Evidence that points to other suspects

[Lavindar]

TPG, niether does the prosections. As you and the other's state, provide a link to what he lied about, otherwise your statement is nothing but your meaningless opinion, which it is. IF MG had lied, he would have been disbarred. Lawyers can not lie, during any part of trial and they can not knowingly put a witness on the stand when they know that witness is going to lie. Your lack common sense amazes me.

Lawyers CAN and DO lie all the time. And they are not disbarred. PLease cite a case where a lawyer has been disbarred for lying. TIA

[deputydi]

beep ~ beep ~ TROLL ALERT.WHAT IS THIS?

[deputydi]

beep ~ beep ~ TROLL ALERT.

and, I don't mean you Lavindar. :seeya:

[Hey Paula]

Lawyers CAN and DO lie all the time. And they are not disbarred. PLease cite a case where a lawyer has been disbarred for lying. TIA

I love this quote because it's the truth:

"The lawyer is the devil's advocate. Lawyers' profession is one of private interests, not of morality. He is paid, he pleads for his clients. Such is the logic and morality of a lawyer." Quote by: Ion Iliescu



If lawyers told the truth, every single one of their guilty clients would be convicted.

IMO

[I'mSun]

IMO, I agree with Sassy. Why would he? Because the SW expired, how about that? Maybe if they can get the original records unsealed, we will then know based on what evidence a SW was issued.
IMO, the judge might have realized that they had no evidence, just one detectives "gut", (and a very fat gut it is), feeling.

Since the SW expired, and since there was no body, no sign of a struggle of any kind, then there was NO evidence Laci was dead, so maybe Old Al felt he wouldn't be able to obtain another SW. What better way to get what you want? IMO, Old Al knew about Kim's history.

In most cases, an abductor will join searches for the missing person they abducted. I've seen it happen many times. Who knows how Al knew about Kim's record, but let's assume he did.

I don't believe for a second that Scott hired Kim to do it to make it look like Laci came back. That is the most redicules thing I have ever heard.
Please provide a link showing the SW expired, unless this is all just your opinion. If it is your opinion, please state it as such. Thanks.
You could be right about abductors helping to search for the missing person - Scott was out searching for Laci in the park that first night, I believe.

I've heard a lot more ridiculous things than Scott hiring Kim.

[I'mSun]

I love this quote because it's the truth:

"The lawyer is the devil's advocate. Lawyers' profession is one of private interests, not of morality. He is paid, he pleads for his clients. Such is the logic and morality of a lawyer." Quote by: Ion Iliescu



If lawyers told the truth, every single one of their guilty clients would be convicted.

IMOITA Paula. Great quote! :beer:

[Lavindar]

IMO, I agree with Sassy. Why would he? Because the SW expired, how about that? Maybe if they can get the original records unsealed, we will then know based on what evidence a SW was issued.
IMO, the judge might have realized that they had no evidence, just one detectives "gut", (and a very fat gut it is), feeling.

Since the SW expired, and since there was no body, no sign of a struggle of any kind, then there was NO evidence Laci was dead, so maybe Old Al felt he wouldn't be able to obtain another SW. What better way to get what you want? IMO, Old Al knew about Kim's history.

In most cases, an abductor will join searches for the missing person they abducted. I've seen it happen many times. Who knows how Al knew about Kim's record, but let's assume he did.

I don't believe for a second that Scott hired Kim to do it to make it look like Laci came back. That is the most redicules thing I have ever heard.

What search warrant expired? They took everything they wanted on the 27th. Why wait until over a month and have someone break in?

page239-240 in Crier's book:

Scott's next call was from Kim McGregor, who lived three houses away from the Petersons on Covena Avenue. The thirty-year-old woman had become friendly with Scott through her vounteer efforts at the Command Center at the Red Lion. Since Laci's disppearance, she had been taking care of the Petersons' dog.

"Is everything OK?" Kim asked.

"Na, nothing, nothin's right," Scott said. "But thank you for taking care of McKenzie."

Kim agreed to keep McKenzie while Scott headed to the Bay Area to distribute fliers, adn then down to L.A. to open volunteer center there. He told her he would probably be gone a week.

When the two hung up, Kim dialed the Modesto police. Her call was transferred to Detective Buehler. The two had met ealier that year when Buehler had worked on a stalking threat leveled against Kim. Now she alerted Buehler that Scott was prepareing to leave town. She also reported that Scott didn't sound "like he normlly did," and that he sounded slightly depressed, and Kim wasn't sure if his change in demanor was significant.



Why, would a man who is leaving town for a week NOT set his burglar alarm? Kim had MacKenzie at her house so there was more reason than ever to set the alarm with all the media around, yet Scott did NOT set the alarm.

Kim is definitely not the brightest bulb in the box, since she broke into the house AFTER alerted the police that Scott would be gone.

[I'mSun]

TPG, niether does the prosections. As you and the other's state, provide a link to what he lied about, otherwise your statement is nothing but your meaningless opinion, which it is. IF MG had lied, he would have been disbarred. Lawyers can not lie, during any part of trial and they can not knowingly put a witness on the stand when they know that witness is going to lie. Your lack common sense amazes me.

Personal attacks are not allowed in this forum, and there is no reason to attack TopGunner..

[Hey Paula]

IMO, I agree with Sassy. Why would he? Because the SW expired, how about that? Maybe if they can get the original records unsealed, we will then know based on what evidence a SW was issued.
IMO, the judge might have realized that they had no evidence, just one detectives "gut", (and a very fat gut it is), feeling.

Since the SW expired, and since there was no body, no sign of a struggle of any kind, then there was NO evidence Laci was dead, so maybe Old Al felt he wouldn't be able to obtain another SW. What better way to get what you want? IMO, Old Al knew about Kim's history.

In most cases, an abductor will join searches for the missing person they abducted. I've seen it happen many times. Who knows how Al knew about Kim's record, but let's assume he did.

I don't believe for a second that Scott hired Kim to do it to make it look like Laci came back. That is the most redicules thing I have ever heard.

Did you truly believe a LE detective would be that stupid and reckless to ask the person who walks their suspect's dog to break into the house and steal items?

I have no doubt, with all the evidence they were covertly gathering, the MPD would have had no problem in listing probable cause for additional SWs if they needed them. To suggest they would ask KMG to break into Scott's house seems illogical and ludicrous.

I have always believed it was Scott, who asked KMG to break into the house while he was gone. I believe he did this to deflect suspicion from himself by having it appear someone was targeting Laci.

IMO

[Lavindar]

TPG, niether does the prosections. As you and the other's state, provide a link to what he lied about, otherwise your statement is nothing but your meaningless opinion, which it is. IF MG had lied, he would have been disbarred. Lawyers can not lie, during any part of trial and they can not knowingly put a witness on the stand when they know that witness is going to lie. Your lack common sense amazes me.

lilmiss1960, TPG NEVER SAID THAT the prosections opening statement held any weight. You are claiming things that were never said by that poster.

Sorry for the typo - I believe you meant prosecutions

[One2Snoop]

I love this quote because it's the truth:

"The lawyer is the devil's advocate. Lawyers' profession is one of private interests, not of morality. He is paid, he pleads for his clients. Such is the logic and morality of a lawyer." Quote by: Ion Iliescu



If lawyers told the truth, every single one of their guilty clients would be convicted.

IMO

This is something I can agree with. :beer: In good conscious I could not lie. I would fail miserably as a defense attorney. IMO

[One2Snoop]

I'm_back!Iwasupsetearlierandtookitoutonmykeyboarda ndnowmyspacebardoesnotwork,butohwellIguessIwillhav etogetanewone.

WhatdoesIMOstandfor?I-was-just-curious-because-you-are-asking
if
miss1960-if-what-she-posted-was-her-opinion-or-fact.I-see-a-wholel-otofIMO's-in-her-post.

Lavindar,I-really-think-you-need-to-stop-accusing-me-of-where-I-am-getting-information-because-you-are-wrong.If-I-get-permission,I-wil-lpost-the-site,but-I-better-wait-because-I-don't-want-to-make-anyone-upset-because-it-is-not-testimony.

IMO stands for In My Opinion.

[accordn2me]

What is the matter with [a couple of] you people!? I leave for a little while then I come back and y'all are writing with dashes between every word and gigantic font.....

[adnoid]

What is the matter with [a couple of] you people!?...

I don't know WHAT it is, but I'm sure it's hard to pronounce.

[accordn2me]

I don't know WHAT it is, but I'm sure it's hard to pronounce.

I don't care how hard it is to pronounce........or how severe the lack of creativity and writing skills..........if a CAPITAL CRIME, such as the one SLP perpetrated against Laci, is committed...the death penalty should follow.

That's not hard to follow, is it?

[Lavindar]

I don't care how hard it is to pronounce........or how severe the lack of creativity and writing skills..........if a CAPITAL CRIME, such as the one SLP perpetrated against Laci, is committed...the death penalty should follow.

That's not hard to follow, is it?NOPE - Not at all!!!!!

[USAHICK]

Of course, the judge has no choice but to either investigate and resolve the matter WITHOUT removing a juror during DELIBERATIONS or declare a mistrial..!! Delucchi just wanted to have a verdict at all cost...that's my opinion..

