" 12/26. This was not offered "as the truth", and comments by lawyers are not evidence, IMO. Unless a poster has an actual copy of Bates 14765 to ascertain the date, or copy of testimony from a sworn witness establishing the date, I don't think they can factually establish the date, JMO.

[JustMyOpinion]

I was referring to Bates 14765 where she stated she saw a safe..that was a police report...!


Mark Geragos: Okay. And specifically it's a sheet that was phoned in at, looks like 4:10, looks like from Sergeant Ed Steele; is that right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And who is he?
Craig Grogan: He's a sergeant with the Modesto Police Department. He was assigned to go –
Judge Delucchi: Detective Grogan, you're talking away from the microphone. I'm not sure they can hear you.
Craig Grogan: Assigned to go to the volunteer center after it was opened at the hotel.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And he talked to Diane Jackson, who, the woman that we had pointed out, lived on this Edgebrook Street in that La Loma neighborhood; is that correct?
Craig Grogan: I'm not sure if he talked to her directly when, when she called in, or if he received that information and then just passed it on.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And then he said that, what was on the call sheet was that she witnessed a burglary on Covena, correct? 459 is a Penal Code Section for burglary?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: On 12:24 at 11:40 a.m.?
Craig Grogan: That's what it says.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And she said she saw the van and the safe being removed from the house, correct?
Craig Grogan: That's what it says.

Nowhere in this testimony does Grogan confirm the date of Jackson's call as 12/26.
The communication between defense lawyers as to what the date "looks like" on that Bates # took place much earlier in the trial. ( statements of lawyers are not evidence)
There is this testimony from Officer Hicks later in the trial:
SNIP:Birgit Fladager: Officer Hicks, perhaps the answer is not given, your last answer. You are also not familiar with the report that Diane Jackson made, you are not familiar with the report that Diane Jackson made at 10:30 in the morning on December 27th where she talks about seeing three dark-skinned males near a white van. She reports seeing this at 11:40 in the morning. She didn't recognize the men. It was a white van with no markings. Men were not wearing uniforms. She couldn't remember what they were wearing. She could not recall any details about the van, other than what was white. She gave no other information than that. You don't know with that report either?
Michael Hicks: Actually I am familiar with that one, yes.


I think it's likely Jackson called in on 12/27 at 10:30 a.m., but this is JMO.

[attorneywan2be]

Nowhere in this testimony does Grogan confirm the date of Jackson's call as 12/26.
The communication between defense lawyers as to what the date "looks like" on that Bates # took place much earlier in the trial. ( statements of lawyers are not evidence)
There is this testimony from Officer Hicks later in the trial:
SNIP:Birgit Fladager: Officer Hicks, perhaps the answer is not given, your last answer. You are also not familiar with the report that Diane Jackson made, you are not familiar with the report that Diane Jackson made at 10:30 in the morning on December 27th where she talks about seeing three dark-skinned males near a white van. She reports seeing this at 11:40 in the morning. She didn't recognize the men. It was a white van with no markings. Men were not wearing uniforms. She couldn't remember what they were wearing. She could not recall any details about the van, other than what was white. She gave no other information than that. You don't know with that report either?
Michael Hicks: Actually I am familiar with that one, yes.


I think it's likely Jackson called in on 12/27 at 10:30 a.m., but this is JMO.

I know what you are talking about..and I agree there was no testimony that Bates 14765 was dated 12/26..but I would say if the date was incorrect the prosecution would have objected/corrected it...note: the prosecution didn't say that the report that Diane Jackson made on the 27th was Bates 14765why not? I think the 27th was a different report..note what Mark Geragos said in his recross of officer Hicks:

Mark Geragos: You are familiar with that. You are not familiar with Diane Jackson?
Michael Hicks: I'm familiar with Diane Jackson.
Mark Geragos: That report,
Michael Hicks: She reminded me of it, yes.
Mark Geragos: Excellent. No further, -- thank you. No further questions.

[JustMyOpinion]

[QUOTE=attorneywan2be;8842904]I know what you are talking about..and I agree there was no testimony that Bates 14765 was dated 12/26..but I would say if the date was incorrect the prosecution would have objected/corrected it...note: the prosecution didn't say that the report that Diane Jackson made on the 27th was Bates 14765why not? QUOTE]

Geragos ( Defense) had not raised specifically raised Bates 14765 during his re-direct of Hicks, Fladager ( Prosecution) was performing re-cross.

GERAGOS: Do you have any problem with the fact that Diane Jackson had reported on the 24th that she saw the safe out on the front yard?

HICKS: I don't know who Diane Jackson is.

GERAGOS: Okay. If the safe wasn't rolled out until the 26th, that would seem to be a problem with why Diane Jackson saw the safe there on the 24th, wouldn't it? She reported a van with a safe in the front yard on the 24th?

HICKS: I'm unfamiliar with Miss Diane Jackson, Mr. Geragos.

MR. GERAGOS: Thank you. I have no further questions.

[attorneywan2be]

[QUOTE=attorneywan2be;8842904]I know what you are talking about..and I agree there was no testimony that Bates 14765 was dated 12/26..but I would say if the date was incorrect the prosecution would have objected/corrected it...note: the prosecution didn't say that the report that Diane Jackson made on the 27th was Bates 14765why not? QUOTE]

Geragos ( Defense) had not raised specifically raised Bates 14765 during his re-direct of Hicks, Fladager ( Prosecution) was performing re-cross.

GERAGOS: Do you have any problem with the fact that Diane Jackson had reported on the 24th that she saw the safe out on the front yard?

HICKS: I don't know who Diane Jackson is.

GERAGOS: Okay. If the safe wasn't rolled out until the 26th, that would seem to be a problem with why Diane Jackson saw the safe there on the 24th, wouldn't it? She reported a van with a safe in the front yard on the 24th?

HICKS: I'm unfamiliar with Miss Diane Jackson, Mr. Geragos.

MR. GERAGOS: Thank you. I have no further questions.

You're right, I meant MG's redirect of officer Hicks..

Does it give you pause that:

1-The procecution didn't not correct Pat Harris when he stated that Bates 14765 was dated 12/26..

2-The time on the 12/27th report was 10:30am ..the time on Bates 14765 report was 4:10 pm..that would indicate that they are 2 different reports..

3-The prosecution didn't mention at any point Bates 14765..Mark Geragos brought it up several times..why? IMO, because that report helps the defense case not the prosecution case..!

I think Diane called the police more than once ...

Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, the, specifically she had phoned in a call to the command center as well. And pointing you to 14765. And she said that on 12/24 at 11:40 she saw the van and a safe being removed from the house, correct?

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

Birgit Fladager: Officer Hicks, perhaps the answer is not given, your last answer. You are also not familiar with the report that Diane Jackson made, you are not familiar with the report that Diane Jackson made at 10:30 in the morning on December 27th where she talks about seeing three dark-skinned males near a white van. She reports seeing this at 11:40 in the morning. She didn't recognize the men. It was a white van with no markings. Men were not wearing uniforms. She couldn't remember what they were wearing. She could not recall any details about the van, other than what was white. She gave no other information than that. You don't know with that report either?

Michael Hicks: Actually I am familiar with that one, yes.

[JustMyOpinion]

[QUOTE=JustMyOpinion;8842905]

You're right, I meant MG's redirect of officer Hicks..

Does it give you pause that:

1-The procecution didn't not correct Pat Harris when he stated that Bates 14765 was dated 12/26..

2-The time on the 12/27th report was 10:30am ..the time on Bates 14765 report was 4:10 pm..that would indicate that they are 2 different reports..

3-The prosecution didn't mention at any point Bates 14765..Mark Geragos brought it up several times..why? IMO, because that report helps the defense case not the prosecution case..!

I think Diane called the police more than once ...

Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, the, specifically she had phoned in a call to the command center as well. And pointing you to 14765. And she said that on 12/24 at 11:40 she saw the van and a safe being removed from the house, correct?

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

Birgit Fladager: Officer Hicks, perhaps the answer is not given, your last answer. You are also not familiar with the report that Diane Jackson made, you are not familiar with the report that Diane Jackson made at 10:30 in the morning on December 27th where she talks about seeing three dark-skinned males near a white van. She reports seeing this at 11:40 in the morning. She didn't recognize the men. It was a white van with no markings. Men were not wearing uniforms. She couldn't remember what they were wearing. She could not recall any details about the van, other than what was white. She gave no other information than that. You don't know with that report either?

Michael Hicks: Actually I am familiar with that one, yes.

I think if Geragos could factually establish that Jackson called in a tip about seeing a safe on 12/26, he would have brought the actual report confirming this ( if it is Bates 14765) and elicited confirmation of this date ( 12/26) from Grogan when he was testifying "for the truth". And later, when Geragos questions Hicks, he seems to be trying to mis-lead him ( & the jury) by implying Jackson called in on 12/24. JMO

GERAGOS: Do you have any problem with the fact that Diane Jackson had reported on the 24th that she saw the safe out on the front yard?

HICKS: I don't know who Diane Jackson is.