Apparently the judge does have choices you are unaware of. The results speak for themselves, and am I understanding you correctly, in that you are now blaming Judge Delucchi for DRISP's conviction? Is there anyone in this picture, other than the killer, you haven't blamed?

[deputydi]

Apparently the judge does have choices you are unaware of. The results speak for themselves, and am I understanding you correctly, in that you are now blaming Judge Delucchi for DRISP's conviction? Is there anyone in this picture, other than the killer, you haven't blamed?
Of course the Judge has choices. These are NOT the first jurors in history to have been removed during deliberations. No one likes to do it, but it is certainly not unheard of.

[USAHICK]

Pardon my flippant and yes, imaginary scenario of Judge Delucchi questioning (investigating) the other jurors about juror 5's (second #5) request to be dismissed. Did you miss the previous posts?


Why are you so cranky?:mad:

[Lavindar]

I do believe FratPak has arrived.

who is girl-without-frear????

[adnoid]

who is girl-without-frear????

Got me. Nobody registered on this board by that name.

[USAHICK]

What is a "frear"?

Another way to say freak. :tongue:

[Miss Bootsie]

I've had many thing rust shut.. sometimes they can't be opened and sometimes I just have trouble opening them all the way...

kinda like what the testimony was..



and you're still ignoring the testimony that says when she got them they were closed..




how can you infer anything other than they were rusted and they were closed?

am I'm the one who's reaching in the other thread b/c I don't believe the testimony? lol..:tongue:

What?? Why would anyone ignore testimony that the pliers were closed?
Are you trying to say a pair of pliers won't close unless they are rusted shut?
I have a pair of pliers in my storage room cabinet and they are in a closed position.
Guess what......Not one trace of rust on those pliers.;)

.
The pliers were not corroded and rusted when found in the boat.

You don't believe the testimony? Now, why is that not a surprise to me.:tongue:

[Miss Bootsie]

Originally Posted by ekg
I've had many thing rust shut.. sometimes they can't be opened and sometimes I just have trouble opening them all the way...

kinda like what the testimony was..



and you're still ignoring the testimony that says when she got them they were closed..




how can you infer anything other than they were rusted and they were closed?

am I'm the one who's reaching in the other thread b/c I don't believe the testimony? lol..

What?? Why would anyone ignore testimony that the pliers were closed?
Are you trying to say a pair of pliers won't close unless they are rusted shut?
I have a pair of pliers in my storage room cabinet and they are in a closed position.
Guess what......Not one trace of rust on those pliers.;)

.
The pliers were not corroded and rusted when found in the boat.

You don't believe the testimony? Now, why is that not a surprise to me.:tongue:

Oh, so you have had things rust that can't be opened or trouble opening them all the way - kinda like the testimony.

So, you have had things rust that can't be opened, because you exposed them to salt water, took them directly from the salt water, and stored them in a plastic bag for months.:eek:




HARRIS: Now, the photograph that's up there is 120 A. The testimony is that that photograph was taken on December 27th and that those pliers were found in the bottom of a boat in which there was water that was collected. If that was saltwater that these pliers had been exposed to, does that cause corrosion or rust to happen on pliers?

HARRIS: So they're just placed into a bag and preserved or stored until the next time you look at them

YOSHIDA: Yes.

[TopGunner]

Really?! Scott reported the burglary at around 7:45 pm on Jan 19, 2003, he told them that things were missing but someone also left a cut-off pair of black sweatpants on his bed that did not belong to him or Laci...IMO, that totally refutes the notion that he wanted to make it look like it was Laci that snuck back into the house...the next day when Brocchini found out that Kim McGregor was the one that broke into the house, Scott told Brocchini that the cut-off sweatpants could belong to McGregor, Brocchini asked McGregor about them, but he testified that he couldn't get her to admit they were hers...



Is this the same burglary that ISP accused Ron, Brent, or Dennis of committing (to his parents), AFTER he was told by the LE that it was Kim?

[adnoid]

Is this the same burglary that ISP accused Ron, Brent, or Dennis of committing (to his parents), AFTER he was told by the LE that it was Kim?

That would be the one.

I await the explanation of how making that accusation was gentlemanly and admirable on Scott's part and is further proof of his innocence.

[I'mSun]

That would be the one.

I await the explanation of how making that accusation was gentlemanly and admirable on Scott's part and is further proof of his innocence.Stay tuned. I heard that was scheduled for the 7:00 pm discussion. :D

[thinkaboutit]

is there anywhere I can look at these pics? thats the one thing I don't have a link to.... the evidence pics...

thanks.

Here are the pics EKG:

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/214B.JPG

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/120A.jpg

I'm really not sure how you can tell how much rust is on the pliers in 120A.

This one was also taken on February 24th - and looks to me alot like 120A;

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/Dexhibits/6C-1.jpg

GERAGOS: How about this picture right here, and that was, for the record, D 6 C 1. All of those that were taken in that series were on February 24th?

YOSHIDA: Yes.

[Lavindar]

Here are the pics EKG:

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/214B.JPG

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/120A.jpg

I'm really not sure how you can tell how much rust is on the pliers in 120A.

This one was also taken on February 24th - and looks to me alot like 120A;

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/Dexhibits/6C-1.jpg

TAI, how are you getting those evidence pictures from that site? Everytime I click on a link to them, they are "not found"

[Sturgeon_Moon]

TAI, how are you getting those evidence pictures from that site? Everytime I click on a link to them, they are "not found"
Are you a member?

[I'mSun]

TAI, how are you getting those evidence pictures from that site? Every time I click on a link to them, they are "not found"I was able to get the pliers, but on the other 2 links all I got was 403 Error.

[Lavindar]

Are you a member?
A member of what?

[I'mSun]

Are you a member?Is that like asking, "Are you a turtle?" :D

[One2Snoop]

I was able to get the pliers, but on the other 2 links all I got was 403 Error.

I was able to view the first one and the other two tell me 403 Forbidden! :eek: It kind of skeered me there for a minute because I thought I did something wrong.

[Lavindar]

Is this the same burglary that ISP accused Ron, Brent, or Dennis of committing (to his parents), AFTER he was told by the LE that it was Kim?


Yes and I was thinking the same thing. How low will Scott go - murderinig his wife isn't bad enough, he has to get his digs into the family too.

[Lavindar]

I was able to view the first one and the other two tell me 403 Forbidden! :eek: It kind of skeered me there for a minute because I thought I did something wrong.

I think Marlene must have removed all photos from her site on this case as I get that error whenever I go to her links

[Miss Bootsie]

Photo exhibits of the pliers. I retrieved the photos from SII.
I enlarged 214B and 120A as much as possible by utilizing the feature available on the site. ;)


214B was taken by Yoshida in February of 2003.
Obvious rust and severe corrosion:

120A was taken December 27, 2002, when the pliers were found in the boat.
No corrosion - Note the dark color of the metal


Taken by Yoshida in February of 2003
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c384/3232mypic/214B.jpg214B

Pliers when found in the boat on December 27, 2002
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c384/3232mypic/120A.jpg

[Hey Paula]

I think Marlene must have removed all photos from her site on this case as I get that error whenever I go to her links

You can view all documents and photos by going to this link first, then clicking from the categories listed on the left-hand side to whatever you want to view and/or read:

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/

[enlightenme]

Thanks for posting the pics Miss Bootsie. Those pliers look completely different. The Feb 2003 one is definitely more rusted.

Besides, didn't Brocchini commit a serious sin by checking the pliers for a root on the hair? That's when the NGs claim that a single hair "magically turned into two hairs"? It seems he didn't have any problem opening them then.

[Miss Bootsie]

And then we have the testimony.
It's very clear the pliers were not rusted shut when found in the boat.

In fact, I don't see much rust, if any at all, on the pliers in photo 120A.
I see that the top side of the tarnished pliers were scuffed from use, exposing bright metal.



HARRIS: Now, putting up this particular photograph, 120 A, and 214 B, does there appear to be some changes that's occurred in the pliers

YOSHIDA: Yes.

HARRIS: What's occurred

YOSHIDA: Looks like some corrosion has occurred. You have some white material forming over the metal. There's obvious signs of rust in my photograph that I took. Looks like that, looks like from, from here.

HARRIS: Now, when was it that you actually did the comparison

HARRIS: Now, when was it that you actually did the comparison or the analysis of these particular pliers

YOSHIDA: I believe it was February 23rd, but referring to my notes...excuse me, February 24th.

HARRIS: February 24th?

JUDGE: What year?

GERAGOS: 03







]

[Miss Bootsie]

TAI, how are you getting those evidence pictures from that site? Everytime I click on a link to them, they are "not found"

I was able to pull up photo 214B by clicking on the link, but unable to pull up photo 120A.

I am curious why the link for 214B worked, but the link for 120A didn't work.:confused:

TAI, Any idea why that particular link in your post worked, but the other two links didn't work?

[adnoid]

TAI, how are you getting those evidence pictures from that site? Everytime I click on a link to them, they are "not found"

When you click on a link, the site you go to gets various pieces of information about you, including the site you came from. The person running the site can see this information and can deny access to people coming from certain places, or force them to go through the site's home page. Typically this is done at sites where there are advertisements that the site owner wants you to see, but it can also be done by paranoid control freaks.

Some time ago a site - I think it was SII, but I may be mistaken - decreed that their members could not read at other boards. The site owner posted a link on another board going back to the SII (IIRC) board, then watched who followed the link. Anyone who did and was a registered used was banned on the spot.

[deputydi]

<snip>Some time ago a site - I think it was SII, but I may be mistaken - decreed that their members could not read at other boards. The site owner posted a link on another board going back to the SII (IIRC) board, then watched who followed the link. Anyone who did and was a registered used was banned on the spot.
Are you serious???? That is the ultimate in paranoid behavior ------- and total desperation.

[adnoid]

Are you serious???? That is the ultimate in paranoid behavior ------- and total desperation.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

[thinkaboutit]

Are you a member?


A member? LOL! Ask some people on here and they'll tell you I AM Marlene.

Thank you to Miss Bootsie for posting the pics and proving that you don't need to be a member to view the photos from that site. Here's the pic of the pliers taken in February from the defense exhibits. Doesn't look all that different than the one taken in December to me.

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/Dexhibits/6C-1.jpg

[thinkaboutit]

Thanks for posting the pics Miss Bootsie. Those pliers look completely different. The Feb 2003 one is definitely more rusted.

Besides, didn't Brocchini commit a serious sin by checking the pliers for a root on the hair? That's when the NGs claim that a single hair "magically turned into two hairs"? It seems he didn't have any problem opening them then.

Brocchini never touched or opened the pliers - at least not that he ever admitted. :D

Well...Hendee said he saw one hair in the pliers - opened the pliers - dropped it in the envelope - looked in - saw that the hair had fallen into the envelope and closed the envelope. Then he went on vacation without telling anyone he had found a hair. Brocchini realized a hair was found - not from reviewing the list of evidence items in the six weeks that had transpired since the hair was found - but by looking at a picture of some pliers found. (Sounds like genius policework to me) Brocchini decided to check for a root on the hair found and when he opened the envelope, two hairs fell out. :shrug: Not one hair split into two - two individual hairs. That was the testimony. One thing I am sure of... there was no magic involved.

[thinkaboutit]

I was able to pull up photo 214B by clicking on the link, but unable to pull up photo 120A.

I am curious why the link for 214B worked, but the link for 120A didn't work.:confused:

TAI, Any idea why that particular link in your post worked, but the other two links didn't work?


I have no idea - I got both of them from the same place - in the same manner.

[USAHICK]

Brocchini never touched or opened the pliers - at least not that he ever admitted. :D

Well...Hendee said he saw one hair in the pliers - opened the pliers - dropped it in the envelope - looked in - saw that the hair had fallen into the envelope and closed the envelope. Then he went on vacation without telling anyone he had found a hair. Brocchini realized a hair was found - not from reviewing the list of evidence items in the six weeks that had transpired since the hair was found - but by looking at a picture of some pliers found. (Sounds like genius policework to me) Brocchini decided to check for a root on the hair found and when he opened the envelope, two hairs fell out. :shrug: Not one hair split into two - two individual hairs. That was the testimony. One thing I am sure of... there was no magic involved.


ITA - the murderer sits on death row. It was INDEED genius police work.

A hair split, SO? I mean seriously, SO WHAT? It's not like the twin towers fell down, but you'd never know it the way people chew on this. Scott Lee Peterson murdered his wife and his son. A split hair, forgotten in an envelope for 2 months in the MIDSTS OF MADNESS is really just so incredibly REACHING..........surely you can do better.:shrug:

[thinkaboutit]

ITA - the murderer sits on death row. It was INDEED genius police work.

A hair split, SO? I mean seriously, SO WHAT? It's not like the twin towers fell down, but you'd never know it the way people chew on this. Scott Lee Peterson murdered his wife and his son. A split hair, forgotten in an envelope for 2 months in the MIDSTS OF MADNESS is really just so incredibly REACHING..........surely you can do better.:shrug:

Are you sure it was a "split hair" and not two hairs?

[aingael]

Are you sure it was a "split hair" and not two hairs?

There is no way of telling by the naked eye if the hair that came out of the envelope was on hair split in two or two hairs.

If it were two hairs it would have been easy to discern this under a microscope as well as if it was one hair split in two.

Obviously, in my opinion, it was one hair that broke in two, if it wasn’t MG would have been all over it.

[thinkaboutit]

There is no way of telling by the naked eye if the hair that came out of the envelope was on hair split in two or two hairs.

If it were two hairs it would have been easy to discern this under a microscope as well as if it was one hair split in two.

Obviously, in my opinion, it was one hair that broke in two, if it wasn’t MG would have been all over it.


Prosecution Witness #88: Rodney Oswalt, Criminalist CA DOJ Lab, Ripon



JUDGE: Okay. Can I ask the witness a question? Mr. Oswalt, based on your examination did you form an opinion as to whether or not this was originally one hair or was it your opinion that it was originally two hairs?

OSWALT: My opinion is that they came from two hairs.

JUDGE: There were two separate hairs?

OSWALT: That is my opinion.

JUDGE: Not one hair that fell apart?

OSWALT: It's possible, but not probable.

JUDGE: Okay.

[Luke Davis]

Is that like asking, "Are you a turtle?" :D
I think some people link to sites where they are members, like Yahoo, MSN, etc. I link to Yahoo sometimes and get complaints because some can't see it.:shrug:

[Lavindar]

I think some people link to sites where they are members, like Yahoo, MSN, etc. I link to Yahoo sometimes and get complaints because some can't see it.:shrug: I think those links are ok - it's the links to chat boards where people say anything they please with no documentation that are a bad thing to do.

[I'mSun]

I think some people link to sites where they are members, like Yahoo, MSN, etc. I link to Yahoo sometimes and get complaints because some can't see it.:shrug:Thanks, Luke. That site isn't a membership type site. Seems they just prefer people to use the 'front' door, for whatever reason. My comment, however, was just being silly - nothing more.

[TopGunner]

Thanks, Luke. That site isn't a membership type site. Seems they just prefer people to use the 'front' door, for whatever reason. My comment, however, was just being silly - nothing more.


"Front door"...........? LOL!:tongue:

[adnoid]

"Front door"...........? LOL!:tongue:


:beer: I totally agree! Good point!

[adnoid]

Thanks, Luke. That site isn't a membership type site. Seems they just prefer people to use the 'front' door, for whatever reason. My comment, however, was just being silly - nothing more.


:beer: I totally agree! Good point!

[adnoid]

I think those links are ok - it's the links to chat boards where people say anything they please with no documentation that are a bad thing to do.


:beer: I totally agree! Good point!

[deputydi]

Pardon me, but where is the evidence that points to other suspects? All points lead right to Scott. If there is evidence not posted here, why hasn't it been brought forth to help Scott? :shrug:
You're right. There is none -- but the NG posters believe just about everyone (except Scott, of course) were bold faced liars under oath. Everyone (again, except Scott) are suspects.

BTW, WELCOME.

[thinkaboutit]

You're right. There is none -- but the NG posters believe just about everyone (except Scott, of course) were bold faced liars under oath. Everyone (again, except Scott) are suspects.

BTW, WELCOME.

I feel compelled to point out that Jackie Peterson has been called a liar. Lee Peterson has been called a liar. Mark Geragos has been called a liar. Scott Peterson has been called a liar. Marlene Newell has been called a liar. I've even been called a liar. It's been said that Matt Dalton is full of it. Not to mention I've heard it said numerous times on this board that none of the witnesses that said they saw Laci walking the morning of the 24th should be believed because they weren't called to testify. Oh yes - and Lt. Aponte shouldn't be believed either because he preferred his interview not be recorded. And none of these accusations/statements were made by NG's.

Of course Jackie Peterson is not to be believed - about anything.....UNLESS...of course it helps the prosecution's case - like the supposed - everyone know's Laci's cell has been dead for weeks comment.

And nothing Scott says is to be believed...UNLESS - it's something that can be twisted to sound sinister...like the I was hoping for infertility comment....or the I don't want any kids of my own line told to Amber.

Heavy sigh.....

edited to add:

There you go - see previous post - now the NG's lie too.

[cookiewench]

I feel compelled to point out that Jackie Peterson has been called a liar. Lee Peterson has been called a liar. Mark Geragos has been called a liar. Scott Peterson has been called a liar.


Yeppers. That's a fact

[I'mSun]

I feel compelled to point out that Jackie Peterson has been called a liar. Lee Peterson has been called a liar. Mark Geragos has been called a liar. Scott Peterson has been called a liar. Marlene Newell has been called a liar. I've even been called a liar. It's been said that Matt Dalton is full of it.
*snip*
Of course Jackie Peterson is not to be believed - about anything......That pretty much sums it up!

[thinkaboutit]

That pretty much sums it up!

Why bother to snip my post? Unless of course you are trying to make it appear that I said something I didn't say. You forgot to write snipped after "anything....." or did you?