GERAGOS: Okay. If the safe wasn't rolled out until the 26th, that would seem to be a problem with why Diane Jackson saw the safe there on the 24th, wouldn't it? She reported a van with a safe in the front yard on the 24th?
HICKS: I'm unfamiliar with Miss Diane Jackson, Mr. Geragos.

MR. GERAGOS: Thank you. I have no further questions.

[attorneywan2be]

[QUOTE=attorneywan2be;8842917]

I think if Geragos could factually establish that Jackson called in a tip about seeing a safe on 12/26, he would have brought the actual report confirming this ( if it is Bates 14765) and elicited confirmation of this date ( 12/26) from Grogan when he was testifying "for the truth". And later, when Geragos questions Hicks, he seems to be trying to mis-lead him ( & the jury) by implying Jackson called in on 12/24. JMO

GERAGOS: Do you have any problem with the fact that Diane Jackson had reported on the 24th that she saw the safe out on the front yard?

HICKS: I don't know who Diane Jackson is.

GERAGOS: Okay. If the safe wasn't rolled out until the 26th, that would seem to be a problem with why Diane Jackson saw the safe there on the 24th, wouldn't it? She reported a van with a safe in the front yard on the 24th?
HICKS: I'm unfamiliar with Miss Diane Jackson, Mr. Geragos.

MR. GERAGOS: Thank you. I have no further questions.


I don't think Mark was misleading Grogan..I think MG stated more than once that she called on Dec 24th..it is unclear to me why the prosecution didn't correct him..and it is equally unclear to me why he didn't present evidence to support the time Diane called..again, IMO, he did a horrible job defending Scott anyway..!

From Mark Geragos's closing argument:

The other thing you have got is, you have got Diane Jackson, which came in for the truth. Diane Jackson specifically called in at 11:40 a.m. on 12-24. Said that she saw on 12-24 at 11:40 she said she saw people who are located in a van, or had -- she had seen a van with three people

From his opening statement:

Now, in addition to that, at 11:40 Diane Jackson, who lives roughly, I don't know, a hundred and 50 yards or so around the corner from Laci and Scott, she comes home. Now, mind you, this witness here has seen this van as he variously describes as white or tan. That's the language that he uses. Diane Jackson is driving home at 1:30 and she spots directly across the street from Laci and Scott's house a van that she says At first I thought it was white, but then upon reflection I think was tan, with three guys, who are not African American but darker skinned, who looked like they were up to no good right across the street from the house. And then she goes home and she told the police immediately.

Note: I think there is a typo..1:30 is probably a mistake..!

[JustMyOpinion]

[QUOTE=JustMyOpinion;8842920]


I don't think Mark was misleading Grogan..I think MG stated more than once that she called on Dec 24th..it is unclear to me why the prosecution didn't correct him..and it is equally unclear to me why he didn't present evidence to support the time Diane called..again, IMO, he did a horrible job defending Scott anyway..!

From Mark Geragos's closing argument:

The other thing you have got is, you have got Diane Jackson, which came in for the truth. Diane Jackson specifically called in at 11:40 a.m. on 12-24. Said that she saw on 12-24 at 11:40 she said she saw people who are located in a van, or had -- she had seen a van with three people

From his opening statement:

Now, in addition to that, at 11:40 Diane Jackson, who lives roughly, I don't know, a hundred and 50 yards or so around the corner from Laci and Scott, she comes home. Now, mind you, this witness here has seen this van as he variously describes as white or tan. That's the language that he uses. Diane Jackson is driving home at 1:30 and she spots directly across the street from Laci and Scott's house a van that she says At first I thought it was white, but then upon reflection I think was tan, with three guys, who are not African American but darker skinned, who looked like they were up to no good right across the street from the house. And then she goes home and she told the police immediately.

Note: I think there is a typo..1:30 is probably a mistake..!

I didn't opine Geragos was mis-leading Grogan, I opined it appeared he was trying to mis-lead Hicks ( & the jury). As for his opening statement, more mis-leading, IMO..and opening statement is not evidence. JMO Whether or not Geragos did a "horrible job" defending Scott, I see no evidence which factually establishes 12/26 at the date Diane Jackson called in her tip, and I think it's likely she called on 12/27 at 10:30 a.m. JMO

[Miss Bootsie]

Wudge, isn't this a bit harsh/rude? No disrepect to anyone here but can you please tell me what/where in SamCat's post he/she said that was rude enough for you to place them on ignore. I don't see it - :shrug: TIA.

Of course it is rude. It also is not right that Wudge is not expected to follow the rules of posting a link to his statements of fact.

It has little to do with people being rude to Wudge.
Wudge put me on ignore after my very first reply to one of his posts that was not at all rude.

It's obvious Wudge believes his/her intelligence level far exceeds the intelligence level of most of the posters here. Therefore, G's are not entitled to disagree or question him/her.
Wudge is not here to discuss the case. This is obvious because he has the majority of the G posters on ignore.
Of course, he has to keep the communication open with a couple of the G posters in order to post his legal ramblings.

In my opinion.

[accordn2me]

Reasonable beyond a doubt. Every molecule points to it.

Why is this word - Banned - under adnoid's name?

[One2Snoop]

Why is this word - Banned - under adnoid's name?

Because he put it there. LOL.

[accordn2me]

Because he put it there. LOL.
Trixter:lol:

[thinkaboutit]

It is reasonable to deduce that when Wudge puts someone on ignore it's because that person is about to prove Wudge wrong. Therefore, Wudge disengages from the conversation. That's why I'm on ignore.


I disagree.

[accordn2me]

It is reasonable to deduce that when Wudge puts someone on ignore it's because that person is about to prove Wudge wrong. Therefore, Wudge disengages from the conversation. That's why I'm on ignore.I was about to thank you for this - the only reasonable explanation that can be deduced/induced for why I'm on ignore - when I got distracted by the word Banned under your name.
Good thing I didn't fly into a tizzy and get banned when you're not even banned!:o

[thinkaboutit]

We'll see. I understand that just about every one of my posts is reported, and followed by a flurry of PMs to Freshwater and other Forum Leaders. I figure it's just a matter of time.

What is the reason your posts are being reported? FW enjoys your brilliant wit as do the rest of us? Or, because you are a G? :shrug:

I'd like to know the answer to these questions too....especially since this is the first I've heard of this.

Adnoid - maybe you should get some new informants? I think they are giving you some bad information.

[Miss Bootsie]

Originally Posted by adnoid
It is reasonable to deduce that when Wudge puts someone on ignore it's because that person is about to prove Wudge wrong. Therefore, Wudge disengages from the conversation. That's why I'm on ignore.


I disagree.

Why do you disagree?

Wudge has put people on ignore simply for disagreeing with him/her.


Do you deny he/she has the majority of G's on ignore?

Am I correct that this is a discussion board for the SII's and SIG's to discuss the case.
If so, what is the point in Wudge being here if he/she is not willing to discuss the case with the SIG's?

If it were me, I would not have any desire to participate on a forum where I had the majority of posters on ignore.

This will be the third time I have asked this question.
Why is it that Wudge is not expected to follow the rule that has been repeatedly pointed out to the other posters here?
When posting a statement of fact, either provide a link or state it is your opinion.

thinkaboutit, will you please address my question.

Thank-You

[accordn2me]

I agree.
a2me

Why do you disagree?

Wudge has put people on ignore simply for disagreeing with him/her.


Do you deny he/she has the majority of G's on ignore?

Am I correct that this is a discussion board for the SII's and SIG's to discuss the case.
If so, what is the point in Wudge being here if he/she is not willing to discuss the case with the SIG's?

If it were me, I would not have any desire to participate on a forum where I had the majority of posters on ignore.

This will be the third time I have asked this question.
Why is it that Wudge is not expected to follow the rule that has been repeatedly pointed out to the other posters here?
When posting a statement of fact, either provide a link or state it is your opinion.

thinkaboutit, will you please address my question.

Thank-You

[One2Snoop]

Well, the source is "Peterson's defense team", and the story says they have her. So perhaps she escaped from them and this was never made public?

Alternatively, "Peterson's defense team" could have been full of beans.

What do you think?

Knock Knock
Who's there !
Bean !
Bean who ?
Bean fishing lately ?

[One2Snoop]

Nope -golfishing. Had some trouble with my sandbarwedge.

Alternatively, "Peterson's defense team" could have been full of beans.
What do you think?

Did I fail at my attempt of a little humor? I seem to do that often. :tongue:

[One2Snoop]

Not at all. I was adding to it, not being critical!

LOL - I get it - sorry I'm a little slow sometimes. :read:

[thinkaboutit]

I think this mystery woman could have been the woman who claimed to have been raped by the people in the brown van and claimed to have overheard a plan to kidnap a pregnant woman on Christmas Eve.

Police were apparently told about this woman early in the investigation, the sources say, but authorities never interviewed her because they believed the Satanic cult theory was "bogus."

[One2Snoop]

I don't remember all the details of this case like some of you do and I vaguely remember this "secret woman" but for some reason I remember there were mental issues involved with this situation or am I thinking of someone else?

[enlightenme]

In other words, you feel Scott's defense team promulgated false information. I agree.

Totally! Empirically even!

:beer:

[thinkaboutit]

Scott went on national TV and asked us all if we were doing all we could to find Laci.

There is a web site set up by Scott's family offering rewards for information.

According to the information obtained by Scott's defense team, they had this woman in their presence and were protecting her because she could lead them to the "real killers". But we never heard more. Did she run away? If so, WHY NOT give the public the information so they can help?

I'm not sure which information you are referring to? The rape victim's name? So the public could help in what way?

I don't know much about law...is it possible that the court ruled this woman's testimony as inadmissable? Is it possible that she refused to cooperate - took off running - once this article hit the news? If the defense did have a mystery woman who was in fear for her life - releasing it to the news was not a very bright idea.

I think it's possible that the statements made by this member of the defense team was a bit overblown. Dalton seems to focus on the satanic cult people alot in his book.

I don't know how much I buy into the satanic cult theory - but imo the investigation the MPD did into this left a bit to be desired. It bothers me that the MPD had no interest in looking over the van - until Geragos' team started looking for it. I also find it interesting that the brown van family claim that their van was broken down between the 22nd and the 29th - yet there is a Stanislaus County Court Record of a traffic ticket for the mother dated 12/24/02.

http://www.stanct.org/case_index/2002/R/RE.html

http://www.findlaci2003.us/ne-8-19-03-homeless.html

[enlightenme]

I'm not sure which information you are referring to? The rape victim's name? So the public could help in what way?

I don't know much about law...is it possible that the court ruled this woman's testimony as inadmissable? Is it possible that she refused to cooperate - took off running - once this article hit the news? If the defense did have a mystery woman who was in fear for her life - releasing it to the news was not a very bright idea.

I think it's possible that the statements made by this member of the defense team was a bit overblown. Dalton seems to focus on the satanic cult people alot in his book.

I don't know how much I buy into the satanic cult theory - but imo the investigation the MPD did into this left a bit to be desired. It bothers me that the MPD had no interest in looking over the van - until Geragos' team started looking for it. I also find it interesting that the brown van family claim that their van was broken down between the 22nd and the 29th - yet there is a Stanislaus County Court Record of a traffic ticket for the mother dated 12/24/02.

http://www.stanct.org/case_index/2002/R/RE.html

http://www.findlaci2003.us/ne-8-19-03-homeless.html

Oh gee, white van, tan van, brown van. All are "suspicous" for some reason.
From now on I'm going to pay attention to every "van" in my neighborhood, lest some missing person or murder victim turns up.

I know, I'm being sarcastic. Sorry!

JMO

[thinkaboutit]

Oh gee, white van, tan van, brown van. All are "suspicous" for some reason.
From now on I'm going to pay attention to every "van" in my neighborhood, lest some missing person or murder victim turns up.

I know, I'm being sarcastic. Sorry!

JMO


I know, I know. The satanic cult theory sounds a bit far fetched - but I just think that the tip from the rape counselor should have been taken more seriously - and investigated more thoroughly. Obviously the rape counselor thought enough of it to call it in. I wonder if the rape victim told the rape counselor about the plan to abduct a pregnant woman on Christmas Eve before Laci went missing - or after?

[accordn2me]

Oh gee, white van, tan van, brown van. All are "suspicous" for some reason.
From now on I'm going to pay attention to every "van" in my neighborhood, lest some missing person or murder victim turns up.

I know, I'm being sarcastic. Sorry!

JMOOn a show about serial killers, the narrator referred to a van as, "a mobile murder scene." :eek: That has stuck with me for years. As much as possible, I don't park or walk near a van to this day.

[accordn2me]

No, there are 2 women here, one of which (the alleged rape victim) that is a known person who exists even if we don't have her name, the other of which is known only do the defense.

It is this second woman that the defense claimed to have and was protecting - I was just wondering what ever happened to her. At one point they "had" her in one way or another. If she was so valuable to the defense, why was she not called to the stand? If she escaped from the defense's custody (is that even legal?), why not let people know who she is so that the people can help find her?

Hmmm....I would like to see a list of promised defense witnesses. Did the defense come through on even one of their promises? Did they offer any reasons for not delivering?

The burglars are just one example that I don't understand (not that they were promised by the defense). However, the defense wants to critically attack the LE investigation. So why not produce the burglars and show that these criminals could not prove they didn't have anything to do with Laci's abduction? At least plant the seed, ya know?

I did see somewhere the other day that the prosecution was prepared to call Todd as they had him transferred to a facility where they could get him to court in a timely fashion. Was this calling the defense's bluff?

Like we established on the Ineffective Counsel thread, the defense had no strong witnesses. One person, a SIG interestingly enough, cited two strong "moments" for the defense. Pretty pathetic for a million dollar defense full of promises in a capital murder trial.

[One2Snoop]

A2M, after a 6 month trial and a million dollar plus defense, it's pretty telling that not one single witness got on the stand and shed ANY doubt on ISP guilt. They only needed to come up with ONE to shake the tree, and they just couldn't do it. I wonder why? Does anybody out there know why? :shrug:

Sorry I can only guess. It would be my opinion and nothing more. The defense was never able to verify the story and even if they did they were never able to find any evidence to back it up. Thats my best "honest" guess. :shrug:

[JustMyOpinion]

I did see somewhere the other day that the prosecution was prepared to call Todd as they had him transferred to a facility where they could get him to court in a timely fashion. Was this calling the defense's bluff?

.

IMO, yes. Geragos knew Todd was on the State's witness list and had been transferred to Stanislaus County Jail, he knew the State could/would call him as a rebuttal witness if they deemed it necessary, JMO

[thinkaboutit]

No, there are 2 women here, one of which (the alleged rape victim) that is a known person who exists even if we don't have her name, the other of which is known only do the defense.

It is this second woman that the defense claimed to have and was protecting - I was just wondering what ever happened to her. At one point they "had" her in one way or another. If she was so valuable to the defense, why was she not called to the stand? If she escaped from the defense's custody (is that even legal?), why not let people know who she is so that the people can help find her?


But how do we know that the mystery woman is a second woman - and not the rape victim?

[accordn2me]

IMO, yes. Geragos knew Todd was on the State's witness list and had been transferred to Stanislaus County Jail, he knew the State could/would call him as a rebuttal witness if they deemed it necessary, JMORebuttal to what? Obviously, they didn't need to because he wasn't called. But what do you think Geragos might have presented that the state would have then put Todd on the stand?

Personally, I think it would have been huge had MG presented at least one burglar and established they couldn't prove what they were doing in the timeframe Laci went missing. Unless of course they could prove what they were doing......

[JustMyOpinion]

Rebuttal to what? Obviously, they didn't need to because he wasn't called. But what do you think Geragos might have presented that the state would have then put Todd on the stand?

Personally, I think it would have been huge had MG presented at least one burglar and established they couldn't prove what they were doing in the timeframe Laci went missing. Unless of course they could prove what they were doing......


I think if Geragos had made a stronger case that "the burglars did it", the State would have called Todd as a rebuttal witness. He failed to make that case, IMO, so I think the State concluded it wasn't necessary, JMO. I have never believed the burglars had any connection to this crime, nor do I think they were two of the "three men" Diane Jackson said she saw on 12/24. Police got a tip on these burglars, drove to Pearce's residence, took him into custody on an outstanding warrant, and he was very forthcoming when asked about the burglary, stated the date as the 26th right away. ( per Crier, per testimony of Hicks) Both of these men took polygraphs ( which they were under no obligation to do).

[thinkaboutit]

I was reading Crier's book today as well.....

I find her wording regarding the polygraphs interesting....she never says the burglars took and passed polygraphs. She says they "submitted" to polygraphs..

Then later she says that Grogan told Scott that the burglars passed polygraphs.

The other interesting thing from that same section of the book - pages 157-158:

"Scott sat down. He watched as the detective produced a photocopy of a fax the police had received - it was the photo of Scott and Amber posing at the Christmas formal that Amber's mother had sent over the night before.

Grogan had other, better photographs of Scott and Amber in his possession, but decided not to produce them. Instead, he simply said that police had received "a copy of one faxed photograph" sent in anonymously. Looking directly at Scott, he slid the grainy black-and-white fax across the table......"

I suggested last week some time that the quality of the picture that Scott was shown was of poor quality. This backs up that assertion.

[JustMyOpinion]

I was reading Crier's book today as well.....

I find her wording regarding the polygraphs interesting....she never says the burglars took and passed polygraphs. She says they "submitted" to polygraphs..

Then later she says that Grogan told Scott that the burglars passed polygraphs.

The other interesting thing from that same section of the book - pages 157-158:

"Scott sat down. He watched as the detective produced a photocopy of a fax the police had received - it was the photo of Scott and Amber posing at the Christmas formal that Amber's mother had sent over the night before.