What I said:

Of course Jackie Peterson is not to be believed - about anything.....UNLESS...of course it helps the prosecution's case - like the supposed - everyone know's Laci's cell has been dead for weeks comment.

And nothing Scott says is to be believed...UNLESS - it's something that can be twisted to sound sinister...like the I was hoping for infertility comment....or the I don't want any kids of my own line told to Amber.



according to the OP - if I might add

[USAHICK]

I feel compelled to point out that Jackie Peterson has been called a liar. Lee Peterson has been called a liar. Mark Geragos has been called a liar. Scott Peterson has been called a liar. Marlene Newell has been called a liar. I've even been called a liar. It's been said that Matt Dalton is full of it. Not to mention I've heard it said numerous times on this board that none of the witnesses that said they saw Laci walking the morning of the 24th should be believed because they weren't called to testify. Oh yes - and Lt. Aponte shouldn't be believed either because he preferred his interview not be recorded. And none of these accusations/statements were made by NG's.

Of course Jackie Peterson is not to be believed - about anything.....UNLESS...of course it helps the prosecution's case - like the supposed - everyone know's Laci's cell has been dead for weeks comment.

And nothing Scott says is to be believed...UNLESS - it's something that can be twisted to sound sinister...like the I was hoping for infertility comment....or the I don't want any kids of my own line told to Amber.

Heavy sigh.....

edited to add:

There you go - see previous post - now the NG's lie too.


Oh cry me a river. The above is 100% accurate, they have nobody to blame but themselves. Expecting people to tip toe around the murder and those that covered for him, no, LIED for him is bs. Look for sympathy elsewhere.

[USAHICK]

Prosecution Witness #88: Rodney Oswalt, Criminalist CA DOJ Lab, Ripon


This isn't what I read last night, I read that the two hairs were completely similar except for color, which could be attributed to one piece being closer to the head.

This means and proves nothing. Nothing at all.

[thinkaboutit]

Oh cry me a river. The above is 100% accurate, they have nobody to blame but themselves. Expecting people to tip toe around the murder and those that covered for him, no, LIED for him is bs. Look for sympathy elsewhere.

You think I'm looking for sympathy? I think you missed my point completely.

[thinkaboutit]

This isn't what I read last night, I read that the two hairs were completely similar except for color, which could be attributed to one piece being closer to the head.

This means and proves nothing. Nothing at all.

A prosecution witness saying that it was two hairs - not one that split in two - proves nothing? Ignore it if you want - it's there....I didn't make it up...in fact I quoted it. You on the contrary, provided no testimony at all.

[thinkaboutit]

It does. <cheers>

The Ps aren't just in denial, they are the root of Scott turning out to be a cold blooded killer. They lie for him to excuse his vile actions. If that offends some here, but it is what it is. The NGs have been doing exactly the same; excuse Scott's behavior and blame his actions on anyone you can think of. That isn't what I call "honest". Even the title of this thread is misleading, imo. There is no evidence that points to other suspects.

There IS evidence that points to other suspects.

What you say about the Petersons doesn't offend me - because it just simply isn't true.

[accordn2me]

There IS evidence that points to other suspects.
What you say about the Petersons doesn't offend me - because it just simply isn't true. [my bold]

Just a quick little ;) list, if you don't mind. You can leave the burglars out. They were cleared.

[I'mSun]

[my bold]

Just a quick little ;) list, if you don't mind. You can leave the burglars out. They were cleared.
Good to see you, A2me!! I've missed you a lot.
Yep, you are correct - the burglars were cleared, and there is no way they could have abducted her anyway.

[I'mSun]

Oh cry me a river. The above is 100% accurate, they have nobody to blame but themselves. Expecting people to tip toe around the murder and those that covered for him, no, LIED for him is bs. Look for sympathy elsewhere.You are exactly right,. Hick! :beer:

[I'mSun]

It does. <cheers>

The Ps aren't just in denial, they are the root of Scott turning out to be a cold blooded killer. They lie for him to excuse his vile actions. If that offends some here, but it is what it is. The NGs have been doing exactly the same; excuse Scott's behavior and blame his actions on anyone you can think of. That isn't what I call "honest". Even the title of this thread is misleading, imo. There is no evidence that points to other suspects.Hi Peachy, and welcome to the forum. :seeya:
ITA with what you said. People can make excuses for Scott's behavior all they want, but that doesn't change the fact that he killed Laci and Conner.

[accordn2me]

Good to see you, A2me!! I've missed you a lot.
Yep, you are correct - the burglars were cleared, and there is no way they could have abducted her anyway.Hey Sun! :seeya: I've missed y'all bunches too!

Now that I've got tickets home.....I really need to buckle down and get my ducks in a row. Read the "blowing steam" thread and see if you have any suggestions for me and Buddy. He's just one thing I've got to deal with. The other is I have about 4 hundred pounds of stuff and a one hundred pound limit on baggage. I'll leave it all if they just won't mess with me about Buddy! :no:

[I'mSun]

Hey Sun! :seeya: I've missed y'all bunches too!

Now that I've got tickets home.....I really need to buckle down and get my ducks in a row. Read the "blowing steam" thread and see if you have any suggestions for me and Buddy. He's just one thing I've got to deal with. The other is I have about 4 hundred pounds of stuff and a one hundred pound limit on baggage. I'll leave it all if they just won't mess with me about Buddy! :no:If it was up to me, I'd just stay right there in Paradise :D (Since the boat IS registered, you don't have to worry about that aspect...) OK, being serious here, I read the 'venting' post - I'll see what I can come up with for you.

[TopGunner]

Pardon me, but where is the evidence that points to other suspects? All points lead right to Scott. If there is evidence not posted here, why hasn't it been brought forth to help Scott? :shrug:



Hey Peachy, love your posts. I think ISP remains on DR because all the exonerating evidence is, ummm, classified information. This would also explain why we haven't heard any. :D

[Otter]

There IS evidence that points to other suspects.

What you say about the Petersons doesn't offend me - because it just simply isn't true.

Really? Let's hear it! Pray tell, who? That's why I'm still on this board to hear alternative theories. Still waiting to hear one that makes any sense. MOO.

The P's didn't lie? Yikes. See, that sort of statement makes me discount other suspects put forth by advocates, as if there was one that had some meat behind an allegation. But that's just me. :)

Oh wait, wasn't it posted ages ago on this board that you couldn't "tell" anyone.

[TopGunner]

Really? Let's hear it! Pray tell, who? That's why I'm still on this board to hear alternative theories. Still waiting to hear one that makes any sense. MOO.

The P's didn't lie? Yikes. See, that sort of statement makes me discount other suspects put forth by advocates, as if there was one that had some meat behind an allegation. But that's just me. :)

Oh wait, wasn't it posted ages ago on this board that you couldn't "tell" anyone.



The P's didn't lie??????? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OMG, TOO FUNNY!!!!!!!:biggrin: Hahahaha, next thing we'll hear is the KERMIT EXPERIMENT was legit!!!!!! LOLOLOL!!!

[adnoid]

...That's why I'm still on this board to hear alternative theories. Still waiting to hear one that makes any sense...

Look missy, no cutting in line. I'm almost 3 years in front of you and I'm still waiting.

...The P's didn't lie? ...

Yep. Also, the check's in the mail, I'll respect you in the morning, and we're from the government and we're here to help.

[adnoid]

...next thing we'll hear is the KERMIT EXPERIMENT was legit...

Let me make this perfectly clear - there will be absolutely NO monkey bumping. This is a family thread.

Oh, almost forgot: :beer: I totally agree! Great post!

[I'mSun]

The P's didn't lie??????? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OMG, TOO FUNNY!!!!!!!:biggrin: Hahahaha, next thing we'll hear is the KERMIT EXPERIMENT was legit!!!!!! LOLOLOL!!!Jeeze, I hope nobody would ever believe that the stupid, non-scientific tossing of Kermit and friends into the bay was anything other than entertainment for the person who did it, and her couple of followers. It was so dumb... IMO, of course.

[TopGunner]

Look missy, no cutting in line. I'm almost 3 years in front of you and I'm still waiting.



Yep. Also, the check's in the mail, I'll respect you in the morning, and we're from the government and we're here to help.



TG <---------------- On the floor!!! :tongue: :seeya:

[thinkaboutit]

Go ahead - keep LYAO.

First in line - now that's funny....I do believe you would definitely be at the back of the line.

Yes....the Marlene and the Jackie bashing says volumes to me.

[Otter]

Go ahead - keep LYAO.

First in line - now that's funny....I do believe you would definitely be at the back of the line.

Yes....the Marlene and the Jackie bashing says volumes to me.

Tai, in this discourse, the only time this Marlene has been brought up is her well self-documented experiment of throwing stuffed toys into SFB. She was so proud of herself to the point of giddieness! What are sensible people expected to think? It was, IMO, nonsense.

Chill! Listen to your own advise.

There IS evidence that points to other suspects.

What you say about the Petersons doesn't offend me - because it just simply isn't true.

I asked before, that's why I'm here! What IS this evidence that points to other suspects? Who???