Grogan had other, better photographs of Scott and Amber in his possession, but decided not to produce them. Instead, he simply said that police had received "a copy of one faxed photograph" sent in anonymously. Looking directly at Scott, he slid the grainy black-and-white fax across the table......"

I suggested last week some time that the quality of the picture that Scott was shown was of poor quality. This backs up that assertion.

I agree there's no information available to the public about the polygraph examnation of the burlgars ( the questions, their answers, the results). The burlgars were under no obligation to submit to polygraph, but they chose to do so. ( Pearce has said he was told he passed it, IIRC)These men were willing to submit, Scott wasn't, even though his cooperation could have informed the police investigation as to what happened to Laci, IMO.
As to the photo Scott was shown, Scott knew he was having a affair with Amber. Scott knew photos had been taken when he escorted her to the formal office party. When shown the "faxed copy", he could have utilized that opportunity to disclose this fact to Grogan, instead of asking if it was "supposed to look like him" and suggesting the woman looked like someone he knew in college, IMO. Once again, Scott obstructed the investigation, HE LIED. IMO.

[accordn2me]

No, you've got it all wrong! This is admirable dishonesty. He's such a gentleman, he...

Sorry, I just don't know how to finish that. If I did I'd seek professional help.No. The answer's in his words:

SP: "I know you absolutely deserve an explanation,....And I want to give you one. I ... I can't now. I mean you don't understand. You don't understand ... the situation ... and ...I can't now. I'm so sorry for that. It's ... to protect all of us."

:flamemad: :flamemad: :cuss:

[thinkaboutit]

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkaboutit
I suggested last week some time that the quality of the picture that Scott was shown was of poor quality. This backs up that assertion.

Sounds like it is time to get your eyes checked. Poor quality? The murderer in the picture was as clear as day: SCOTT LEE PETERSON! That isn't an opinion, that is pure fact.

:lol: :lol:


Did you see the fax?

[enlightenme]

Did you see the fax?

No offense, but did you?

[thinkaboutit]

No offense, but did you?

No offense taken. I provided what I thought was pretty sufficient backup to my suggestion that the fax that was shown to Scott could have been of poor quality. 1. Scott's response - "Is that suppose to be me?" suggests that it wasn't obvious - and the picture could have been poor quality. 2. I quoted from Catherine Crier's book - where she says the it was a photocopy of a fax and it was black and white and grainy. She stated that Grogan had better pictures but chose not to show them to Scott.

Spanks simply said it was clear as day. I'd like to know what he/she is basing this statement of fact on.

[thinkaboutit]

Or Scott way lying about his relationship with Amber, something that he is know to do and that some of his supporters (not all) consider "admirable".

Well - there's no doubt that he was lying. I'm sure Scott knew that it was him in the picture - I'm just suggesting that his wording suggests the picture was of poor quality. Thank you for the "not all". :)

I wonder why Grogan chose to show him the fax instead of the actual pictures he had in his possession?

[enlightenme]

Well - there's no doubt that he was lying. I'm sure Scott knew that it was him in the picture - I'm just suggesting that his wording suggests the picture was of poor quality. Thank you for the "not all". :)

I wonder why Grogan chose to show him the fax instead of the actual pictures he had in his possession?


Probably because they thought that Scott would suspect they got them from Amber and they didn't want him to know she was working with them at that time. Oh, those rotten, deceitful LE officers! :)

[enlightenme]

Well - there's no doubt that he was lying. I'm sure Scott knew that it was him in the picture - I'm just suggesting that his wording suggests the picture was of poor quality. Thank you for the "not all". :)

I wonder why Grogan chose to show him the fax instead of the actual pictures he had in his possession?


So, are you saying that rather than just lying, Scott's "Is that supposed to be me?" was an attempt at being flippant? Or perhaps humorous?

If the latter, he really needs to work on his timing and delivery. Not very funny.

IMO

[thinkaboutit]

So, are you saying that rather than just lying, Scott's "Is that supposed to be me?" was an attempt at being flippant? Or perhaps humorous?

If the latter, he really needs to work on his timing and delivery. Not very funny.

IMO

No - I'm not saying that at all - there's no way I could know that - since there was no sound on the video tape - I am simply suggesting it was probably of poor quality.

[enlightenme]

No - I'm not saying that at all - there's no way I could know that - since there was no sound on the video tape - I am simply suggesting it was probably of poor quality.

Whether is was poor quality or not, was it recognizable? We don't know. Scott's response meant something though, if only to him. Was he flat out lying, trying to be funny, or just did not think it was a pic of him? We don't know, but I have my own opinion.

[thinkaboutit]

Probably because they thought that Scott would suspect they got them from Amber and they didn't want him to know she was working with them at that time. Oh, those rotten, deceitful LE officers! :)

The photo had to have come from Amber or one of her family members or friends. I don't see how showing him a fax as opposed to the actual picture would have prevented Scott from knowing it came from Amber. Actually - I believe the fax was actually sent by Amber's mother.

I just checked Grogan's testimony - he said it was an "investigative technique". He wanted to see if Scott would tell him about Amber when presented with that picture.

In case anyone who hasn't seen it is interested - here is the picture that was shown to Scott.

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/265.JPG

[enlightenme]

The photo had to have come from Amber or one of her family members or friends. I don't see how showing him a fax as opposed to the actual picture would have prevented Scott from knowing it came from Amber. Actually - I believe the fax was actually sent by Amber's mother.

I just checked Grogan's testimony - he said it was an "investigative technique". He wanted to see if Scott would tell him about Amber when presented with that picture.

In case anyone who hasn't seen it is interested - here is the picture that was shown to Scott.

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/265.JPG

Okay, he looks kinda wierd but Amber is definitely recognizable.

He is such a lying fool!

IMO

[One2Snoop]

Okay, he looks kinda wierd but Amber is definitely recognizable.

He is such a lying fool!

IMO

Yes it looks weird but aren't we looking at a reproduction or a screen capture of a fax - what were looking at is probably more distorted looking than it really is?

[enlightenme]

Yes it looks weird but aren't we looking at a reproduction or a screen capture of a fax - what were looking at is probably more distorted looking than it really is?

I have no idea but I'm sure he knew it was him with Amber.

[One2Snoop]

I forgot to say, I'm sure Scott knew he was in that picture. I was just thinking that for us looking at the picture - its distorted somewhat but yes I'm positive Scott knew he was the one in the pic.

[accordn2me]

I think this picture lie is very telling. It was relatively early in the investigation. Someone made the point the pic was not more than 3 weeks old. Scott knew several pics were taken by different people, none of whom had any loyalty to him. What in tarnation made him think he could get away with lying about this?

I

DO NOT

get

it.

[Anne2719]

I think this picture lie is very telling. It was relatively early in the investigation. Someone made the point the pic was not more than 3 weeks old. Scott knew several pics were taken by different people, none of whom had any loyalty to him. What in tarnation made him think he could get away with lying about this?

I

DO NOT

get

it.
My opinion? When caught fooling around, I think most men's first instinct is to lie and (stupidly) hope for the best.

[accordn2me]

My opinion? When caught fooling around, I think most men's first instinct is to lie and (stupidly) hope for the best.
And I understand - not condone - that lie. I will never understand lying to police who are investigating what happened to your missing wife. Unless he's the dumbest guy on the planet - I'm not counting it out - he had to have known they were going to check it out. :confused: Don't you think? Or do you think he was so used to people accepting whatever he said he thought LE would just say, "...of course not, Scott. Silly us!"

[Anne2719]

And I understand - not condone - that lie. I will never understand lying to police who are investigating what happened to your missing wife. Unless he's the dumbest guy on the planet - I'm not counting it out - he had to have known they were going to check it out. :confused: Don't you think? Or do you think he was so used to people accepting whatever he said he thought LE would just say, "...of course not, Scott. Silly us!"
I don't think it's a lie that's well thought out -- it's one that just springs to the lips, especially when one has been deceitful already. If he'd thought it through, of course he would know he could never get away with the lie. I think it's just part of the stupidity and arrogance that goes along with deceit and infidelity.

[Anne2719]

What truth did Scott tell? All he told were blatent lies. Anne, why are you condoning his actions? You think he only lied because he was having a torid affair with Amber? He lied because he murdered his wife and baby. He lied to everyone, even his friends and his parents who already were aware of his evil deed. Even his parents are liars now.
If you think I'm condoning his actions, then you need to read a bit more closely. I think lying and having affairs is reprehensible. I'm trying to explain it to myself, which is not even close to condoning it.

[packy]

I hadn't see that distorted picture before, thanks for posting it. It would seem that he would know it was him IMO, but as to what his answer really meant is hard to tell. I believe a tendency for some people would be to avoid a definite answer or keep up the lie to the dire end, even though it might seem obvious that they got the goods on you.

[accordn2me]

I hadn't see that distorted picture before, thanks for posting it. It would seem that he would know it was him IMO, but as to what his answer really meant is hard to tell. I believe a tendency for some people would be to avoid a definite answer or keep up the lie to the dire end, even though it might seem obvious that they got the goods on you.Hey packy:seeya:

I just saw Amber on TV...interview on Fox. They replayed Scott telling someone he would like to explain but couldn't because he was "protecting everyone." :punch: Makes me want to slap him. Whew! I need to go to the beach and run or something.....