And IMO, you do seem offended. You asked Lav if she knows Sharon, do you know Jackie? :seeya:

[thinkaboutit]

Really? Let's hear it! Pray tell, who? That's why I'm still on this board to hear alternative theories. Still waiting to hear one that makes any sense. MOO.

The P's didn't lie? Yikes. See, that sort of statement makes me discount other suspects put forth by advocates, as if there was one that had some meat behind an allegation. But that's just me. :)

Oh wait, wasn't it posted ages ago on this board that you couldn't "tell" anyone.

When did I say this??

[thinkaboutit]

Tai, in this discourse, the only time this Marlene has been brought up is her well self-documented experiment of throwing stuffed toys into SFB. She was so proud of herself to the point of giddieness! What are sensible people expected to think? It was, IMO, nonsense.

Chill! Listen to your own advise.



I asked before, that's why I'm here! What IS this evidence that points to other suspects? Who???

And IMO, you do seem offended. You asked Lav if she knows Sharon, do you know Jackie? :seeya:


I'm chilled. No - I do not know Jackie Peterson.

[I'mSun]

Go ahead - keep LYAO.

First in line - now that's funny....I do believe you would definitely be at the back of the line.

Yes....the Marlene and the Jackie bashing says volumes to me.Oh? What does it say to you? We are bashing a nonsense, non-scientific "experiment" conducted by Marlene tossing stuffed dolls into the SFB that were supposed to replicate humans. Sorry, but that just doesn't get it.

What I see, however, is you attacking a poster here (see your quote). Surely you know that is not acceptable.

[thinkaboutit]

Oh? What does it say to you? We are bashing a nonsense, non-scientific "experiment" conducted by Marlene tossing stuffed dolls into the SFB that were supposed to replicate humans. Sorry, but that just doesn't get it.

What I see, however, is you attacking a poster here (see your quote). Surely you know that is not acceptable.


Actually - that comment wasn't directed at one certain poster - which is why I didn't quote anyone - I simply meant the non-advocates will be the last to know.

Please I'mSun - that was an attack? There have been much worse attacks on me on this board - and you know it - so does FW. How about earlier - when you left the part of my post about me being called a liar (among other people) - and saying - yep - that about sums it up - or something to that affect?

It really gets tiring and very frustrating when I have to keep posting the same things over and over again. When people post things like - where is all this exonerating evidence...why haven't we heard about it yet - oh yeah - you can't tell. I've said over and over again - you won't hear about it. The appeals process takes time and if there is exonerating evidence - the Petersons will not leak it to the media.

And the NG's get mocked for starting this thread. And when we post our theories or our other suspects - people start LTAO....so why would we continue to do so?

[Riviera]

Let's get back on topic please -----> Evidence that points to other suspects

[I'mSun]

Let's get back on topic please -----> Evidence that points to other suspects Sorry. I'll get right back now.
Evidence that points to other suspects - IMO there isn't any. I believe Scott is 100% guilty.

[Lavindar]

I'm chilled. No - I do not know Jackie Peterson.
I consider that a plus for you. She won't be trying to take any of your things then. "We want those" was her mantra.

[One2Snoop]

Sorry. I'll get right back now.
Evidence that points to other suspects - IMO there isn't any. I believe Scott is 100% guilty.


Don't be sorry I'm Sun, I completely agree :beer: unfortunately there will always be someone out there who doesn't agree and if their wasn't, what would we have to discuss? LOL Not trying to get all philosophical on you or anything.:hat:

[I'mSun]

Don't be sorry I'm Sun, I completely agree :beer: unfortunately there will always be someone out there who doesn't agree and if their wasn't, what would we have to discuss? LOL Not trying to get all philosophical on you or anything.:hat:
THanks Snoop. You are right - there will always be opposing views.

[USAHICK]

Happy hump day everyone! ITA, they have been. Where is the evidence that points to other suspects? Simply saying there is without backing it bringing forth isn't honest. If there was we would have heard it by now. Why hasn't this big secret freed Scott? :confused:

Peachy there isn't any evidence that points anywhere other than DRISP. Alot has been thrown at the wall but so far, not even a single noodle stuck. In fact the more I hear about kermit experiments, a drive being wrong by 3 mintues, lawns to cross, when was bread bought, burglars that steal people, bring them home to change their clothing - and do not STEAL the expensive jewelry in the victims home, bench or no bench, were the mops at the front door or back door: THE MORE CONVINCED I AM THAT HE'S 100 PERCENT GUILTY OF TWO COUNTS OF PREMEDITATED FIRST DEGREE MURDER.

[JustMyOpinion]

Peachy there isn't any evidence that points anywhere other than DRISP. Alot has been thrown at the wall but so far, not even a single noodle stuck. In fact the more I hear about kermit experiments, a drive being wrong by 3 mintues, lawns to cross, when was bread bought, burglars that steal people, bring them home to change their clothing - and do not STEAL the expensive jewelry in the victims home, bench or no bench, were the mops at the front door or back door: THE MORE CONVINCED I AM THAT HE'S 100 PERCENT GUILTY OF TWO COUNTS OF PREMEDITATED FIRST DEGREE MURDER.

I was already convinced by the evidence beyond a reasonable and lingering doubt that Peterson murdered his wife & unborn baby. But yes, I do agree that kermit experiments, lawns to cross, 3 min drive errors, bread, burglars who kidnap and pass off to accomplices who murder, perform crude surgery store decomposing bodies in separate places, transport decomposing bodies 90 miles away to deposit in two separate locations, etc...the more I am 100 percent convinced that IF Peterson ever has a successful appeal which results in a new trial, he will simply be convicted again based on the State's same, compelling evidence......JMO

[Lavindar]

Peachy there isn't any evidence that points anywhere other than DRISP. Alot has been thrown at the wall but so far, not even a single noodle stuck. In fact the more I hear about kermit experiments, a drive being wrong by 3 mintues, lawns to cross, when was bread bought, burglars that steal people, bring them home to change their clothing - and do not STEAL the expensive jewelry in the victims home, bench or no bench, were the mops at the front door or back door: THE MORE CONVINCED I AM THAT HE'S 100 PERCENT GUILTY OF TWO COUNTS OF PREMEDITATED FIRST DEGREE MURDER.
I Just thought of something on that KS thing. Her time she estimated putting the dog in the yard was at 10:18...and people are saying she couldn't have done what she did in that time. Fine, let's go with their theory that it took longer - then she would have put the dog in the yard when? 10am maybe. That gives someone less than 12 minutes to abduct Laci. Anything earlier than 10:18 helps the prosecution, so maybe it's time they don't make an issue of it anymore.

[USAHICK]

I Just thought of something on that KS thing. Her time she estimated putting the dog in the yard was at 10:18...and people are saying she couldn't have done what she did in that time. Fine, let's go with their theory that it took longer - then she would have put the dog in the yard when? 10am maybe. That gives someone less than 12 minutes to abduct Laci. Anything earlier than 10:18 helps the prosecution, so maybe it's time they don't make an issue of it anymore.


LOL - great point Lavindar! :beer:

[accordn2me]

Jeeze, I hope nobody would ever believe that the stupid, non-scientific tossing of Kermit and friends into the bay was anything other than entertainment for the person who did it, and her couple of followers. It was so dumb... IMO, of course.Ah, it's a sad day when I have to disagree with my fellow SIGs and come out in favor of the "other side." Here it is, officially:

I think the Kermit/monkey/doll experiment was a good one from the tiny bit of research [non-scientific] that I did on it. Kermit, Conner's representative, landed nearly on top of the very spot Conner was found! :eek: Kermit passed over the jetty no problem and dropped just inches away from Conner's final resting place. Yet one more thing that was presented by the "defense" that actually helped prove the allegations against SLP are not only possible, but true.

[attorneywan2be]

I Just thought of something on that KS thing. Her time she estimated putting the dog in the yard was at 10:18...and people are saying she couldn't have done what she did in that time. Fine, let's go with their theory that it took longer - then she would have put the dog in the yard when? 10am maybe. That gives someone less than 12 minutes to abduct Laci. Anything earlier than 10:18 helps the prosecution, so maybe it's time they don't make an issue of it anymore.

Except that you are overlooking the theories that have been posted here by the NG's...for example, some NGs theorized that Karen might have found McKenzie when she returned home between 11:45 am and noon...it's possible...and IMO, the prosecution didn't prove that the time on Austin's receipt was accurate..so I think it's possible she found the dog around 10:30 as she originally stated..then made her purchase later than 10:34..I don't consider her a credible witness..I don't give any weight to her timeline..

[deputydi]

I Just thought of something on that KS thing. Her time she estimated putting the dog in the yard was at 10:18...and people are saying she couldn't have done what she did in that time. Fine, let's go with their theory that it took longer - then she would have put the dog in the yard when? 10am maybe. That gives someone less than 12 minutes to abduct Laci. Anything earlier than 10:18 helps the prosecution, so maybe it's time they don't make an issue of it anymore.
Actually, less time than that. Remember Scott's cell phone was tracked at 10:08 just a few miles from his home. At 10:00 he would have just been leaving his house.

I just thought of something I wanted to add. Why is it that the NGs are hopping all over the lies told by just about everyone who testified, yet none have addressed Scott's LIE about what time he left his house that morning. He originally told the detectives he left at 9:30 and didn't change it until confronted with evidence to the contrary.

[deputydi]

Except that you are overlooking the theories that have been posted here by the NG's...for example, some NGs theorized that Karen might have found McKenzie when she returned home between 11:45 am and noon...it's possible...and IMO, the prosecution didn't prove that the time on Austin's receipt was accurate..so I think it's possible she found the dog around 10:30 as she originally stated..then made her purchase later than 10:34..I don't consider her a credible witness..I don't give any weight to her timeline..
I guess that is possible, but it's something the defense never questioned -- therefore, it can't be used in an appeal. Besides, don't you think she would have remembered whether she was backing OUT of her driveway or pulling IN?

[TopGunner]

Actually, less time than that. Remember Scott's cell phone was tracked at 10:08 just a few miles from his home. At 10:00 he would have just been leaving his house.



But...but....BUT DD! Of course the receipt machine was wrong, the towers failed, Servas lied, and ISP once again is just a poor innocent victim of circumstances and conspiracy. tsk...tsk!
:patriot:

[adnoid]

Ah, it's a sad day when I have to disagree with my fellow SIGs and come out in favor of the "other side." Here it is, officially:

I think the Kermit/monkey/doll experiment was a good one from the tiny bit of research [non-scientific] that I did on it. Kermit, Conner's representative, landed nearly on top of the very spot Conner was found! :eek: Kermit passed over the jetty no problem and dropped just inches away from Conner's final resting place. Yet one more thing that was presented by the "defense" that actually helped prove the allegations against SLP are not only possible, but true.

Did you read the whole thing? After all that, she draws the conclusion that Conner COULD NOT have washed up.

How I have NO IDEA, but that's how it read last time I was over there.

[deputydi]

But...but....BUT DD! Of course the receipt machine was wrong, the towers failed, Servas lied, and ISP once again is just a poor innocent victim of circumstances and conspiracy. tsk...tsk!
:patriot:
Your post reminded me of Scott's lie about what time HE left that morning. I just edited my post to add it. I'll bet someone comes back with "Scott didn't lie - he was nervous" or "Scott just got confused" or "He was just estimating the time he left" or "He probably didn't check his watch" or . . .

[aingael]

Your post reminded me of Scott's lie about what time HE left that morning. I just edited my post to add it. I'll bet someone comes back with "Scott didn't lie - he was nervous" or "Scott just got confused" or "He was just estimating the time he left" or "He probably didn't check his watch" or . . .


You know I have to admit there is one thing Scott kept saying that I think he was telling the truth about!!:eek:

When he said he had nothing to do with Laci's disappearance, he didn't because he knew right where she was because he put her there. So to him she had not disappeared.

[deputydi]

You know I have to admit there is one thing Scott kept saying that I think he was telling the truth about!!:eek:

When he said he had nothing to do with Laci's disappearance, he didn't because he knew right where she was because he put her there. So to him she had not disappeared.
See -- he could have passed that polygraph! ;)

[Lavindar]

Actually, less time than that. Remember Scott's cell phone was tracked at 10:08 just a few miles from his home. At 10:00 he would have just been leaving his house.

I just thought of something I wanted to add. Why is it that the NGs are hopping all over the lies told by just about everyone who testified, yet none have addressed Scott's LIE about what time he left his house that morning. He originally told the detectives he left at 9:30 and didn't change it until confronted with evidence to the contrary.

Probably because he didn't want to admit that he was not paying any attention to Martha Stewart or he misheard Mary Ann for meringue

[Lavindar]

Did you read the whole thing? After all that, she draws the conclusion that Conner COULD NOT have washed up.

How I have NO IDEA, but that's how it read last time I was over there.
The entire experiment made no sense. If that's logic, I'll take the barred room in the top floor corner with a view of SF Bay

[accordn2me]

Did you read the whole thing? After all that, she draws the conclusion that Conner COULD NOT have washed up.

How I have NO IDEA, but that's how it read last time I was over there.
Rest assured, mentor, I read the whole thi.......OK...I read the conclusion. It's the conclusion that's wrong. What, does the experimenter think that just because she performed the experiment she gets to make up the conclusion she wanted and attach that to it? :no: Too bad, sooooo sad! You're learnin' me real good, mentor! I can draw my own conclusion thank you very much! :read:

Kermit, Conner's representative, washed over the jetty without getting destroyed or stuck and landed very near Conner's final resting place. That's a fact.

[accordn2me]

The entire experiment made no sense. If that's logic, I'll take the barred room in the top floor corner with a view of SF BayBut think about it Lavindar........what was the experiment's purpose?

[adnoid]

But think about it Lavindar........what was the experiment's purpose?

Road trip. Mandatory donations from the membership toward the Ho-Ho fund!

[Mysteri]

Let's get back on topic please -----> Evidence that points to other suspects

There doesn't seem to be any such evidence as the conjecture is an exercise in futility but there's plenty of evidence against the convicted.

I don't believe anyone had it in for Scott and wanted to frame him. I don't believe that Connor was 'stored' in plastic.

The evidence of Scott returning to the scene of disposal on Bekeley Marina, time after time, day after day, is the strongest possible pointer to the killer, in other words, evidence of guilt.

I will say that two of my neighbors know Scott and ran into him around the park near the house at 523 Covena Avenue and told me he had such a 'sweet smile' that he could have never killed her. They said Amy did it but knew of no evidence.

It's a funny old world.

imo

[accordn2me]

There doesn't seem to be any such evidence as the conjecture is an exercise in futility but there's plenty of evidence against the convicted.

I don't believe anyone had it in for Scott and wanted to frame him. I don't believe that Connor was 'stored' in plastic.

The evidence of Scott returning to the scene of disposal on Bekeley Marina, time after time, day after day, is the strongest possible pointer to the killer, in other words, evidence of guilt.
ITA.

I will say that two of my neighbors know Scott and ran into him around the park near the house at 523 Covena Avenue and told me he had such a 'sweet smile' that he could have never killed her. They said Amy did it but knew of no evidence.

It's a funny old world.

imoSMACK 'em for me, will ya! :punch: :punch:

[adnoid]

...What, does the experimenter think that just because she performed the experiment she gets to make up the conclusion she wanted and attach that to it?...

Empirically.

[Lavindar]

But think about it Lavindar........what was the experiment's purpose?
To fool her readers? To look intelligent? I don't want to get into THAT mind

[TopGunner]

To fool her readers? To look intelligent? I don't want to get into THAT mind

IMO and IIRC, that experiment was to PROVE Conner was never in the bay and therefore couldn't possibly have washed to shore. It failed beautifully. :D

NEVER underestimate Ma-Nature, 'cause she'll get you!!!:biggrin:

[accordn2me]

To fool her readers? To look intelligent? I don't want to get into THAT mind
IIRC, there was much acclaim by the SIIs that there is no way Conner's body could have passed over the jetty without being shredded. Additionally, they claimed there is no way he could have landed where he did....remember all that rubbish....pardon, the pun....about the debris and Conner being in front of it....or behind it....whatever.....well then, someone gets the brilliant idea to do an experiment.....I can only guess that the experiment was intended to support the SIIs claims that the body couldn't have washed over the jetty and if it did, it would rest behind the debris....or in front...whatever the opposite of where Conner was actually found was......so what happened to Kermit, Conner's representative: Not only did he make it over the jetty he landed almost exactly where Conner did!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

I'm sure this nearly blew the experimenter out of the water...:tongue: ....so she comes up with this far-fetched conclusion of how the prosecution was wrong because Distaso didn't explain it correctly so Conner must have been planted. :rolleyes: And I think people actually bought this cockamamie conclusion even though you can clearly see and read the results for yourself. :shrug:

[adnoid]

...I'm sure this nearly blew the experimenter out of the water...

Or at the very least off the beach. (http://home.comcast.net/~sthacks/new_whale/media/whale-hi.mov)

[Otter]

Or at the very least off the beach. (http://home.comcast.net/~sthacks/new_whale/media/whale-hi.mov)


I couldn't get it to play, but from the title -- is it the whale carcass that get dynamited? EWWWWW!

If so, I got the whole background story. Never give a problem to the department of transportation. :rolleyes:

[One2Snoop]

I couldn't get it to play, but from the title -- is it the whale carcass that get dynamited? EWWWWW!

If so, I got the whole background story. Never give a problem to the department of transportation. :rolleyes:

I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who couldn't get it to work. I tried earlier today and it closed my browser. :seeya:

[adnoid]

...s it the whale carcass that get dynamited?...

Yep. :beer:

[Rachel Cory]

Except that you are overlooking the theories that have been posted here by the NG's...for example, some NGs theorized that Karen might have found McKenzie when she returned home between 11:45 am and noon...it's possible...and IMO, the prosecution didn't prove that the time on Austin's receipt was accurate..so I think it's possible she found the dog around 10:30 as she originally stated..then made her purchase later than 10:34..I don't consider her a credible witness..I don't give any weight to her timeline..
Nor do I. I give much more weight to Amie Krigbaum's statement of arising at approximately 10:35+or-a couple of minutes and hearing a cacophony of dog barks close to the park, and also Kim McGregor's mother's statement concerning the screams she heard coming "from the direction of the park" at the same time. Karen isn't credible, IMO.