About this distorted pic....aren't there reports that(I don't have a source, link, or whatever...and my brain is all jumbled up this morning anyway....so) after he denied being in the pic to LE, he went to dinner with....the Rochas ?.....and told them LE had a pic that he had been morphed or spliced or whatever it's called into it...and that it looked pretty authentic? Was that just after he looked at this fuzzy picture we are discussing?

If so, here we have Scott making a seemingly conscious decision to continue the lie as if others are going to think no more of it one he declares it's not him.

That kind of audacity freaks me out!

[Wudge]

If you think I'm condoning his actions, then you need to read a bit more closely. I think lying and having affairs is reprehensible. I'm trying to explain it to myself, which is not even close to condoning it.



Scott is a despicable cad; so admiited by Geragos.

Given the jury's verdict was reached absent motive, past attempts to reveal the inculpatory evidence the jury could have used to support its finding of premeditation, intent, deliberation or malice aforethought have turned up an evidentiary void. So that leaves evidence that is not in and of itself, substantial. Like, Scott lied; Scott's a cad. I so stipulate.

What remains an unanswered question is: The necessary inculpatory evidence the jury could have used to find premeditation, intent, deliberation and malice aforethought is?

[Anne2719]

Scott is a despicable cad; so admiited by Geragos.

Given the jury's verdict was reached absent motive, past attempts to reveal the inculpatory evidence the jury could have used to support its finding of premeditation, intent, deliberation or malice aforethought have turned up an evidentiary void. So that leaves evidence that is not in and of itself, substantial. Like, Scott lied; Scott's a cad. I so stipulate.

What remains an unanswered question is: The necessary inculpatory evidence the jury could have used to find premeditation, intent, deliberation and malice aforethought is?
Well, I was only commenting on the lie about the picture. I'm still on the fence over whether or not there was enough evidence presented to convict him. I'm leaning toward thinking there was, but I'm not taking a stand on that yet. I do think he probably did the deed, though.

[accordn2me]

Too bad Wudge has me on ignore. I could make a list.

[JustMyOpinion]

Scott is a despicable cad; so admiited by Geragos.

Given the jury's verdict was reached absent motive, past attempts to reveal the inculpatory evidence the jury could have used to support its finding of premeditation, intent, deliberation or malice aforethought have turned up an evidentiary void. So that leaves evidence that is not in and of itself, substantial. Like, Scott lied; Scott's a cad. I so stipulate.

What remains an unanswered question is: The necessary inculpatory evidence the jury could have used to find premeditation, intent, deliberation and malice aforethought is?


Scott may be a despicable cad but he's also a convicted murderer.
It appears the jury didn't agree on one, single motive for murder, this does not mean they didn't deliberate all of the evidence that went to motive, IMO.
There was sufficient inculpatory evidence presented at trial, you and I interpret the evidence differently, IMO.
There is no way for anyone to know what went on in jury deliberations, I can only make my own list of what I considered the inculpatory evidence, and you will maintain your own reasonable doubt. IMO It is a pointless "debate".. I'll simply agree to disagree with you.

[accordn2me]

Make it anyway. Someone else might want to see it. Actually, I thought this had already been done, many times.
Gee....I'm watching a prison riot right now. Glued to the TV like Beavis & Butthead....but I'll start....

1. Predicted 2 weeks in advance that his wife was missing and this would be his first holiday without her.

2. Began doing computer searches for potential fishing/dumping spots.

3. Purchased a boat he apparently told no one about.

4. Made a homemade anchor insufficient for anchoring the boat and has a bunch of missing concrete. Missing concrete + missing wife......:read: between the twines.....

[Wudge]

Well, I was only commenting on the lie about the picture. I'm still on the fence over whether or not there was enough evidence presented to convict him. I'm leaning toward thinking there was, but I'm not taking a stand on that yet. I do think he probably did the deed, though.

I really meant to leave that question for the forum moreso than you Anne.

I do agree that Scott could have killed Laci. If Judge Delucchi were to have also instructed the jury on manslaughter and if the jury found Scott guilty on that charge, the thought of insufficent evidence as an appeal issue would not likely exist.

[Wudge]

Scott may be a despicable cad but he's also a convicted murderer.
It appears the jury didn't agree on one, single motive for murder, this does not mean they didn't deliberate all of the evidence that went to motive, IMO.
There was sufficient inculpatory evidence presented at trial, you and I interpret the evidence differently, IMO.
There is no way for anyone to know what went on in jury deliberations, I can only make my own list of what I considered the inculpatory evidence, and you will maintain your own reasonable doubt. IMO It is a pointless "debate".. I'll simply agree to disagree with you.


For motive to have been found by the jury, twelve jurors had to agree.

[JustMyOpinion]

I really meant to leave that question for the forum moreso than you Anne.

I do agree that Scott could have murdered Laci. If Judge Delucchi were to have also instructed the jury on manslaughter and if the jury found Scott guilty on that charge, the thought of insufficent evidence as an appeal issue would not likely exist.


I don't think there is a case to be made on appeal for insufficient evidence, since the court cannot possibly know what went on inside the jury deliberations. JMO

[Anne2719]

I don't think there is a case to be made on appeal for insufficient evidence, since the court cannot possibly know what went on inside the jury deliberations. JMO
Unfortunately, the jurors have given hints of what went on. I personally don't think they've said anything that will hold up on appeal, but they really should keep their mouths shut.

[JustMyOpinion]

For motive to have been found by the jury, twelve jurors had to agree.


I didn't say a single motive was agreed upon. This does not mean they didn't deliberate evidence that went to premeditation, intent, deliberation, malice aforethought. Searching tides/currents, buying boat, making anchors, informing others she was "Lost"..proves malice aforethought, premeditation, intent, IMO.

[Wudge]

I didn't say a single motive was agreed upon. This does not mean they didn't deliberate evidence that went to premeditation, intent, deliberation, malice aforethought. Searching tides/currents, buying boat, making anchors, informing others she was "Lost"..proves malice aforethought, premeditation, intent, IMO.

If evidence does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt a lesser (motive), then such evidence could not support proof beyond a reasonable doubt for a greater finding (murder) that would rely on the jury first finding it proved the lesser.

[JustMyOpinion]

If evidence does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt a lesser (motive), then such evidence could not support proof beyond a reasonable doubt for a greater finding (murder) that would rely on the jury first finding it proved the lesser.

How do you know the evidence didn't prove malice aforethought beyond their collective, reasonable doubt? Were you in the jury room?

[attorneywan2be]

Snip

I do agree that Scott could have killed Laci.

Snip




IMO, the evidence points to his innocence--->

The TWICE-KNOTTED twine found around Conner's neck

Option 1: Conner was handled outside Laci's womb by the killer..Scott could not have done that..that is exonerating evidence..

Option 2: The twine was a debris that got over Conner's head..however, the circumference of his head was 28 cm and the circumference of the circle of twine was 20 cm...that would make it impossible for this to have occurred..

My conclusion: Option 2 should be eliminated

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

McKenzie was found with his leash attached..

Option 1: Laci walked the dog and was abducted as she was walking Mckenzie..witnesses did report seeing Laci walking a golden retriever..Lt. Aponte reported that phone conversation between an inmate and his brother about Laci confronting Todd who threatened her..

Option 2: Scott staged the abduction by letting McKenzie loose..however, the evidence shows that he rejected 2 witnesses report about seeing Laci walking in the park on the 24th...had he staged the abduction he would have been quick to accept those reports...

My conclusion: Option 2 should be eliminated

IMO, Scott is FACTUALLY innocent...!

[JustMyOpinion]

(snicker... I totally agree but it's a bit late for that)

By that I mean such as Belmessieri setting up 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment appeal issues.


from Greta Van Susteren's interview with jurors

VAN SUSTEREN: Is that something that you discussed during your deliberations, in either the guilt phase or the sentencing, I mean, Scott's demeanor itself in the courtroom?

BELMESSIERI: His demeanor was a point of discussion, but certainly not a heavy factor, I don't feel, other than what was perceived to be a lack of remorse.

VAN SUSTEREN: Was it more in the guilt phase or the sentencing phase that his demeanor was a part of the decision?

BELMESSIERI: More in the guilt phase, part of the aggravating factors, I would say. Lack of remorse could be communicated through his behavior.


Belmessieri told Greta Van Susteren that part of the “aggravating factors” (chuckle) in the guilt phase was Scott’s demeanor in the courtroom. This bothered Belmessieri, because he said it indicated a lack of remorse on the part of Scott. However, during the guilt phase, Scott had not yet been found guilty.

Since Belmessieri wanted Scott to show remorse during the guilt phase, then Belmessieri must have concluded Scott was guilty even though the guilt phase of the trial was still in process. Taken as stated, this prejudgment of guilt by Belmessieri necessarily violated Scott’s 6th and 14th Amendment rights to a fair trial by an impartial jury willing to hear all the facts before concluding guilt as due process requires.

Moreover, Scott stood on his 5th Amendment right to remain silent. However, Belmessieri said that Scott “communicated” a lack of remorse to him. There was no evidence presented during the guilt phase that Scott communicated with any of the jury. Therefore, taken as stated, Belmessieri must have assumed facts not in evidence (defendant communicated), which logically represents another 14th Amendment (due process) appeal issue.

Further, the jurors were instructed they could not hold against Scott the fact that he stood on his 5th Amendment right to remain silent. However, because Belmessieri said Scott “communicated” with him, he must necessarily have concluded Scott did not stand on his 5th Amendment right to remain silent.

When a defendant stands on their Constitutional right not to communicate with the jury, then whether assumed or otherwise impermissibly derived, a juror cannot conclude that the defendant communicated with them. Thus, it logocally follows that Belmessieri’s conclusion that Scott communicated with him during the guilt phase represents a 5th Amendment violation.

Again, this is your interpretation based on snippet of a quote from one juror.
Greta asked questions, Juror answered. Juror did not "tell Greta" what you have inferred as his statement, IMO.

[accordn2me]

For motive to have been found by the jury, twelve jurors had to agree.
Is this a fact?:shrug:

Since motive is not necessary for the state to prosecute, why couldn't jurors be split on motive? :shrug: Why would the word "motive" even need to come up in the jury room? It's not necessary for a guilty verdict or a death sentence.:shrug:

[Wudge]

but they really should keep their mouths shut.

but they really should keep their mouths shut.[/QUOTE]

(snicker... I totally agree, but it's a bit late for that,)

By that I mean, such as Belmessieri setting up 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment appeal issues.


from Greta Van Susteren's interview with jurors

VAN SUSTEREN: Is that something that you discussed during your deliberations, in either the guilt phase or the sentencing, I mean, Scott's demeanor itself in the courtroom?

BELMESSIERI: His demeanor was a point of discussion, but certainly not a heavy factor, I don't feel, other than what was perceived to be a lack of remorse.

VAN SUSTEREN: Was it more in the guilt phase or the sentencing phase that his demeanor was a part of the decision?

BELMESSIERI: More in the guilt phase, part of the aggravating factors, I would say. Lack of remorse could be communicated through his behavior.


Belmessieri told Greta Van Susteren that part of the “aggravating factors” (chuckle) in the guilt phase was Scott’s demeanor in the courtroom. This bothered Belmessieri, because he said it indicated a lack of remorse on the part of Scott. However, during the guilt phase, Scott had not yet been found guilty.

Since Belmessieri wanted Scott to show remorse during the guilt phase, then Belmessieri must have concluded Scott was guilty even though the guilt phase of the trial was still in process. Taken as stated, this prejudgment of guilt by Belmessieri necessarily violated Scott’s 6th and 14th Amendment rights to a fair trial by an impartial jury willing to hear all the facts before concluding guilt as due process requires.

Moreover, Scott stood on his 5th Amendment right to remain silent. However, Belmessieri said that Scott “communicated” a lack of remorse to him. There was no evidence presented during the guilt phase that Scott communicated with any of the jury. Therefore, taken as stated, Belmessieri must have assumed facts not in evidence (defendant communicated), which logically represents another 14th Amendment (due process) appeal issue.

Further, the jurors were instructed they could not hold against Scott the fact that he stood on his 5th Amendment right to remain silent. However, because Belmessieri said Scott “communicated” with him, he must necessarily have concluded Scott did not stand on his 5th Amendment right to remain silent.

When a defendant stands on their Constitutional right not to communicate with the jury, then whether assumed or otherwise impermissibly derived, a juror cannot conclude that the defendant communicated with them. Thus, it logically follows that Belmessieri’s conclusion that Scott communicated with him during the guilt phase represents a 5th Amendment violation.

[accordn2me]

IMO, the evidence points to his innocence--->

The TWICE-KNOTTED twine found around Conner's neck

Option 1: Conner was handled outside Laci's womb by the killer..Scott could not have done that..that is exonerating evidence..

Option 2: The twine was a debris that got over Conner's head..however, the circumference of his head was 28 cm and the circumference of the circle of twine was 20 cm...that would make it impossible for this to have occurred..

My conclusion: Option 2 should be eliminated

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

McKenzie was found with his leash attached..

Option 1: Laci walked the dog and was abducted as she was walking Mckenzie..witnesses did report seeing Laci walking a golden retriever..Lt. Aponte reported that phone conversation between an inmate and his brother about Laci confronting Todd who threatened her..

Option 2: Scott staged the abduction by letting McKenzie loose..however, the evidence shows that he rejected 2 witnesses report about seeing Laci walking in the park on the 24th...had he staged the abduction he would have been quick to accept those reports...

My conclusion: Option 2 should be eliminated

IMO, Scott is FACTUALLY innocent...!

The TWICE-KNOTTED twine found around Conner's neck

Option 3: The twine/tape was not twice-knotted. It had a tight knot in it. The tight knot did not hold the twine/tape in an enclosed circle. The twine/tape went around Conner's neck, not over his head, and the tidal motion caused a loose bow-like formation in the twine/tape that was around Conner's neck.

<snip>....had he staged the abduction he would have been quick to accept those reports...

Really? Your words, or his?

[Wudge]

Again, this is your interpretation based on snippet of a quote from one juror.
Greta asked questions, Juror answered. Juror did not "tell Greta" what you have inferred as his statement, IMO.

It's a deductive conclusion based on premises established by Belmessieri's own free will statement and the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments in our Constitution.

[accordn2me]

It's a deductive conclusion based on premises established by Belmessieri's own free will statement and the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments in our Constitution.Would that be a [Y(your)]DCBOPEBBOFWS.....?

[attorneywan2be]

Again, this is your interpretation based on snippet of a quote from one juror.
Greta asked questions, Juror answered. Juror did not "tell Greta" what you have inferred as his statement, IMO.


What is your interpretation of what Belmessieri said to Greta??:

BELMESSIERI: His demeanor was a point of discussion, but certainly not a heavy factor, I don't feel, other than what was perceived to be a lack of remorse.

VAN SUSTEREN: Was it more in the guilt phase or the sentencing phase that his demeanor was a part of the decision?

BELMESSIERI: More in the guilt phase, part of the aggravating factors, I would say. Lack of remorse could be communicated through his behavior

[accordn2me]

The title of this thread is extremely misleading since no evidence has been posted. Where is the evidence that points to other suspects? :lol: :lol:

welllll....there's that "twice-knotted" twine that the NGs keep trying to repeatedly assert into existence.....that's all i can think of....:seeya:

[JustMyOpinion]

What is your interpretation of what Belmessieri said to Greta??:

BELMESSIERI: His demeanor was a point of discussion, but certainly not a heavy factor, I don't feel, other than what was perceived to be a lack of remorse.

VAN SUSTEREN: Was it more in the guilt phase or the sentencing phase that his demeanor was a part of the decision?

BELMESSIERI: More in the guilt phase, part of the aggravating factors, I would say. Lack of remorse could be communicated through his behavior


That for Belessieri, his demeanor was a point of discussion, not a heavy factor.

[Wudge]

That for Belessieri, his demeanor was a point of discussion, not a heavy factor.

The reason Bellmessieri wanted Scott to show remorse before he was even found guilty is?

[accordn2me]

JMO, I don't know how his demeanor couldn't have been part of a "discussion", it was shocking to say the least. No where has a juror stated they convicted ISP because he showed lack of remorse.

Btw- have you seen the A&E DVD? I bought it, and it has the full interviews with the jurors. We seen snipets here and there, but I highly recommend this full version account. None of them state that ISP lack of remorse or sorrow influenced their decision on guilt or innocence.
They wisely might not have said it....but seriously....how could it not?

Forgive another comparasion but the THs in the Melanie McGuire case have all commented on her demeanor in the courtroom...bawling like a baby during the verdict...stoic during photos and testimony of her husband's condition when found. The difference in my humble opinion....Melanie is a nurse. They are conditioned to compartmentalize their feelings. Scott....what's his excuse?

[accordn2me]

The reason Bellmessieri wanted Scott to show remorse before he was even found guilty is?
BECAUSE HE IS GUILTY....DUH!

Can I scream at Wudge since he has me on ignore? GUILTY!

[JustMyOpinion]

The reason Bellmessieri wanted Scott to show remorse before he was even found guilty is?


I don't know what Bellmessieri meant when he used the word remorse. There are several definitions. Geragos called his client a cad and a few other unsavory names. Perhaps it was a point of discussion that Scott didn't appear sorrowful for his affair, his many lies, or didn't appear to show compassion for any of his victims ( i.e. Sharon, Amber, his mother),, or grief for Laci. I don't know. By all reports, Scott had a very cold/detached demeanor throughout most of the trial.
http://dict.die.net/remorse/
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Remorse \Re*morse"\ (r?*m?rs"), n. [OE. remors, OF. remors,F.
remords, LL. remorsus, fr. L. remordere, remorsum, to bite
again or back, to torment; pref. re- re- + mordere to bite.
See Morsel.]
1. The anguish, like gnawing pain, excited by a sense of
guilt; compunction of conscience for a crime committed, or
for the sins of one's past life. ``Nero will be tainted
with remorse.'' --Shak.