[accordn2me]

Nor do I. I give much more weight to Amie Krigbaum's statement of arising at approximately 10:35+or-a couple of minutes and hearing a cacophony of dog barks close to the park, and also Kim McGregor's mother's statement concerning the screams she heard coming "from the direction of the park" at the same time. Karen isn't credible, IMO.

Did Amie Krigbaum or Kim McGregor's mother testify in court?

If they didn't....and Karen did....I'd say the jury listened to Karen and not those other two, wouldn't you?

[Lavindar]

Nor do I. I give much more weight to Amie Krigbaum's statement of arising at approximately 10:35+or-a couple of minutes and hearing a cacophony of dog barks close to the park, and also Kim McGregor's mother's statement concerning the screams she heard coming "from the direction of the park" at the same time. Karen isn't credible, IMO.



Do you have a link to Kim McGregor's mother's testimony as to hearing screams from the park? I don't recall her testimony. I also seriously doubt that she could have heard anything from the park from her location.

[Lavindar]

Did Amie Krigbaum or Kim McGregor's mother testify in court?

If they didn't....and Karen did....I'd say the jury listened to Karen and not those other two, wouldn't you?


Amie testified. I strongly suspect that the screams from the park come from Matt Dalton's book and deserve no respect at all.

[Lavindar]

Nor do I. I give much more weight to Amie Krigbaum's statement of arising at approximately 10:35+or-a couple of minutes and hearing a cacophony of dog barks close to the park, and also Kim McGregor's mother's statement concerning the screams she heard coming "from the direction of the park" at the same time. Karen isn't credible, IMO.

78) Amie Krigbaum: Between 10:30, 10:38. I remember saying 10:38, but my alarm clock could have been set five minutes fast. We did that every so often, so I can't remember exactly, but 10:30-ish.
79) Rick Distaso: Would it be a fair estimate to say sometime between 10:30 and 10:40?
80) Amie Krigbaum: Yes.
81) Rick Distaso: And who was home with you?
82) Amie Krigbaum: Myself and Terra and Michael.
83) Rick Distaso: And Terra is your significant other?
84) Amie Krigbaum: Yes.
85) Rick Distaso: And what's her last name?
86) Amie Krigbaum: Venable, V-E-N-A-B-L-E.
87) Rick Distaso: And Michael is?
88) Amie Krigbaum: Her son.
89) Rick Distaso: Her son. Okay. What, so you got up, you all three were home, and was it just a normal, you know, Christmas Eve day?
90) Amie Krigbaum: It seemed quiet.

Where does she say lots of barking dogs coming from the park?

[accordn2me]

Amie testified. I strongly suspect that the screams from the park come from Matt Dalton's book and deserve no respect at all.:lol: :lol: ..........

[TopGunner]

Nor do I. I give much more weight to Amie Krigbaum's statement of arising at approximately 10:35+or-a couple of minutes and hearing a cacophony of dog barks close to the park, and also Kim McGregor's mother's statement concerning the screams she heard coming "from the direction of the park" at the same time. Karen isn't credible, IMO.


A cacophony of dog barks?

Well, at least you get a point for creativity. :seeya:

[Mysteri]

78) Amie Krigbaum: Between 10:30, 10:38. I remember saying 10:38, but my alarm clock could have been set five minutes fast. We did that every so often, so I can't remember exactly, but 10:30-ish.
79) Rick Distaso: Would it be a fair estimate to say sometime between 10:30 and 10:40?
80) Amie Krigbaum: Yes.
81) Rick Distaso: And who was home with you?
82) Amie Krigbaum: Myself and Terra and Michael.
83) Rick Distaso: And Terra is your significant other?
84) Amie Krigbaum: Yes.
85) Rick Distaso: And what's her last name?
86) Amie Krigbaum: Venable, V-E-N-A-B-L-E.
87) Rick Distaso: And Michael is?
88) Amie Krigbaum: Her son.
89) Rick Distaso: Her son. Okay. What, so you got up, you all three were home, and was it just a normal, you know, Christmas Eve day?
90) Amie Krigbaum: It seemed quiet.

Where does she say lots of barking dogs coming from the park?


Wonderfully concise !

imo

[Rachel Cory]

78) Amie Krigbaum: Between 10:30, 10:38. I remember saying 10:38, but my alarm clock could have been set five minutes fast. We did that every so often, so I can't remember exactly, but 10:30-ish.
79) Rick Distaso: Would it be a fair estimate to say sometime between 10:30 and 10:40?
80) Amie Krigbaum: Yes.
81) Rick Distaso: And who was home with you?
82) Amie Krigbaum: Myself and Terra and Michael.
83) Rick Distaso: And Terra is your significant other?
84) Amie Krigbaum: Yes.
85) Rick Distaso: And what's her last name?
86) Amie Krigbaum: Venable, V-E-N-A-B-L-E.
87) Rick Distaso: And Michael is?
88) Amie Krigbaum: Her son.
89) Rick Distaso: Her son. Okay. What, so you got up, you all three were home, and was it just a normal, you know, Christmas Eve day?
90) Amie Krigbaum: It seemed quiet.

Where does she say lots of barking dogs coming from the park?

Not "lots of barking dogs coming from the park." Here's the rest of it:

Geragos: And you woke up at about, you said then specifically 10:38?
Krigbaum: Yeah. 10:38. But I don't know if my clock was five minutes fast.
Geragos: Okay.
Krigbaum: I work for Sieman's, so..and I don't have control of the clock. It's on her side of the bed, so..
Geragos: Okay. And you remember looking at the clock because I asked you at the time,
Krigbaum: Yes. 10:38, because I looked at the time.
Geragos: You remember that it was 10:38 because it's a digital clock. You woke up, and it was because there was a dog barking, right?
Krigbaum: Yes.
Geragos: Okay. And it was a, I guess there's a couple, you kind of became a connoissuer of the dog barks in the neighborhood, right?
Krigbaum: Yes.
Geragos: And if I understand correctly, that morning you were awakened by this dog barking, and it was not a familiar bark, right?
Krigbaum: Well, there were two. One was very familiar, Sage, and then another one that wasn't so familiar, yes.
<snip>
Geragos: When they towed the Land Rover, you then clicked and recognized the bark?
Krigbaum: Uh-huh.
Geragos: Is that..you have to say yes.
Krigbaum: Yes. Yes.
Geragos: And can you tell me what bark..who was barking?
Krigbaum: Oh, we..it sounded familiar, like McKenzie. So, we didn't hear that dog bark like that very often, so..
Geragos: Okay. Now, when, at 10:38, you heard both, not I understand you didn't call Time to figure out if it was 10:38 or not. However, you heard Sage, which is the dog that's in the house to your right?
Krigbaum: Uh-huh. Correct.
Geragos: Okay. And then you also heard this other dog barking, and it went on for a while, correct?
Krigbaum: Maybe a few minutes.
Geragos: Okay. Then at some point after that, you get up and you let your dog out, correct?
Krigbaum: Yes
<snip>
Geragos: And you left the house at approximately what time?
Krigbaum: 12:30 or 1:00.
Geragos: Okay. And you said the neighborhood was unusually quiet?
Krigbaum: Yes.

Sage lived in the house at the corner of Covena and Highland, IIRC, diagonally from the entrance to the park. The barking of two dogs woke her up that morning.

[Lavindar]

Not "lots of barking dogs coming from the park." Here's the rest of it:

Geragos: And you woke up at about, you said then specifically 10:38?
Krigbaum: Yeah. 10:38. But I don't know if my clock was five minutes fast.
Geragos: Okay.
Krigbaum: I work for Sieman's, so..and I don't have control of the clock. It's on her side of the bed, so..
Geragos: Okay. And you remember looking at the clock because I asked you at the time,
Krigbaum: Yes. 10:38, because I looked at the time.
Geragos: You remember that it was 10:38 because it's a digital clock. You woke up, and it was because there was a dog barking, right?
Krigbaum: Yes.
Geragos: Okay. And it was a, I guess there's a couple, you kind of became a connoissuer of the dog barks in the neighborhood, right?
Krigbaum: Yes.
Geragos: And if I understand correctly, that morning you were awakened by this dog barking, and it was not a familiar bark, right?
Krigbaum: Well, there were two. One was very familiar, Sage, and then another one that wasn't so familiar, yes.
<snip>
Geragos: When they towed the Land Rover, you then clicked and recognized the bark?
Krigbaum: Uh-huh.
Geragos: Is that..you have to say yes.
Krigbaum: Yes. Yes.
Geragos: And can you tell me what bark..who was barking?
Krigbaum: Oh, we..it sounded familiar, like McKenzie. So, we didn't hear that dog bark like that very often, so..
Geragos: Okay. Now, when, at 10:38, you heard both, not I understand you didn't call Time to figure out if it was 10:38 or not. However, you heard Sage, which is the dog that's in the house to your right?
Krigbaum: Uh-huh. Correct.
Geragos: Okay. And then you also heard this other dog barking, and it went on for a while, correct?
Krigbaum: Maybe a few minutes.
Geragos: Okay. Then at some point after that, you get up and you let your dog out, correct?
Krigbaum: Yes
<snip>
Geragos: And you left the house at approximately what time?
Krigbaum: 12:30 or 1:00.
Geragos: Okay. And you said the neighborhood was unusually quiet?
Krigbaum: Yes.