2. Sympathetic sorrow; pity; compassion.

Curse on the unpardoning prince, whom tears can draw
To no remorse. --Dryden.

But evermore it seem'd an easier thing At once
without remorse to strike her dead. --Tennyson.

Syn: Compunction; regret; anguish; grief; compassion. See
Compunction.

[Otter]

I like Wudge. We've gone around the block on this board and others and I respect him/her.

But honestly, my patience only goes so far. The same moot argument over and over. My attention span only goes so are and the argument is based on Wudge's opinion.

I'm ready to move on. Your argument, MOO, is irrelevant. Got something new? In all respect, and in honesty Wudge. Leave it alone, even you know that.

[accordn2me]

I like Wudge. We've gone around the block on this board and others and I respect him/her.

But honestly, my patience only goes so far. The same moot argument over and over. My attention span only goes so are and the argument is based on Wudge's opinion.

I'm ready to move on. Your argument, MOO, is irrelevant. Got something new? In all respect, and in honesty Wudge. Leave it alone, even you know that.

I like Wudge too. I've only said nice things about him. Yet, he ignores me. It was in my kraw until adnoid pointed out that Wudge ignores people when they are about to outsmart him. Now I'm like....Wudge....:chicken:

[enlightenme]

I really meant to leave that question for the forum moreso than you Anne.

I do agree that Scott could have killed Laci. If Judge Delucchi were to have also instructed the jury on manslaughter and if the jury found Scott guilty on that charge, the thought of insufficent evidence as an appeal issue would not likely exist.


What?!! Insufficent evidence will NOT work on appeal. There was plenty of CE!

I'm sure Delucchi was within the law as to not including manslaughter. There should be the term "womanslaughter", as women get killed by their spouses, rapists, stalkers, etc. much more often than men.

JMO

[Wudge]

I like Wudge. We've gone around the block on this board and others and I respect him/her.

But honestly, my patience only goes so far. The same moot argument over and over. My attention span only goes so are and the argument is based on Wudge's opinion.

I'm ready to move on. Your argument, MOO, is irrelevant. Got something new? In all respect, and in honesty Wudge. Leave it alone, even you know that.

Why get mad at me? I've never posted or before now brought up for discussion these potential juror prejudice appeal issues based on Bellmessieri's answers to Greta's questions.

You are probably thinking about other juror prejudice/misconduct appeal issues that might well attach to other Bellmessieri statements.

I can't help it if a guy chooses to run an appeal generation service. I simply responded to Anne when she wisely said the jurors should keep their mouths shut.

If you want someone to get mad at, I would recommend: Beratlis, Guinasso, Belmessieri, Mylett et al.

[enlightenme]

Why get mad at me? I've never posted or before now brought up for discussion these potential juror prejudice appeal issues based on Bellmessieri's answers to Greta's questions.

You are probably thinking about other juror prejudice/misconduct appeal issues that might well attach to other Bellmessieri statements.

I can't help it if a guy chooses to run an appeal generation service. I simply responded to Anne when she wisely said the jurors should keep their mouths shut.

If you want someone to get mad at, I would recommend: Beratlis, Guinasso, Belmessieri, Mylett et al.

Appeal generation service! LOL! Wudge, you are funny sometimes!

I'll think about getting irratated at the jurors when one of these appeals in your mind actually WORKS!

:cool:

[JustMyOpinion]

Why get mad at me? I've never posted or before now brought up for discussion these potential juror prejudice appeal issues based on Bellmessieri's answers to Greta's questions.

You are probably thinking about other juror prejudice/misconduct appeal issues that might well attach to other Bellmessieri statements.

I can't help it if a guy chooses to run an appeal generation service. I simply responded to Anne when she wisely said the jurors should keep their mouths shut.

If you want someone to get mad at, I would recommend: Beratlis, Guinasso, Belmessieri, Mylett et al.


I don't feel angry with these jurors, they performed a service as essential to our democracy as military service, IMO. They gave up over five months of their lives to perform their civic duty, they had the additional stress of this being a high-profile murder case where they also had to view some very graphic evidence.

[enlightenme]

:lol: :lol:

welllll....there's that "twice-knotted" twine that the NGs keep trying to repeatedly assert into existence.....that's all i can think of....:seeya:

Hey, I have a good imagination too! How about this? Somebody came across Conner's body before the people who reported finding him. They found some tape on the shore next to him and tied it around his body. For what purpose, you might ask? I don't know, to keep his fragile body from falling apart, to wrap him up like a gift, or because he/she was nuts.

Makes about as much sense as why the "real killer" would do it.

That makes it NOT exculpatory evidence.

JMO

[attorneywan2be]

I don't feel angry with these jurors, they performed a service as essential to our democracy as military service, IMO. They gave up over five months of their lives to perform their civic duty, they had the additional stress of this being a high-profile murder case where they also had to view some very graphic evidence.


That's great!..but the key question is : did they follow the jury instructions?

[JustMyOpinion]

That's great!..but the key question is : did they follow the jury instructions?


I have never seen any evidence that indicates otherwise., I think this was a hard-working and competent jury. JMO I feel for those who recieved death threats after the verdict, I wish this could be investigated & prosecuted. Scott has some mentally unbalanced followers out there, IMO.

[attorneywan2be]

I have never seen any evidence that indicates otherwise., I think this was a hard-working and competent jury. JMO I feel for those who recieved death threats after the verdict, I wish this could be investigated & prosecuted. Scott has some mentally unbalanced followers out there, IMO.


IMO, the opposite is true..juror # 5 received death threats even after he was removed..

[JustMyOpinion]

IMO, the opposite is true..juror # 5 received death threats even after he was removed..


?? So you believe Justin Falconer, but disbelieve other jurors? IMO, it is wrong for ANY juror to be threatened in ANY way, and I wish it could be investigated and prosecuted. Do you know if Falconer turned these threats over to law enforcement? ( other jurors who received threats stated they did do so) Phil McGraw said he is having his PI investigate these threats to assist the jurors in identifying who made them, what these person(s) look like, etc .

[attorneywan2be]

?? So you believe Justin Falconer, but disbelieve other jurors? IMO, it is wrong for ANY juror to be threatened in ANY way, and I wish it could be investigated and prosecuted. Do you know if Falconer turned these threats over to law enforcement? ( other jurors who received threats stated they did do so) Phil McGraw said he is having his PI investigate these threats to assist the jurors in identifying who made them, what these person(s) look like, etc .

Where did I say I disbelieve the other jurors? let me make it clear..

I was responding to your opinion that some of Scott's followers are mentally unbalanced due to the threats that some jurors received, I'm saying that you could also make a case that a juror that supported a "Not guilty" verdict was threatened, so IMO, that would also mean that some of the people that believe Scott is guilty are mentally unbalanced..

[accordn2me]

What?!! Insufficent evidence will NOT work on appeal. There was plenty of CE!

I'm sure Delucchi was within the law as to not including manslaughter. There should be the term "womanslaughter", as women get killed by their spouses, rapists, stalkers, etc. much more often than men.

JMO
The idea that a manslaughter instruction should have been included is one of the most ludricrous I've seen to date. It ranks right up there with the killers storing Laci's body somewhere and planting her and Conner's on the shores right in the area where the hydrologist testified they were most likely to wash up given Scott's fishing trip + the storm conditions.:rolleyes:

Let's ponder the manslaughter idea for two seconds. Manslaughter, a heat of passion crime, right. So, Laci would have had to do something to enrage stoic Scott to the point that he temporarily loses his faculties and slays her. The extreme lengths he went to hide the body and play this off as a missing person's case has to negate any idea of this crime as manslaughter.

[JustMyOpinion]

The idea that a manslaughter instruction should have been included is one of the most ludricrous I've seen to date. It ranks right up there with the killers storing Laci's body somewhere and planting her and Conner's on the shores right in the area where the hydrologist testified they were most likely to wash up given Scott's fishing trip + the storm conditions.:rolleyes:

Let's ponder the manslaughter idea for two seconds. Manslaughter, a heat of passion crime, right. So, Laci would have had to do something to enrage stoic Scott to the point that he temporarily loses his faculties and slays her. The extreme lengths he went to hide the body and play this off as a missing person's case has to negate any idea of this crime as manslaughter.

I agree. Also, Scott searched/zoomed in on tides/currents 12/8 ( of the same area he told Brocchini he was with the boat) the same weekend he told Shawn & Amber he had lost his wife, the same weekend he bought the boat!
And, there is a paucity of biological evidence at the home, nothing pointing to a crime of passion, IMO. Judge said he was willing to rule on this manslaughter issue at his peril ( I feel certain Judge Delucchi doesn't believe this will be an appellate issue) JMO

[JustMyOpinion]

Where did I say I disbelieve the other jurors? let me make it clear..

I was responding to your opinion that some of Scott's followers are mentally unbalanced due to the threats that some jurors received, I'm saying that you could also make a case that a juror that supported a "Not guilty" verdict was threatened, so IMO, that would also mean that some of the people that believe Scott is guilty are mentally unbalanced..

My opinion about some of Scott's followers didn't just come from what has been stated about death threats, some of what I read that was posted by individuals paraticipating in the old SII site informed my own opinion that he has some followers who are mentally unstable. JMO

[accordn2me]

I agree. Also, Scott searched/zoomed in on tides/currents 12/8 ( of the same area he told Brocchini he was with the boat) the same weekend he told Shawn & Amber he had lost his wife, the same weekend he bought the boat!
And, there is a paucity of biological evidence at the home, nothing pointing to a crime of passion, IMO. Judge said he was willing to rule on this manslaughter issue at his peril ( I feel certain Judge Delucchi doesn't believe this will be an appellate issue) JMO
Don't tell me the defense suggested this! When!? Got a link?

[JustMyOpinion]

Don't tell me the defense suggested this! When!? Got a link?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20041030/ai_n14586831
SNIP:
REDWOOD CITY -- The six men and six women who will decide Scott Peterson's fate were given another option Friday when the judge said he will allow them to convict the Modesto man of second-degree murder, a lesser charge that does not include the death penalty.

Prosecutors all along have sought murder in the first degree with premeditation against the former Modesto fertilizer salesman -- a crime that carries a penalty of death or life in prison without parole.

But Judge Alfred Delucchi on Friday said he will instruct jurors that they also have the option of finding Peterson guilty of second- degree murder, which carries a maximum sentence of 30 years to life in prison for two murder counts.

"The jury could say, 'Well, we think that Mr. Peterson killed Laci Peterson, but we're not persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that there was premeditation,'" Judge Delucchi said in Friday morning's hearing.

Defense attorney Mark Geragos objected to the inclusion of the lesser charge and argued that if second-degree were added as an option, so, too, should be the even lesser charge of manslaughter.

"There is no evidence of how or where this crime was committed. And there's no evidence he committed it," Geragos said, pointing to Peterson. "There is not evidence of the lesser (charge) -- their whole theory is that this is premeditated."

But Delucchi said he would not include the charge of manslaughter, which is killing without malice or premeditation, and which carries an even lighter penalty.

"I'm not going to give voluntary or involuntary manslaughter at my own peril. That's not what I'm going to do," Delucchi said, remarking about how an appeals court may view his decision.

Peterson's mother, Jacqueline Peterson, sat next to her pastor in the front row of the courtroom, visibly upset at the judge's ruling.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20041030/ai_n14586831

[accordn2me]

OK. I see it in response to the judge's allowing the consideration of the lesser charge. I wish JD wouldn't have done that....but....who am I to question it. Obviously, he knows what he's doing. IF he wouldn't have done it....NGs (some) would be screaming it's an appeal issue. :shrug:

[enlightenme]

My opinion about some of Scott's followers didn't just come from what has been stated about death threats, some of what I read that was posted by individuals paraticipating in the old SII site informed my own opinion that he has some followers who are mentally unstable. JMO

He certainly has a lot of women supporters on the CCADP site that can't construct a coherent sentence. :eek:

[One2Snoop]

He certainly has a lot of women supporters on the CCADP site that can't construct a coherent sentence. :eek:

Do you happen to have a link for that site? ;) TIA (thanking in advance)

[JustMyOpinion]

One woman ( I have no idea if she participated in a forum) got fired from her job for allegedly corresponding with Scott on company time!
http://wcco.com/watercooler/watercooler_story_249231039.html
SNIP:AP) ALEXANDRIA, La. U.S. Rep. Rodney Alexander fired an aide because she was allegedly corresponding with convicted killed Scott Peterson while on the job, the congressman's office said Wednesday.

The Louisiana Republican fired Theresa Mares in mid-August, said spokesman Adam Terry. Mares had worked for Alexander since he first took office in 2003 and was a caseworker in the congressman's Alexandria office in central Louisiana.

Terry said Alexander learned of Mares' letters to Peterson from a National Enquirer reporter. In August, the tabloid reported that Mares sent at least 18 letters to Peterson professing her love for the convicted killer.

Terry said Alexander decided to fire Mares because she was "using government resources to personally communicate with Scott Peterson."

"Ms. Mares' actions have been embarrassing to our office and demonstrate that her views are politically incompatible with those of the congressman," Terry said.
http://wcco.com/watercooler/watercooler_story_249231039.html

Mares could not be reached for comment; her number was not listed.

http://wcco.com/watercooler/watercooler_story_249231039.html

[One2Snoop]

Here ya go, Snoops. http://ccadp.proboards40.com/
FYI, Happyhaddock on that board is Jim Jones. :D

Thank you.

[accordn2me]

Be sure you are somewhere where you can take a shower. After reading a few threads you'll feel like you need one.

Also: if the conspiracy theories that abound over there make you paranoid, you might need one of these. (http://zapatopi.net/afdb/)
Adnoid! Those things probably cause cancer! :no:

[Wudge]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20041030/ai_n14586831
SNIP:
REDWOOD CITY -- The six men and six women who will decide Scott Peterson's fate were given another option Friday when the judge said he will allow them to convict the Modesto man of second-degree murder, a lesser charge that does not include the death penalty.

Prosecutors all along have sought murder in the first degree with premeditation against the former Modesto fertilizer salesman -- a crime that carries a penalty of death or life in prison without parole.

But Judge Alfred Delucchi on Friday said he will instruct jurors that they also have the option of finding Peterson guilty of second- degree murder, which carries a maximum sentence of 30 years to life in prison for two murder counts.

"The jury could say, 'Well, we think that Mr. Peterson killed Laci Peterson, but we're not persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that there was premeditation,'" Judge Delucchi said in Friday morning's hearing.

Defense attorney Mark Geragos objected to the inclusion of the lesser charge and argued that if second-degree were added as an option, so, too, should be the even lesser charge of manslaughter.

"There is no evidence of how or where this crime was committed. And there's no evidence he committed it," Geragos said, pointing to Peterson. "There is not evidence of the lesser (charge) -- their whole theory is that this is premeditated."

But Delucchi said he would not include the charge of manslaughter, which is killing without malice or premeditation, and which carries an even lighter penalty.

"I'm not going to give voluntary or involuntary manslaughter at my own peril. That's not what I'm going to do," Delucchi said, remarking about how an appeals court may view his decision.

Peterson's mother, Jacqueline Peterson, sat next to her pastor in the front row of the courtroom, visibly upset at the judge's ruling.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20041030/ai_n14586831


The problem with Judge Delucci instructing the jury on second-degree murder is that there was no unique evidence presented that went to malice apart from premeditation and deliberation. which makes it baseless.

Please remember too that the jury would not have found Scott guilty of murdering Conner without the presence of the baseless second-degree murder charge.

If baseless second-degree, then why should the jury not have been instructed on a supposedly further baseless charge of manslaughter that would at least would have avoided a due process appeal?

[JustMyOpinion]

The problem with Judge Delucci instructing the jury on second-degree murder is that there was no unique evidence presented that went to malice apart from premeditation and deliberation. which makes it baseless.

Please remember too that the jury would not have found Scott guilty of murdering Conner without the presence of the baseless second-degree murder charge.

If baseless second-degree, then why should the jury not have been instructed on a supposedly further baseless charge of manslaughter that would at least would have avoided a due process appeal?

It is your own opinion there was no unique evidence that went to malice, this is not a fact. I think there was plenty of evidence showing malice aforethought ( it appears the Judge may have agreed). JMO

[enlightenme]

Be sure you are somewhere where you can take a shower. After reading a few threads you'll feel like you need one.

Also: if the conspiracy theories that abound over there make you paranoid, you might need one of these. (http://zapatopi.net/afdb/)


Oh geez Adnoid! I'm laughing my arze off reading that site!

"AFDBs are safe and operate automatically. All you do is make it and wear it and you're good to go! Plus, AFDBs are stylish and comfortable."

Operate automatically! :lol:

[accordn2me]

That's what "they" WANT you to think!You mean my mind is being controlled....RIGHT NOW!?:chicken:

[accordn2me]

Oh geez Adnoid! I'm laughing my arze off reading that site!

"AFDBs are safe and operate automatically. All you do is make it and wear it and you're good to go! Plus, AFDBs are stylish and comfortable."

Operate automatically! :lol:
There y'all go with the letters again....AFDB...:confused:

I can't read it....and there is a cute prosecutor on Court TV!:tongue:

[Otter]

There y'all go with the letters again....AFDB...:confused:

I can't read it....and there is a cute prosecutor on Court TV!:tongue:

Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie! :tongue:

Stylish and comfortable too.

[Anne2719]

Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie! :tongue:

Stylish and comfortable too.
I like the instructions for making your own.