Sage lived in the house at the corner of Covena and Highland, IIRC, diagonally from the entrance to the park. The barking of two dogs woke her up that morning.

Highland and Covena do not crosss - look at a map. I did and "a dog barking is not a cacophony of dog barks as you state earlier. Pleas check your facts. There is NO House at the corner of Covena and Highland betcause the two streets DO NOT INTERSECT, Do NOT overstate your case. It sure didn't help Geragos

[TopGunner]

Not "lots of barking dogs coming from the park." Here's the rest of it:

Geragos: And you woke up at about, you said then specifically 10:38?
Krigbaum: Yeah. 10:38. But I don't know if my clock was five minutes fast.
Geragos: Okay.
Krigbaum: I work for Sieman's, so..and I don't have control of the clock. It's on her side of the bed, so..
Geragos: Okay. And you remember looking at the clock because I asked you at the time,
Krigbaum: Yes. 10:38, because I looked at the time.
Geragos: You remember that it was 10:38 because it's a digital clock. You woke up, and it was because there was a dog barking, right?
Krigbaum: Yes.
Geragos: Okay. And it was a, I guess there's a couple, you kind of became a connoissuer of the dog barks in the neighborhood, right?
Krigbaum: Yes.
Geragos: And if I understand correctly, that morning you were awakened by this dog barking, and it was not a familiar bark, right?
Krigbaum: Well, there were two. One was very familiar, Sage, and then another one that wasn't so familiar, yes.
<snip>
Geragos: When they towed the Land Rover, you then clicked and recognized the bark?
Krigbaum: Uh-huh.
Geragos: Is that..you have to say yes.
Krigbaum: Yes. Yes.
Geragos: And can you tell me what bark..who was barking?
Krigbaum: Oh, we..it sounded familiar, like McKenzie. So, we didn't hear that dog bark like that very often, so..
Geragos: Okay. Now, when, at 10:38, you heard both, not I understand you didn't call Time to figure out if it was 10:38 or not. However, you heard Sage, which is the dog that's in the house to your right?
Krigbaum: Uh-huh. Correct.
Geragos: Okay. And then you also heard this other dog barking, and it went on for a while, correct?
Krigbaum: Maybe a few minutes.
Geragos: Okay. Then at some point after that, you get up and you let your dog out, correct?
Krigbaum: Yes
<snip>
Geragos: And you left the house at approximately what time?
Krigbaum: 12:30 or 1:00.
Geragos: Okay. And you said the neighborhood was unusually quiet?
Krigbaum: Yes.

Sage lived in the house at the corner of Covena and Highland, IIRC, diagonally from the entrance to the park. The barking of two dogs woke her up that morning.


I have four dogs. Every neighbor around me has a dog, some 2, some 3. Dogs bark in neighborhoods. Sometimes they wake me up, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they're barking and I don't even hear them, and sometimes it drives me batty. I'm not at all sure what the point here is.

[Otter]

I have four dogs. Every neighbor around me has a dog, some 2, some 3. Dogs bark in neighborhoods. Sometimes they wake me up, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they're barking and I don't even hear them, and sometimes it drives me batty. I'm not at all sure what the point here is.

These dogs are special, the trained dogs were just stupid dogs, in on the conspiracy. Obviously MOO.

[TopGunner]

These dogs are special, the trained dogs were just stupid dogs, in on the conspiracy. Obviously MOO.



LOL Otter, so true!!!!:seeya:

[Lavindar]

Not "lots of barking dogs coming from the park." Here's the rest of it:

Geragos: And you woke up at about, you said then specifically 10:38?
Krigbaum: Yeah. 10:38. But I don't know if my clock was five minutes fast.
Geragos: Okay.
Krigbaum: I work for Sieman's, so..and I don't have control of the clock. It's on her side of the bed, so..
Geragos: Okay. And you remember looking at the clock because I asked you at the time,
Krigbaum: Yes. 10:38, because I looked at the time.
Geragos: You remember that it was 10:38 because it's a digital clock. You woke up, and it was because there was a dog barking, right?
Krigbaum: Yes.
Geragos: Okay. And it was a, I guess there's a couple, you kind of became a connoissuer of the dog barks in the neighborhood, right?
Krigbaum: Yes.
Geragos: And if I understand correctly, that morning you were awakened by this dog barking, and it was not a familiar bark, right?
Krigbaum: Well, there were two. One was very familiar, Sage, and then another one that wasn't so familiar, yes.
<snip>
Geragos: When they towed the Land Rover, you then clicked and recognized the bark?
Krigbaum: Uh-huh.
Geragos: Is that..you have to say yes.
Krigbaum: Yes. Yes.
Geragos: And can you tell me what bark..who was barking?
Krigbaum: Oh, we..it sounded familiar, like McKenzie. So, we didn't hear that dog bark like that very often, so..
Geragos: Okay. Now, when, at 10:38, you heard both, not I understand you didn't call Time to figure out if it was 10:38 or not. However, you heard Sage, which is the dog that's in the house to your right?
Krigbaum: Uh-huh. Correct.
Geragos: Okay. And then you also heard this other dog barking, and it went on for a while, correct?
Krigbaum: Maybe a few minutes.
Geragos: Okay. Then at some point after that, you get up and you let your dog out, correct?
Krigbaum: Yes
<snip>
Geragos: And you left the house at approximately what time?
Krigbaum: 12:30 or 1:00.
Geragos: Okay. And you said the neighborhood was unusually quiet?
Krigbaum: Yes.

Sage lived in the house at the corner of Covena and Highland, IIRC, diagonally from the entrance to the park. The barking of two dogs woke her up that morning.

Not only does Highland NOT intersect with Covena, I seriously doubt that Amie could have identified the bark of a dog that far away. Try looking at a map before making ludicrous, unsupportable statements.

[Lavindar]

Not "lots of barking dogs coming from the park." Here's the rest of it:

Geragos: And you woke up at about, you said then specifically 10:38?
Krigbaum: Yeah. 10:38. But I don't know if my clock was five minutes fast.
Geragos: Okay.
Krigbaum: I work for Sieman's, so..and I don't have control of the clock. It's on her side of the bed, so..
Geragos: Okay. And you remember looking at the clock because I asked you at the time,
Krigbaum: Yes. 10:38, because I looked at the time.
Geragos: You remember that it was 10:38 because it's a digital clock. You woke up, and it was because there was a dog barking, right?
Krigbaum: Yes.
Geragos: Okay. And it was a, I guess there's a couple, you kind of became a connoissuer of the dog barks in the neighborhood, right?
Krigbaum: Yes.
Geragos: And if I understand correctly, that morning you were awakened by this dog barking, and it was not a familiar bark, right?
Krigbaum: Well, there were two. One was very familiar, Sage, and then another one that wasn't so familiar, yes.
<snip>
Geragos: When they towed the Land Rover, you then clicked and recognized the bark?
Krigbaum: Uh-huh.
Geragos: Is that..you have to say yes.
Krigbaum: Yes. Yes.
Geragos: And can you tell me what bark..who was barking?
Krigbaum: Oh, we..it sounded familiar, like McKenzie. So, we didn't hear that dog bark like that very often, so..
Geragos: Okay. Now, when, at 10:38, you heard both, not I understand you didn't call Time to figure out if it was 10:38 or not. However, you heard Sage, which is the dog that's in the house to your right?
Krigbaum: Uh-huh. Correct.
Geragos: Okay. And then you also heard this other dog barking, and it went on for a while, correct?
Krigbaum: Maybe a few minutes.
Geragos: Okay. Then at some point after that, you get up and you let your dog out, correct?
Krigbaum: Yes
<snip>
Geragos: And you left the house at approximately what time?
Krigbaum: 12:30 or 1:00.
Geragos: Okay. And you said the neighborhood was unusually quiet?
Krigbaum: Yes.

Sage lived in the house at the corner of Covena and Highland, IIRC, diagonally from the entrance to the park. The barking of two dogs woke her up that morning.

Again, HIghladn does NOT intersect with Covena. Per Susan Medina

MEDINA:* Sage is a dog that belongs to, they live on 526 Covena

HARRIS:* You're pointing to the diagram up there?****

MEDINA:* Yes.****

Where do you get Kim McGregor's mother hearing screams from the park? Link please

[adnoid]

Again, HIghladn does NOT intersect with Covena...

There you go, bringing facts into it again. :no:

[Miss Bootsie]

Not only does Highland NOT intersect with Covena, I seriously doubt that Amie could have identified the bark of a dog that far away. Try looking at a map before making ludicrous, unsupportable statements.

Good point Lav :beer: