Common Ground?

[cookiewench]

He got his brothers license to use at the club. He knew he wouldn't be on the greens playing. JMO

I don't understand what you're saying. He was going to the club and that's why he had his brother's license? He was going to the club but was just going to watch his brother & dad play golf?

Or..........he knew by then that his phone was tapped, was on his way to Mexico that day, and his phone call was just his way of telling them that he wasn't going to make the border because he was being followed?

[Beebee]

I didn't find Jackie's testimony about the cash believable either.

Why not?

What do you make of her withdrawing money from Scott's account?

[JustMyOpinion]

Why not?

What do you make of her withdrawing money from Scott's account?

I found her testimony was inconsistent and at times made no sense, and therefore discounted it as truthful.

[Beebee]

I found her testimony was inconsistent and at times made no sense, and therefore discounted it as truthful.

Can you be more specific?

The bank records showed that Jackie withdrew the money from one of Scott's accounts. Why would she not pay him back?

[accordn2me]

How about this one for the list:

Lydell Wall, prosecution witness, testified that it would have been possible to determine who was on the home computer at 8:45 a.m. on the 24th, however he was never asked to do so.I don't believe that's exactly what he said....I did read something like this though....Geragos questioning him on cross IIRC.....

Therefore, I could agree to the statement if it read like this:

Lydell Wall, prosecution witness, testified that it would have been possible to determine who was on the home computer at 8:45 a.m. on the 24th. However, the defense never asked him nor another computer expert to do so.

[Anne2719]

I don't believe that's exactly what he said....I did read something like this though....Geragos questioning him on cross IIRC.....

Therefore, I could agree to the statement if it read like this:

Lydell Wall, prosecution witness, testified that it would have been possible to determine who was on the home computer at 8:45 a.m. on the 24th. However, the defense never asked him nor another computer expert to do so.
Do we know that the defense never asked any computer expert to do so? I wonder if they did ask, and didn't like the answer and so didn't introduce the testimony.

[thinkaboutit]

I don't believe that's exactly what he said....I did read something like this though....Geragos questioning him on cross IIRC.....

Therefore, I could agree to the statement if it read like this:

Lydell Wall, prosecution witness, testified that it would have been possible to determine who was on the home computer at 8:45 a.m. on the 24th. However, the defense never asked him nor another computer expert to do so.


No....the defense was not allowed to ask Lydell Wall to check anything. Lydell Wall was the prosecution's witness/expert. The testimony was that no one from the prosecution's side asked him to do so.

So the statement should read:

Lydell Wall, prosecution witness, testified that it would have been possible to determine who was on the home computer at 8:45 a.m. on the 24th. However, the prosecution never asked him nor another computer expert to do so

[thinkaboutit]

Do we know that the defense never asked any computer expert to do so? I wonder if they did ask, and didn't like the answer and so didn't introduce the testimony.

The defense did not present their own computer expert - nor has there ever been any proof or any media report that they ever consulted one.

[accordn2me]

No....the defense was not allowed to ask Lydell Wall to check anything. Lydell Wall was the prosecution's witness/expert. The testimony was that no one from the prosecution's side asked him to do so.

So the statement should read:

Lydell Wall, prosecution witness, testified that it would have been possible to determine who was on the home computer at 8:45 a.m. on the 24th. However, the prosecution never asked him nor another computer expert to do sowell.....i'd have to check the exact question MG asked first.

if it's true, which it's doubtful an expert would testify in court they could definitely tell you who was on the computer from looking at the records, but if Wall did testify to that, the next question is....why wouldn't the defense get an expert to do that and "prove" it was Laci?

[Beebee]

The defense did not present their own computer expert - nor has there ever been any proof or any media report that they ever consulted one.

I wonder if the GAP and sunflower motif sites accessed on the morning of the 24th was in discovery? If so, then Geragos should have known about it. Of course he had 40,000. pages....

Nobody from the MPD testified that Scott said Laci was on the computer.

Do people here really think Scott was the one at GAP and looking at sunflower motifs? Before the body disposal?

To me that is just ridiculous, and the computer use, along with McKenzie on his leash is proof lof life that Laci was alive the morning of 12/24.

[cookiewench]

Can you be more specific?

The bank records showed that Jackie withdrew the money from one of Scott's accounts. Why would she not pay him back?

Do you have a link to that? IIRC, no records were ever requested, or presented, on where that money was withdrawn from.

[Beebee]

Do you have a link to that? IIRC, no records were ever requested, or presented, on where that money was withdrawn from.


The cash…

When Scott was arrested he had over $14,000 cash with him. Following is the series of events that lead to Scott having so much cash with him. This was testified to in court and bank records confirm it to be true. Most of these exhibits were not made public because they contain personal banking information.

Scott decided to sell his new Dodge pick up to his brother, John
Scott's mom, Jackie, was going to loan John the money to buy out Scott. John was then going to take over the payments.
On April 8, 2003, Jackie went to Bank of America to withdraw $10,000 from an old account she rarely used. She did not know her account number, so she gave them her social security number to look it up. Unbeknownst to Jackie, she was listed on Scott and Laci's checking account as well. (Jackie had opened that account with Scott in 1991. Scott added Laci when they were married and never removed his mother.) The bank gave Jackie $10,000 from Scott's checking account. The withdrawal receipt was entered as Exhibit D8Y1. Jackie paid Scott $8000 cash for his equity in the Dodge pick up. She paid him cash so he could better negotiate while shopping for a car.
On April 12, 2003, Scott purchased a Mercedes from Michael Griffin. He paid him with 36 $100 bills. Scott had $4400 left of the $8000 his mother had given him.
Scott discovers the $10,000 withdrawal from his bank account. He sees the withdrawal ticket signed by his mom and calls her.
Jackie then goes to Washington Mutual on April 17th and withdraws $10,000 cash out of her account. She gives the money to Scott that day to replace the money she took out of his account. She paid him in cash so that the bank would not put a hold on the funds. Scott now has roughly $14,400 in cash.
Scott is arrested the morning of April 18th . He had yet to deposit the money his mother had given him the day before.
Scott also had some “foreign currency” with him when he was arrested. The 2 bills were photographed with other items and entered as People's Exhibit 293-29. One bill is worth 50 pesos and the other is worth 20 pesos. This is roughly worth $6.40 US. This is not an unreasonable amount of pocket change for someone who had recently returned from Mexico. This exhibit is sealed due to a personal check shown in the photo.

http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/Aug06FF.html

[accordn2me]

I wonder if the GAP and sunflower motif sites accessed on the morning of the 24th was in discovery? If so, then Geragos should have known about it. Of course he had 40,000. pages....

Nobody from the MPD testified that Scott said Laci was on the computer.

Do people here really think Scott was the one at GAP and looking at sunflower motifs? Before the body disposal?

To me that is just ridiculous, and the computer use, along with McKenzie on his leash is proof lof life that Laci was alive the morning of 12/24.I don't think it's proof...but I do think Laci was alive the morning of 12/24.

[Beebee]

I don't think it's proof...but I do think Laci was alive the morning of 12/24.

Me too.
Got up. A little surfing, a little Martha Stewart. Mop the floor and change clothes to take Mckenzie for a walk while the floor dries.
She never came back from that walk.

[thinkaboutit]

well.....i'd have to check the exact question MG asked first.

if it's true, which it's doubtful an expert would testify in court they could definitely tell you who was on the computer from looking at the records, but if Wall did testify to that, the next question is....why wouldn't the defense get an expert to do that and "prove" it was Laci?


Good question - another good question would be why didn't Geragos call any of the umpteen witnesses that said they saw Laci walking that day?
There's no way all of them would have come across as not credible. Geragos wrongly assumed that the jury would not find the case against Scott strong enough to convict, I guess. After all, the burden of proof is on the state - not the defense. Here is Wall's testimony:


GERAGOS: Okay. And does it have, are you able to determine on the 23rd between 8, let's see, it's 8:40 is when it's first accessed, correct?

WALL: We're on the 24th. You said the 23rd.

GERAGOS: I'm sorry, the 24th. I stand corrected. The 24th, 8:40 from the DELL laptop home. And are you able to determine what, who was the user who accessed it?

WALL: That's possible.


GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, did you, were you ever asked to determine that question that I referred to a couple of minutes ago, who was the person who logged on at 8:40?

WALL: No.

GERAGOS: Okay. Nobody ever asked you to do that?

WALL: No.



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

WALL: That's correct.

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

WALL: That's correct.

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

WALL: If it's requested, yes.

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

WALL: That's correct.

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

WALL: What I would do?

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

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

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

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

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

WALL: That's correct.

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

WALL: That's correct.

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

WALL: A specific time line, no.


And again...my proposed statement for our common ground list:

Lydell Wall, prosecution witness, testified that it would have been possible to determine who was on the home computer at 8:45 a.m. on the 24th. However, the prosecution never asked him nor another computer expert to do so

[thinkaboutit]

Do you have a link to that? IIRC, no records were ever requested, or presented, on where that money was withdrawn from.

GERAGOS: And dated April 8th. Is that the date that you withdrew $10,000?

PETERSON: Yes.

GERAGOS: Now, I want to mark this as defense Exhibit next in order.

JUDGE: It will be defendant's D8Y.

GERAGOS: It's probably easier if I just, I have got one, two, three, four, five pages of records that I'll just mark as a group.

JUDGE: It will be defendant's 8Y1 is the Bank of America withdrawal slip. How many more papers you got there?

GERAGOS: Four after that. Bank of America statements, two pages Bank of America Customer Information Card, and then a Washington Mutual statement.

JUDGE: All right. Defendant's 8Y, Y to the 8th power, 1 through 5.




These exhibits were sealed because of personal information.

[Anne2719]

Good question - another good question would be why didn't Geragos call any of the umpteen witnesses that said they saw Laci walking that day?
There's no way all of them would have come across as not credible. Geragos wrongly assumed that the jury would not find the case against Scott strong enough to convict, I guess. After all, the burden of proof is on the state - not the defense. Here is Wall's testimony:








And again...my proposed statement for our common ground list:

Lydell Wall, prosecution witness, testified that it would have been possible to determine who was on the home computer at 8:45 a.m. on the 24th. However, the prosecution never asked him nor another computer expert to do so
I still have to wonder why, if it were possible to do this analysis, the defense didn't offer its own proof that it was Laci on the computer that morning. Easy enough to say the prosecution didn't have it done, but the actual analysis that might save his client is conspicuous by its absence.

This leads me to believe that the defense DID have the analysis done and didn't introduce it because the results didn't support their argument.

[thinkaboutit]

I still have to wonder why, if it were possible to do this analysis, the defense didn't offer its own proof that it was Laci on the computer that morning. Easy enough to say the prosecution didn't have it done, but the actual analysis that might save his client is conspicuous by its absence.

This leads me to believe that the defense DID have the analysis done and didn't introduce it because the results didn't support their argument.

Anne - it's your right to speculate as to whether the defense hired their own expert or not. But it is not grounds to exclude my statement from the list. There is no proof - not even a media report that Geragos consulted with a computer expert.

Easy enough to say the prosecution didn't have it done? Don't you think the prosecution would want to have had this done if they wanted to determine time of death? And I could speculate that if they could establish Scott was on the computer - they would have done it - but they didn't - but I'm not asking that that be added to the list - just the facts as they were presented at trial.

[accordn2me]

I still have to wonder why, if it were possible to do this analysis, the defense didn't offer its own proof that it was Laci on the computer that morning. Easy enough to say the prosecution didn't have it done, but the actual analysis that might save his client is conspicuous by its absence.

This leads me to believe that the defense DID have the analysis done and didn't introduce it because the results didn't support their argument.


Yeah! What she said....

(you might have ADD but you sure are articulate...):beer:

[cookiewench]

It's impossible to tell who, exactly, was using a computer.

The fact that it was Scott's email that was checked is a good indication that it was he who was on the pc that morning, although it can never be absolutely proven by anyone.

[Anne2719]

Anne - it's your right to speculate as to whether the defense hired their own expert or not. But it is not grounds to exclude my statement from the list. There is no proof - not even a media report that Geragos consulted with a computer expert.

Easy enough to say the prosecution didn't have it done? Don't you think the prosecution would want to have had this done if they wanted to determine time of death? And I could speculate that if they could establish Scott was on the computer - they would have done it - but they didn't - but I'm not asking that that be added to the list - just the facts as they were presented at trial.
My opinion is that because we don't know whether or not the defense had an expert do this analysis, it's misleading to put that particular statement on the common grounds list.

[accordn2me]

Anne - it's your right to speculate as to whether the defense hired their own expert or not. But it is not grounds to exclude my statement from the list. There is no proof - not even a media report that Geragos consulted with a computer expert.

Easy enough to say the prosecution didn't have it done? Don't you think the prosecution would want to have had this done if they wanted to determine time of death? And I could speculate that if they could establish Scott was on the computer - they would have done it - but they didn't - but I'm not asking that that be added to the list - just the facts as they were presented at trial.I don't think the prosecution ever tried to determine time of death, not an exact one for sure. Also, I don't think any expert would have testified that it definitely was or was not one or the other on the computer. I think it would have been a statement to the effect of, "it seems more likely that it was laci/scott...." An expert usually won't hang their hat on something being certain without hard, undisputable proof. You just don't have that here.

[thinkaboutit]

My opinion is that because we don't know whether or not the defense had an expert do this analysis, it's misleading to put that particular statement on the common grounds list.

It doesn't matter whether or not the defense ever asked anyone to do this - I am not making the point that no one asked Wall to do this - my point is that the PROSECUTION did not ask him to do this....and I have provided proof of this.

[thinkaboutit]

I don't think the prosecution ever tried to determine time of death, not an exact one for sure. Also, I don't think any expert would have testified that it definitely was or was not one or the other on the computer. I think it would have been a statement to the effect of, "it seems more likely that it was laci/scott...." An expert usually won't hang their hat on something being certain without hard, undisputable proof. You just don't have that here.


I don't have that here? Wall was asked if it could be done - and he said yes. What more do you want?

[thinkaboutit]

It's impossible to tell who, exactly, was using a computer.

The fact that it was Scott's email that was checked is a good indication that it was he who was on the pc that morning, although it can never be absolutely proven by anyone.

Your credentials please? You don't believe this even though the PROSECUTIONS expert said you could? I guess you only believe the parts of Wall's testimony that are beneficial to the prosecution?

[Anne2719]

It doesn't matter whether or not the defense ever asked anyone to do this - I am not making the point that no one asked Wall to do this - my point is that the PROSECUTION did not ask him to do this....and I have provided proof of this.
I do understand your point; but in MY mind, as a common grounds item it is incomplete. Just as we agreed it would have been to say Scott was arrested near the border with a hair color that wasn't his natural one.

[One2Snoop]

Your credentials please? You don't believe this even though the PROSECUTIONS expert said you could? I guess you only believe the parts of Wall's testimony that are beneficial to the prosecution?

Hmmmmm? I just find it hard to believe that a Computer expert would know which "body" (Scott or Laci) was sitting smack dab in front of the computer.

I believe the only way this could possibly be done is by forming a pattern of times and sites visited - perhaps thats what the expert meant? :shrug:

[cookiewench]

Your credentials please? You don't believe this even though the PROSECUTIONS expert said you could? I guess you only believe the parts of Wall's testimony that are beneficial to the prosecution?

It doesn't take any credentials to know that there's no way of proving for certain who was the last person to use a pc - any more than it's possible to say who last watched a TV, or used a camera or phone or typewriter.

The only evidence would be fingerprints, and then only if there was just ONE PERSON's fingerprints on the thing.

So, no: I don't believe it.

[thinkaboutit]

I do understand your point; but in MY mind, as a common grounds item it is incomplete. Just as we agreed it would have been to say Scott was arrested near the border with a hair color that wasn't his natural one.


No Anne, it's not the same thing. Not at all. There is room for speculation about why Scott was near the border (like the FACT that his parents lived there). There is no room for speculation that the prosecution never asked Wall to figure out who was on the computer - because Wall said so himself.

This is totally unreasonable.

[thinkaboutit]

It doesn't take any credentials to know that there's no way of proving for certain who was the last person to use a pc - any more than it's possible to say who last watched a TV, or used a camera or phone or typewriter.

The only evidence would be fingerprints, and then only if there was just ONE PERSON's fingerprints on the thing.

So, no: I don't believe it.


So do you believe the rest of Wall's testimony? That Scott clicked on currents and tides? Of course you do.

[thinkaboutit]

Hmmmmm? I just find it hard to believe that a Computer expert would know which "body" (Scott or Laci) was sitting smack dab in front of the computer.

I believe the only way this could possibly be done is by forming a pattern of times and sites visited - perhaps thats what the expert meant? :shrug:

Did you even read the testimony I was so considerate to provide for you?

[thinkaboutit]

I'm sorry - but this is a joke - truly laughable. You've got G's on here like Miss Bootsie that accuse us of predictably discrediting witnesses - but here you are with a prosecution witnesses testimony sitting right in front of you - and you're saying - nope I don't believe it. Won't agree that it's a fact because Geragos SHOULD have hired his own expert.

I might as well just go bang my head against a wall. :cuss:

[thinkaboutit]

Sure, why not. That's the evidence. Since we're on the subject, can we also agree that he had:

--Other people's photo ID cards; (http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/293-2.JPG)

--An axe; (http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/293-2.JPG)

--A shovel; (http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/293-18.JPG)

--A whole mess of socks & underwear; (http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/293-18.JPG)

And lots of other things:

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/P291.htm
http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/P293.htm
http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/294-1.JPG



I don't know what Scott knew, which puts me at a bit of a disadvantage here. However, if Scott didn't bring his clubs because he knew he wouldn't need then, then I assume he knew he was GOING to need survival gear. La Jolla has Starbucks and more (and he carried enough cash for about 3,000 Fat Free Mochas), so he wasn't going to need it there.

Curious. Why have a water purifier when every corner store sells bottled water?

Who would go camping in Mexico?

[A_seeker]

There is no way to know for sure who was on a computer. There are ways to speculate, but absolutely no way to know for certain.
I believe the fact that it was Scott's email checked, points toward him being the one online, but there's no way to prove this, experts or not.

[cookiewench]

I might as well just go bang my head against a wall. :cuss:


You sound like you already have.

[One2Snoop]

Did you even read the testimony I was so considerate to provide for you?

Yes I read it and I'll say it again. There's no way for that computer expert to know which "BODY" was sitting smack dabb in front of the computer screen.

I gave you an example of how it might be possible to determine who it was but this guy couldn't know whose actual body it was unless he has x-ray vision of some sort and saw into Laci and Scott's house that very morning.

My example sounds more reasonable to me than someone saying I know for a fact it was Laci on the computer.

[Anne2719]

No Anne, it's not the same thing. Not at all. There is room for speculation about why Scott was near the border (like the FACT that his parents lived there). There is no room for speculation that the prosecution never asked Wall to figure out who was on the computer - because Wall said so himself.

This is totally unreasonable.
Well, MY point is that the statement, as written, implies that an analysis was not done at all. I think there's very good reason to believe that it was done by the defense. Since we have no way of knowing, then the statement shouldn't be included.

[One2Snoop]

I'm sorry - but this is a joke - truly laughable. You've got G's on here like Miss Bootsie that accuse us of predictably discrediting witnesses - but here you are with a prosecution witnesses testimony sitting right in front of you - and you're saying - nope I don't believe it. Won't agree that it's a fact because Geragos SHOULD have hired his own expert.

I might as well just go bang my head against a wall. :cuss:

You know its good to laugh every now and again. :tongue:

[thinkaboutit]

Well, MY point is that the statement, as written, implies that an analysis was not done at all. I think there's very good reason to believe that it was done by the defense. Since we have no way of knowing, then the statement shouldn't be included.

No - the statement doesn't - I specifically say in the statement that the prosecution did not ask him to do it.

[Anne2719]

No - the statement doesn't - I specifically say in the statement that the prosecution did not ask him to do it.
I guess I'm going by MY inference of the significance of that statement. And I find that misleading.

[thinkaboutit]

You sound like you already have.

Insults are not tolerated on this forum cookiewench - I'm advising you to leave your insults at the door when you enter this forum.

[thinkaboutit]

I guess I'm going by MY inference of the significance of that statement. And I find that misleading.

Well would you care to take a stab at a compromise of the wording?

[accordn2me]

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, this, and to make sure that we've got this correctly, whoever is on this computer is on this computer continuously and virtually non stop from 10:30 to 10:56, correct?

WALL: Well, files are being created non stop, but that doesn't mean that the user is doing something non stop.

GERAGOS: Is there any, what's the most time that somebody could be away from that computer during that period of time?

WALL: There's no way to tell. You can load a page and walk away from it very easily. So if you looked at, let's say, for example, a sequence, if you went from, when one htm document, a web page, known as, has a file extension of htm, if you went from that one document and it loaded and looked at all the files between there, that would be the gif images or jpg images, or the document that is actually created as a part of that web page, and then go to the very next web page in succession, you could then get an idea of the times from one HTML document to the other. That would be one web page time created to the next web page. In between you're going to have an enormous amount of files, depending on how many images are associated with that web site.

GERAGOS: Now, specifically the, in this case you had a, I won't exaggerate it, but there are a number of web sites that are visited between 10:30 and 10:56; is that correct?

WALL: There there's a number of files that are created during that time. As far as web pages, I haven't counted the actual number of web pages that were visited.

GERAGOS: Okay. Does it look to you like somebody was continuously on that computer between those, for that 26 minute period of time?

WALL: I can't tell if they're sitting behind the keyboard continuously during that period of time, no.

[cookiewench]

So do you believe the rest of Wall's testimony? That Scott clicked on currents and tides? Of course you do.


I just realized now that you're not talking about the morning of the 24th.

Wasn't the tide search done on Scott's personal laptop?

That would be an INDICATION that he used it, but there could never be PROOF.

People who knew them could testify (perhaps) that Laci never used Scott's laptop and didn't know the sign-in password, but - no, it could not be proven absolutely.

[accordn2me]

GERAGOS: Okay. So the person signs on at 8:40, goes to the home, it automatically, the computer automatically opens up to MSN, they then check the weather, they then check for a scarf, they check for an umbrella stand, correct?

WALL: Yes, that can be as simple as a link on let's say the, some Yahoo's page that was clicked on.

GERAGOS: Okay. Then the e-mail is checked; is that correct?

WALL: Yes. After that a temporary file is created and an e-mail is checked regarding an E-Bay mail regarding a ping staff bag.

JUDGE: Regarding a what?

GERAGOS: Ping staff bag.

JUDGE: Ping?

WALL: P-i-n-g.

GERAGOS:

GERAGOS: That e-mail is checked, does anybody send an e-mail, is there any e-mail that's sent?

WALL: I can't tell by looking at this document. I have to go to --

GERAGOS: Would you be able to, I've got 186. Were you able to tell from that if somebody actually sent an e-mail or if they just, whoever it was, actually just checked to see if there was any e-mail to see if there was any incoming?

WALL: Well, in this instance where it appears that Scott Peterson is the last recipient, it's checking e-mail.

GERAGOS: Checking e-mail. So whoever received from this document that was created?

WALL: Right.

GERAGOS: So whoever is using the computer has gone on, has checked the weather, has then, gets a forecast of some kind of, I think you said it was a five-day forecast?

WALL: That's correct.

GERAGOS: And after they get their five-day forecast, they then check, they get a scarf and umbrella stand. Maybe at that point they check the e-mail that they share with Scott Peterson, is that correct, is that a reasonable possibility as to what happened?

HARRIS: Objection, calls for speculation.

JUDGE: Sustained.

GERAGOS: You have an indication --

JUDGE: Excuse me, he said that they shared the website, but he doesn't know who's using it.

[thinkaboutit]

GERAGOS: Okay. So the person signs on at 8:40, goes to the home, it automatically, the computer automatically opens up to MSN, they then check the weather, they then check for a scarf, they check for an umbrella stand, correct?

WALL: Yes, that can be as simple as a link on let's say the, some Yahoo's page that was clicked on.

GERAGOS: Okay. Then the e-mail is checked; is that correct?

WALL: Yes. After that a temporary file is created and an e-mail is checked regarding an E-Bay mail regarding a ping staff bag.

JUDGE: Regarding a what?

GERAGOS: Ping staff bag.

JUDGE: Ping?

WALL: P-i-n-g.

GERAGOS:

GERAGOS: That e-mail is checked, does anybody send an e-mail, is there any e-mail that's sent?

WALL: I can't tell by looking at this document. I have to go to --

GERAGOS: Would you be able to, I've got 186. Were you able to tell from that if somebody actually sent an e-mail or if they just, whoever it was, actually just checked to see if there was any e-mail to see if there was any incoming?

WALL: Well, in this instance where it appears that Scott Peterson is the last recipient, it's checking e-mail.

GERAGOS: Checking e-mail. So whoever received from this document that was created?

WALL: Right.

GERAGOS: So whoever is using the computer has gone on, has checked the weather, has then, gets a forecast of some kind of, I think you said it was a five-day forecast?

WALL: That's correct.

GERAGOS: And after they get their five-day forecast, they then check, they get a scarf and umbrella stand. Maybe at that point they check the e-mail that they share with Scott Peterson, is that correct, is that a reasonable possibility as to what happened?

HARRIS: Objection, calls for speculation.

JUDGE: Sustained.

GERAGOS: You have an indication --

JUDGE: Excuse me, he said that they shared the website, but he doesn't know who's using it.


Not sure what your point is......all this proves is that the e-mail was sent to what Wall refers to as Scott's e-mail account....however according to Karen Servas - Laci used this e-mail account also. Wall has no idea who read the e-mail that morning.

[accordn2me]

Not sure what your point is......all this proves is that the e-mail was sent to what Wall refers to as Scott's e-mail account....however according to Karen Servas - Laci used this e-mail account also. Wall has no idea who read the e-mail that morning.
That's my point.

[accordn2me]

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that it was Laci's hair. I just don't see any value in it. Even if the MPD hadn't shaken Scott's coat out in the boat, a coat Laci was known to wear to walk the dog and which I am sure had her hair on it, I don't see what it proves. IMO it is irrelevant except that it shows how careless the MPD were as evidence gatherers.
What were they shakin' Scott's coat for?:shrug:

How did Laci's hair get in the "teeth" (not real teeth) of the pliers in any case? They were photographed as being under (sort of) the seat.

[thinkaboutit]

That's my point.

That was my point too! :) :beer:

[Anne2719]

That was my point too! :) :beer:
More common ground!

[accordn2me]

More common ground!
Wall has no idea who read the email that morning.

That's what you're putting?

[Anne2719]

Wall has no idea who read the email that morning.

That's what you're putting?
I think so -- I was just so happy to see both sides in agreement on something!

[Anne2719]

No on that one.

There is no evidence that Conner was ever in the sea. Laci's body could not be connected to Scott's boat trip. Evidence suggests strongly her body was dumped off the Albany Bulb mere hours before it was found and that Scott was not involved. All the evidence points to Conner's body being placed where it was found.

So we're down to two.
If you scroll down a bit, you'll notice that #2 was changed to "bodies were discovered."

[accordn2me]

You've never heard of ice fishing? Can it get any colder than sitting on frozen water?

And he wasn't really fishing - just testing out his new toy.Either he was fishing or he lied.

[accordn2me]

Let us suppose that Scott had his hair cut into a Mohawk and dyed blue. He also started wearing just a tutu and army boots and telling everyone he was the King of Siam. Exactly how would that make him guilty of murder?

He wasn't hiding from the cops. He went to see them with his new orange hair so they knew exactly what he looked like.Why didn't Scott simply tell his friend Mark...or Mike...whatever his name was...he changed his hair color because the media was constantly hounding him and he was sick of it?

[A_seeker]

Can we agree that Conner was handled outside of the womb as evidenced by the twine double knotted around his neck and shoulder?

NO, we cannot agree that there is evidence of Conner being handled outside the womb.

[Anne2719]

Can we agree that Conner was handled outside of the womb as evidenced by the twine double knotted around his neck and shoulder?
I seriously doubt we can agree to that.

[Anne2719]

Then you are prepared to ignore reality?
Please try to be respectful.

[accordn2me]

I believe I was. I am still waiting for any reasonable explanation of the twine tied around Conner's neck.I'm still waiting for any reasonalbe explanation of how Laci's hair got in the teeth of the pliers found in Scott's boat.

The storm is the answer to your question.

[Wearing A Halo]

Yet there is no other explanation for the twine. It must have been tied by human hands, probably to keep him wrapped up.

Wrapped up from what?

[accordn2me]

It didn't. Another mis report by the press.How?
How did the storm tie the knot? Are you serious? Jim, don't mess with me about storms....I'm from Louisiana. If you want me to look up some pictures of amazing, incredible things that storms can do, I will. I wish you would trust me on this one. Storms are wild, mysterious, and powerful! Don't ask me how, I'm not nearly as smart as you and Wudge. But even lil'lo me knows storms can do some wicked, weird things! I bet this storm was a man!

[Wudge]

Here is a reasonable explanation for the twine around Conner: The twine could have been wrapped around Conner's neck through tidal motion and because Conner's head was soft, due to decomposing, it's possible the twine could easily have slipped over his head.

The top knot was a bow-tie knot, The knot underneath was an overhand knot.


Reasonable doubt?

[accordn2me]

There is no water movement which could force that twine over the head so it couldn't be removed. If there was it would have destroyed the body. It was done by human hands.mushy, liquified (possible I'm not spelling that correctly) were a couple of adjectives used to describe this baby.

the plates of a baby's skull are not fused. this particular baby's plates were FLOATING inside of his little head!:flamemad:

you obviously underestimate the power of a storm and what can happen to things in the water....

[LionRun]

Yet there is no other explanation for the twine. It must have been tied by human hands, probably to keep him wrapped up.

I rescued and rehabilitated wildlife for many years, including various seabirds. I received on a fairly regular basis gulls and terns with fishing line, chord, rope, or twine around their legs, necks, wings, and bodies--some with rather elaborately tied knots. We would commonly receive an influx of them shortly after a storm from areas notorious for large amounts of debris.

Because of this I believe the twine around dear Connor's neck was the result of a similar occurrence in similar conditions.

Lion

[Wudge]

I rescued and rehabilitated wildlife for many years, including various seabirds. I received on a fairly regular basis gulls and terns with fishing line, chord, rope, or twine around their legs, necks, wings, and bodies--some with rather elaborately tied knots. We would commonly receive an influx of them shortly after a storm from areas notorious for large amounts of debris.

Because of this I believe the twine around dear Connor's neck was the result of a similar occurrence in similar conditions.

Lion

Courts deal in probabilities, not possibilities.

Should not the twine requiring a violation of the law of physice support reasonable doubt?

[accordn2me]

He did!...out of the top of his momma's uterus into the waters' of the SF bay during a violent storm, and propelled onto the land by a large tidal surge.

Have you ever seen pics of 2X4s driven into trees...no, more extreme things.....do I need to find you some pics.....I think you're clueless about the crazy things a storm can do!

[LionRun]

Courts deal in probabilities, not possibilities.

Should not the twine requiring a violation of the law of physice support reasonable doubt?

The rope around Conner looked just like what was found on many birds, both alive and dead. I think it is a probability and not a possibility. I have seen the same type of twine tied in much the same way on animals, and I have seen even much better and more elaborate knots than what was found on Connor. It doesn't look like it was done to human hands to me, not after what I have seen.

When I first heard that there was twine found around little Conner's neck, I thought that it was possible that it may have been intentionally placed that way by human hands. But, once I saw the pictures I changed my mind.

Lion

[Wudge]

The rope around Conner looked just like what was found on many birds, both alive and dead. I think it is a probability and not a possibility. I have seen the same type of twine tied in much the same way on animals, and I have seen even much better and more elaborate knots than what was found on Connor. It doesn't look like it was done to human hands to me, not after what I have seen.

When I first heard that there was twine found around little Conner's neck, I thought that it was possible that it may have been intentionally placed that way by human hands. But, once I saw the pictures I changed my mind.

Lion

Should not a violation of the law of physics combined with an overhand knot underneath and a bow-tie knot on top support reasonable doubt?

[accordn2me]

Please don't call me clueless.

Wind and water are two very different things. You've never seen a 2 x 4 driven into something under water.

Here is an experiment. Get 2 feet of 4 inch plastic pipe. Stuff a rolled up plastic bag inside - not too tight but still firm. Put the whole thing in a large container of water like a barrel. Now shake the container until the plastic bag comes out of the pipe. It will never happen.

And how is it that the uterus was smaller than the baby? She was two weeks or more post-partum. No, she gave birth - on land.Clueless is not what I want to call you.

We agree. Wind & water are two very different things. Anne, how about this for the Common Ground thread?

Please don't tell me I've never seen a 2 by 4 driven into something under water. You've never seen a storm tie something into a knot that couldn't be explained. Doesn't prove it's never happened or that it can't happen.

How is it that the uterus was smaller than the baby? HUH?

ANY WOMEN HERE WANT TO BET WHETHER OR NOT JIM JONES HAS EVER WITNESSED A VAGINAL BIRTH? I say no way!

Jim, naw....clueless is a compliment.

[TuscanDreams]

Then you are prepared to ignore reality?

Hello Jim.

I'm sure you know how this case ignites passion, a woman and her baby were murdered. However, I hope you understand your statement isn't everyone's reality that reads this case.

Debate is good! We just need to separate facts from opinion.

[TuscanDreams]

I'll update our common ground in the AM.

Can someone please post what they want added- factually based, not opinions please. By this, I mean things that were testified to, etc.

By compiling this list, we can go from the common denominators and then see where our differences go from there.

Debate is great!

[LionRun]

Can you prove it was NOT done by a human? Remember, it was hard knotted and THEN a bow was tied over the top of that knot.

Hi Jim Jones. I cannot prove that the knot and tie were not done by human hands; however, I also don't believe it lends to reasonable doubt because of the countless times I received animals in the way that I described.

To me, the condition of both bodies is evidence that Laci's body held Conner inside long after their deaths. Decomposition resulting in tissue weakness and abdominal gasses caused the expulsion of Connor's body from Laci. The catalyst was the storm, I believe. I think the twine was among the debris near Connor's body and it formed the knot and bow around Connor as a result of the movements of his body in that turbulent water.

Edited. I am sorry. I was not noting that this is in fact the, "Common Ground" thread.

I will post appropriately next time.



Lion

[accordn2me]

Can you prove it was NOT done by a human? Remember, it was hard knotted and THEN a bow was tied over the top of that knot.Are you saying you don't think a storm could?

Are you saying you don't think the water could?

Are you saying you don't think the storm AND the water could?

Can you prove one, the other, or both couldn't? Besides spouting off in a way that makes you sound clueless?

[accordn2me]

To me, the condition of both bodies is evidence that Laci's body held Conner inside long after their deaths.
No, because she was not in the water for more than a day or two. She gave birth to him.Prove it! Source?
[Decomposition resulting in tissue weakness and abdominal gasses caused the expulsion of Connor's body from Laci.
No, the torn uterus would prevent expulsion in either direction and it was too cold for the gases to create such pressure.How many uteruses told you that?
[I think the twine was among the debris near Connor's body and it formed the knot and bow around Connor as a result of the movements of his body in that turbulent water.
That could never happen. The knot is too complex.Too complex for your mind, Jim Jones. You don't know how powerful a storm is...especially when it's angry. You don't know how powerful the water is...especially when it's angry. There is nothing simple about it!

[accordn2me]

I am saying it is absolutely impossible. No combination of wind or water could knot that twine as it was found. None. It was done by a human, handling the baby, and nothing else.

And knock off the insults. If you want to admit you have lost the argument do so. Insulting me proves it but it is disrespectful and against the rules of this board.Don't you dare play the insult card on me, Jim Jones! And not before 24 comes on either. If you want me to "knock off the insults" stop insulting the intelligence of my fellow posters and me. You speak as though God has retired and left you in possession of the Sees All, Knows All Book of Answers. My screen name covers me when I make ludicrous statements. Most all other posters here qualify their statements with some sort of lettering system - IMO, JMO, IMHO...etc...but YOU (not lettering system) you, Jim Jones, speak as though you have confirmed every statement with experience, training or some divine knowledge.

Now that we've got that straight Jim Jones...I am as sure that the storm did it as you think you are that human hands did it.

And I KNOW I am as right as you think you are!

[LionRun]

Please refer to post #347 where Tuscan Dreams stated that she would update this thread tomorrow morning.

Until then I am asking that unless you can post with respect for others as your number one guideline, that you put this thread to bed for the night.

There is to be no name calling on this thread. No good can come from it, and it is a show of disrespect. If the frustration or anger meter surges then please take a break until your anger and frustration no longer dictate your words.

Lion

[TuscanDreams]

Suggestion: If a poster is offensive to you, that ignore feature can surely stop the madness. :patriot:

This thread is so off topic that I can't figure out what to add. So, I'll give it a shot and then you all can tell me what I forgot to add.

[TuscanDreams]

1. Laci is deceased and so is Conner.
2. Their bodies were discovered near the area where Scott was fishing.
3. Scott had an affair with Amber Frey.
4. By the time Scott was arrested, his hair color was lighter than his natural one.
5. Scott made several trips to the bay in rented vehicles during the search.
6. Scott was arrested 200 yards from the golf course..he was on the road leading to the golf course..he was heading north away from the border. He was approx. 30 miles away from the border..when he was placed into custody.
7. Scott had made at least one trip to Mexico without fleeing.
8. Two weeks before Laci disappeared, Scott told Shawn Sibley and Amber Frey that he'd lost his wife.
9. Scott inquired about selling the house in January, the month after Laci disappeared.
10. No trailing dog found Laci’s scent on Scott’s truck bed or inside the Greenlee tool box.
11. No trailing dog found Laci’s scent in the boat.
12. A dog handler, Ron Seitz, testified that working off scent from Laci’s pink slipper, his dog, TJ, did not find Laci’s scent at the marina.
13. The tracking dog found Laci’s scent on the boat cover.
14. The tracking dog found Laci’s scent on the umbrellas that were in the back of Scott’s truck.
15. No cadaver dog ever found a probative death scent.
16. Conner's body had debris on it.

[TuscanDreams]

I am saying it is absolutely impossible. No combination of wind or water could knot that twine as it was found. None. It was done by a human, handling the baby, and nothing else.

And knock off the insults. If you want to admit you have lost the argument do so. Insulting me proves it but it is disrespectful and against the rules of this board.

Hi Jim. I think that we aren't going to agree on this twine being wrapped around Conner's neck. Let's move forward, ok?

[JustMyOpinion]

I am saying it is absolutely impossible. No combination of wind or water could knot that twine as it was found. None. It was done by a human, handling the baby, and nothing else.



I don't think the testimony was that a storm knotted the twine. The testimony was that the twine was in the water ( debris), the storm carried the baby's body inland, the twine became entangled over the head/arm of baby ( skull of baby was easily compressed during tidal movement allowing this because of fontanels & decomposition) There was no sworn evidence presented at trial which indicated Conner was "handled" by a human being prior to the discovery of his body on land. If you believe there was, please cite the evidence, thanks. ( I accept your own opinion that you don't believe the force of wind/water was enough to compress the skull of the fetus sufficiently to allow entanglement in the twine/debris)

[TuscanDreams]

The top knot was a bow-tie knot, The knot underneath was an overhand knot.
Reasonable doubt?

Hi Wudge. Could you post a link or testimony to where the knot information is found? I can't find it and I looked.

And, thank you for posting as you do. You state your facts, insights and opinions and although people don't agree, you are respectful. :seeya:

[JustMyOpinion]

1. Laci is deceased and so is Conner.
2. Their bodies were discovered near the area where Scott was fishing.
3. Scott had an affair with Amber Frey.
4. By the time Scott was arrested, his hair color was lighter than his natural one.
5. Scott made several trips to the bay in rented vehicles during the search.
6. Scott was arrested 200 yards from the golf course..he was on the road leading to the golf course..he was heading north away from the border. He was approx. 30 miles away from the border..when he was placed into custody.
7. Scott had made at least one trip to Mexico without fleeing.
8. Two weeks before Laci disappeared, Scott told Shawn Sibley and Amber Frey that he'd lost his wife.
9. Scott inquired about selling the house in January, the month after Laci disappeared.
10. No trailing dog found Laci’s scent on Scott’s truck bed or inside the Greenlee tool box.
11. No trailing dog found Laci’s scent in the boat.
12. A dog handler, Ron Seitz, testified that working off scent from Laci’s pink slipper, his dog, TJ, did not find Laci’s scent at the marina.
13. The tracking dog found Laci’s scent on the boat cover.
14. The tracking dog found Laci’s scent on the umbrellas that were in the back of Scott’s truck.
15. No cadaver dog ever found a probative death scent.
16. Conner's body had debris on it.

-Manner of death ruled as homicide.
-Scott reported Laci missing to her mother after returning home from what he later claimed was a fishing trip approx 90 miles from home, finding the home empty, car in driveway, dog with leash attached in back yard.
-No witness testified they saw or spoke to Laci past approx 8:30 p.m. on 12/23.
-Scott claimed Laci was wearing a white shirt & black pants when he last saw her on the morning of 12/24, that she was mopping and talking about walking the dog.
-Laci's remains were clad in remnants of a bra, panties & tan slacks. The blouse she had been seen wearing on 12/23 was photographed inside the hamper at the home.
-Scott purchased a fishing boat and searched tides of Bay around Dec 9.
-Scott told police detective there were no problems in his marriage, even though he was having an affair with Amber Frey. Scott confirms to Amber in recorded conversation ( 1/6) that on Dec 9 he told her he had lost his wife and this would be his first Xmas without her.
-Scott did not tell Amber Frey that he actually reported his wife missing on 12/24 until their recorded conversation on 1/6.
-After reporting his wife missing on 12/24, Scott continued phone conversations with Amber Frey, claiming to be in various locations such as Paris, France. ( when he was actually at a vigil where community was praying for his wife's safe return) Scott informs Amber he was lying on 1/6.
-Scott claimed he launched the boat at Berkely Marina on 12/24 and motored out around Brookes Island. ( cell phone records confirm he was in Berkely on 12/24, he offered a time-stamped launch receipt from Berkely Marina which came into evidence)
-Small amount of Scott's blood found on comforter in bedroom at the home.
-Scott gave different explanations for what he claims were "cuts on his hand"
Neighbor reported finding dog with leash attached in street at approx 10:08 a.m. 12/24. and put dog in back yard of Peterson home.
-A concrete anchor ( which Scott said he made in his warehouse) and six foot length of rope were collected from the fishing boat into evidence.

[Wudge]

Hi Wudge. Could you post a link or testimony to where the knot information is found? I can't find it and I looked.

And, thank you for posting as you do. You state your facts, insights and opinions and although people don't agree, you are respectful. :seeya:

Kyo On Cross

424. Okay. And before you untied the bow, you could not see this,
correct?
425. That’s right.
426. Once you untied the bow, what you saw untied -- this is the
closeup. This is the length version, the one you untied it and, lo and behold,
you have the tight knot, correct?
427. Yes.

Kyo On Direct

274. Showing you 250 G (sic), does this show the left end of that
material in the photographs after you've taken the bow out?
275. That's correct. And you can see there's a -- a knot. This is a
very tight overhand knot that's left after the bow is taken out.
276. And that particular knot, did it have anything to do with that
bow?
277. No.
278. Did you ever try to or attempt to take or take that knot out of
the twine?
279. I didn't try to unknot that one because pretty tight.
280. It was pretty tight?
281. Right.
282. Showing you 250 H (sic), is this the material to the -- towards
the middle section of that?
283. That's correct.
284. And then 250 I (sic), this goes back to that knot that you were
describing for us?
285. That's correct. And there are other insects, bugs in the bag
also. So I just take a photograph of that also.
286. Now, that particular knot, you were saying that was pretty
tight. Could you tell the distinct difference in that knot and that bow that
you had seen, that you had taken out?
287. Correct. This knot has overhand, taut, very taut. The other
one you can really see where -- where the tying part is very loosely placed
together.


(salute)

[accordn2me]

1. Laci is deceased and so is Conner.
2. Their bodies were discovered near the area where Scott was fishing.
3. Scott had an affair with Amber Frey.
4. By the time Scott was arrested, his hair color was lighter than his natural one.
5. Scott made several trips to the bay in rented vehicles during the search.
6. Scott was arrested 200 yards from the golf course..he was on the road leading to the golf course..he was heading north away from the border. He was approx. 30 miles away from the border..when he was placed into custody.
7. Scott had made at least one trip to Mexico without fleeing.
8. Two weeks before Laci disappeared, Scott told Shawn Sibley and Amber Frey that he'd lost his wife.
9. Scott inquired about selling the house in January, the month after Laci disappeared.
10. No trailing dog found Laci’s scent on Scott’s truck bed or inside the Greenlee tool box.
11. No trailing dog found Laci’s scent in the boat.
12. A dog handler, Ron Seitz, testified that working off scent from Laci’s pink slipper, his dog, TJ, did not find Laci’s scent at the marina.
13. The tracking dog found Laci’s scent on the boat cover.
14. The tracking dog found Laci’s scent on the umbrellas that were in the back of Scott’s truck.
15. No cadaver dog ever found a probative death scent.
16. Conner's body had debris on it.

Really? I didn't know that. ty TD

[thinkaboutit]

1. Laci is deceased and so is Conner.
2. Their bodies were discovered near the area where Scott was fishing.
3. Scott had an affair with Amber Frey.
4. By the time Scott was arrested, his hair color was lighter than his natural one.
5. Scott made several trips to the bay in rented vehicles during the search.
6. Scott was arrested 200 yards from the golf course..he was on the road leading to the golf course..he was heading north away from the border. He was approx. 30 miles away from the border..when he was placed into custody.
7. Scott had made at least one trip to Mexico without fleeing.
8. Two weeks before Laci disappeared, Scott told Shawn Sibley and Amber Frey that he'd lost his wife.
9. Scott inquired about selling the house in January, the month after Laci disappeared.
10. No trailing dog found Laci’s scent on Scott’s truck bed or inside the Greenlee tool box.
11. No trailing dog found Laci’s scent in the boat.
12. A dog handler, Ron Seitz, testified that working off scent from Laci’s pink slipper, his dog, TJ, did not find Laci’s scent at the marina.
13. The tracking dog found Laci’s scent on the boat cover.
14. The tracking dog found Laci’s scent on the umbrellas that were in the back of Scott’s truck.
15. No cadaver dog ever found a probative death scent.
16. Conner's body had debris on it.

I'm with Accordn2me - again! Where did 13 & 14 come from? - these are not correct.

[enlightenme]

-Manner of death ruled as homicide.
-Scott reported Laci missing to her mother after returning home from what he later claimed was a fishing trip approx 90 miles from home, finding the home empty, car in driveway, dog with leash attached in back yard.
-No witness testified they saw or spoke to Laci past approx 8:30 p.m. on 12/23.
-Scott claimed Laci was wearing a white shirt & black pants when he last saw her on the morning of 12/24, that she was mopping and talking about walking the dog.
-Laci's remains were clad in remnants of a bra, panties & tan slacks. The blouse she had been seen wearing on 12/23 was photographed inside the hamper at the home.
-Scott purchased a fishing boat and searched tides of Bay around Dec 9.
-Scott told police detective there were no problems in his marriage, even though he was having an affair with Amber Frey. Scott confirms to Amber in recorded conversation ( 1/6) that on Dec 9 he told her he had lost his wife and this would be his first Xmas without her.
-Scott did not tell Amber Frey that he actually reported his wife missing on 12/24 until their recorded conversation on 1/6.
-After reporting his wife missing on 12/24, Scott continued phone conversations with Amber Frey, claiming to be in various locations such as Paris, France. ( when he was actually at a vigil where community was praying for his wife's safe return) Scott informs Amber he was lying on 1/6.
-Scott claimed he launched the boat at Berkely Marina on 12/24 and motored out around Brookes Island. ( cell phone records confirm he was in Berkely on 12/24, he offered a time-stamped launch receipt from Berkely Marina which came into evidence)
-Small amount of Scott's blood found on comforter in bedroom at the home.
-Scott gave different explanations for what he claims were "cuts on his hand"
Neighbor reported finding dog with leash attached in street at approx 10:08 a.m. 12/24. and put dog in back yard of Peterson home.
-A concrete anchor ( which Scott said he made in his warehouse) and six foot length of rope were collected from the fishing boat into evidence.

Great list! A couple of questions though.....

Didn't Servas find Mac at 10:18?

I thought the 6 foot length of rope was found in a duffle bag, not in the boat? The one concrete anchor did not have any rope attached at all, rendering it pretty useless as an anchor, IMO!

[JustMyOpinion]

Great list! A couple of questions though.....

Didn't Servas find Mac at 10:18?

I thought the 6 foot length of rope was found in a duffle bag, not in the boat? The one concrete anchor did not have any rope attached at all, rendering it pretty useless as an anchor, IMO!

Feel free to make all necessary corrections, thanks for catching these errors. You are correct, Servas testified she found the dog at 10:18 ( 10:08 was the time someone used Scott's cell-phone at or near the home)
I agree that the one anchor found in boat ( agree the 6 foot rope was not attached) seems insufficient to be utilized in the Bay to actually anchor the boat!

[accordn2me]

I'm with Accordn2me - again! Where did 13 & 14 come from? - these are not correct.
We're on a roll!:beer:

Certainly the dogs found something? Otherwise, why would the prosecution have put the handlers on the stand?

From what little I've read about the dogs, I couldn't place much weight on the testimony if they did or did not find a scent. There are too many variables. I wish Lion Run would weigh in on this.....

[thinkaboutit]

We're on a roll!:beer:

Certainly the dogs found something? Otherwise, why would the prosecution have put the handlers on the stand?

From what little I've read about the dogs, I couldn't place much weight on the testimony if they did or did not find a scent. There are too many variables. I wish Lion Run would weigh in on this.....

Honestly - I don't place much weight on the dog tracking either. I have a problem with Scott's slipper being collected with Laci's slipper and sunglasses. And Brocchini keeping the items in his desk drawer!!

Lion Run - where you at? :)

[Wudge]

Honestly - I don't place much weight on the dog tracking either. I have a problem with Scott's slipper being collected with Laci's slipper and sunglasses. And Brocchini keeping the items in his desk drawer!!

Lion Run - where you at? :)

Eloise Anderson's testimony (State witness) was supposed to accomplish two things. First, she needed to prove that her dog, Trimble, could track a person's scent for 90 miles along freeways days after a person (Laci's body) was alleged to have passed along that route. Second, her testimony was meant (allegedly) to corroborate (don't ask me how) that Laci was at the Berkeley marina.

However, Eloise Anderson was savagely impeached by Geragos. She crashed and burned on the witness stand in spectacular fashion.

Judge Dellucchi instructed the jury on 2.21 (witness willfully false) with a specific miodification to cover her testimony.

THE COURT: As modified. We discussed it Thursday and I included the modifications in this one, because there are no CALJIC instructions relating to dog tracking evidence under the circumstances of this case. 2.20. 2.21.1.

[TuscanDreams]

I'm with Accordn2me - again! Where did 13 & 14 come from? - these are not correct.

Criminy, I may have erred.

Can someone post a link where those items came from? I thought I'd read that in one of the books and there are so many books- I have no idea where I read it.

If we can't cite the source, I'll remove them.

Thank you!

[TuscanDreams]

About the knots being a fact- How if we word it like this:

Knotted debris was found on Conner's body.

[accordn2me]

Criminy, I may have erred.

Can someone post a link where those items came from? I thought I'd read that in one of the books and there are so many books- I have no idea where I read it.

If we can't cite the source, I'll remove them.

Thank you!My vote is to remove everything about dogs period.

[TuscanDreams]

My vote is to remove everything about dogs period.

Is there any testimony about what the dogs found? I can't find it.

[accordn2me]

Nope. You can't assume it was debris as such. Laci may have stripped it from a bag she had found where she was trapped.

The description and smell make it highly unlikely it was ever in the sea, BTW.What's in your kool-aid?

QUESTION WITHDRAWN! Nothing further....

[TuscanDreams]

Nope. You can't assume it was debris as such. Laci may have stripped it from a bag she had found where she was trapped.

The description and smell make it highly unlikely it was ever in the sea, BTW.

Could you cite your source on that? My family lives on the Gulf Coast and I grew up in that area. The coastal and bay areas spin things around like nothing I've ever seen before. I once watched a small shark try to get out of some type of plastic wrap that looked film from an old reel movie- and that film was wrapped round and round that shark. The marina persons helped the shark out and freed him.

Another time, an old bottle washed ashore. I love beach glass and when I picked it up, it had debris INSIDE of it! I have no idea how the debris got into that bottle.

[Wudge]

Is there any testimony about what the dogs found? I can't find it.

Tuscan, in my original post, the points I made regarding the dogs is 100% accurate. They are:

No trailing dog found Laci’s scent on Scott’s truck bed or inside the Greenlee tool box.

No trailing dog found Laci’s scent in the boat.

No trailing dog found Laci’s scent on the boat cover.

No trailing dog found Laci’s scent on the umbrellas that were in the back of Scott’s truck.

A dog handler, Ron Seitz, testified that working off scent from Laci’s pink slipper, his dog, TJ, did not find Laci’s scent at the marina.

No cadaver dog ever found a probative death scent, not one.

[Anne2719]

Tuscan, in my original post, the points I made regarding the dogs is 100% accurate. They are:

No trailing dog found Laci’s scent on Scott’s truck bed or inside the Greenlee tool box.

No trailing dog found Laci’s scent in the boat.

No trailing dog found Laci’s scent on the boat cover.

No trailing dog found Laci’s scent on the umbrellas that were in the back of Scott’s truck.

A dog handler, Ron Seitz, testified that working off scent from Laci’s pink slipper, his dog, TJ, did not find Laci’s scent at the marina.

No cadaver dog ever found a probative death scent, not one.
I don't think the dog "evidence" is totally reliable either way, is it? I saw a report recently about a cadaver dog handler who had a nice little bone collection at home, and her dog made all kinds of interesting discoveries, many of which came from the handler's pocket. Can we drop all dog stuff from the list?

[accordn2me]

Tuscan, in my original post, the points I made regarding the dogs is 100% accurate. They are:

No trailing dog found Laci’s scent on Scott’s truck bed or inside the Greenlee tool box.

No trailing dog found Laci’s scent in the boat.

No trailing dog found Laci’s scent on the boat cover.

No trailing dog found Laci’s scent on the umbrellas that were in the back of Scott’s truck.

A dog handler, Ron Seitz, testified that working off scent from Laci’s pink slipper, his dog, TJ, did not find Laci’s scent at the marina.

No cadaver dog ever found a probative death scent, not one.I am going to object to every one of these unless this poster posts testimony to prove the claim. Why would the prosecution have allowed any dog information to come into court if this is all there was to it? In my opinion, Ron Seitz, one of the defense's 14 witnesses was brutally impeached on the stand. I will post the testimony to support my opinion if you question it. Once again, NO dogs on the list if testimony is not posted to support the claim.

[attorneywan2be]

Could you cite your source on that? My family lives on the Gulf Coast and I grew up in that area. The coastal and bay areas spin things around like nothing I've ever seen before. I once watched a small shark try to get out of some type of plastic wrap that looked film from an old reel movie- and that film was wrapped round and round that shark. The marina persons helped the shark out and freed him.

Another time, an old bottle washed ashore. I love beach glass and when I picked it up, it had debris INSIDE of it! I have no idea how the debris got into that bottle.

TuscanDreams..the medical examiner never claimed that the twine wrapped itself around Conner's neck..and tied itself up into two knots..a bow-like knot and a very tight knot underneath it..I think he realized that it was impossible for this to have happened..so according to him, the twine was already a loop that had those knots that got over Conner's head....this is totally absurd..it defies logic..keep in mind that there was .79 of an inch gap between Conner's neck and the twine...

From the prelim: (the judge was asking the medical examiner)

24 MR. GERAGOS: Thank you. I have no further questions.
25 THE COURT: Let me ask a question before the
26 prosecution has another one.
27 I want to understand this tape that you said, when you
28 pull it, it's only two centimeters?

1524
1 THE WITNESS: There was a gap, Your Honor. If you
2 pulled the tape snug against the neck, from the direction
3 you were pulling it, measuring from the neck to there, there
4 was a two-centimeter gap.
5 THE COURT: How could that be an item that floated onto
6 the baby if -- I assume two centimeters doesn't get it over
7 the head?
8 THE WITNESS: Simply because the head's deforming and
9 the skull plates were overriding, and that's dynamic
10 process. Depending upon what the baby is brushing up
11 against or washing onto, I see no problem with that
12 happening.

[Wudge]

I don't think the dog "evidence" is totally reliable either way, is it? I saw a report recently about a cadaver dog handler who had a nice little bone collection at home, and her dog made all kinds of interesting discoveries, many of which came from the handler's pocket. Can we drop all dog stuff from the list?

The fact that the dogs did not find Laci's scent in any transport vehicle (truck or boat) nor on items that the State's storyline alleges should have been touching her body makes the fact that the dogs found nothing extremely exculpatory. For rather than support the State's storyline, the dogs impeach the State's theory.

Please understand too that no crime scene was found in the house nor the warehouse. If Scott murdered Laci in their home as the State alleges, then the dogs should have found her scent somewhere on something.

[Anne2719]

The fact that the dogs did not find Laci's scent in any transport vehicle (truck or boat) nor on items that the State's storyline alleges should have been touching her body makes the fact that the dogs found nothing extremely exculpatory. For rather than support the State's storyline, the dogs impeach the State's theory.

Please understand too that no crime scene was found in the house nor the warehouse. If Scott murdered Laci in their home as the State alleges, then the dogs should have found her scent somewhere on something.
Well, as JJ said somewhere, what if they were sniffing Snausages and were distracted? I don't think the fact they didn't find anything is any more significant than it would be if they did alert on something.

[LionRun]

I began doing K9 SAR in about 1993. The reliability of a dog is directly related to the skill, integrity, and knowledge of the handler. If the handler is in fact skilled, legit, has had many months to years of training him or herself, and has integrity, I would be likely to trust the dog depending on the circumstances. I do not know the background of the handlers, so I personally would not rely on that information unless or until I know the handlers' backgrounds.

Lion

[Wudge]

Well, as JJ said somewhere, what if they were sniffing Snausages and were distracted? I don't think the fact they didn't find anything is any more significant than it would be if they did alert on something.

Anne, the dogs not finding Laci's scent where they should have, per the prosecution's storyline, does not represent perfect evidence. If it were, it would be exonerating. However, it strongly indicates something is amiss in the State's case and theory, something very big.

The burglars murdering Laci would explain why there is no: when, where, how, why or forensic evidence or transport evidence for anything that would evidence/corroborate Laci being murdered and taken to the bay by Scott.

[Wudge]

I began doing K9 SAR in about 1993. The reliability of a dog is directly related to the skill, integrity, and knowledge of the handler. If the handler is in fact skilled, legit, has had many months to years of training him or herself, and has integrity, I would be likely to trust the dog depending on the circumstances. I do not know the background of the handlers, so I personally would not rely on that information unless or until I know the handlers' backgrounds.

Lion

Ciindee Valentine and Eloise Anderson being impeached did not help dog handlers anywhwere. I was impressed by Ron Seitz's testimony. As you did in your post, he seemed to testify in a beyond reproach manner. That is as it should be.

[Anne2719]

It's a double bow now? I didn't think it was even an actual single bow. Just KIND of a bow.

[Wearing A Halo]

Cadaver dogs are pretty good (actually damn near perfect). If they don't get a hit, it's worth asking yourself why.

Cadaver dogs are most reliable when there is an actual dead body in the area. Laci's dead body was at the bay.

[Wudge]

It's a double bow now? I didn't think it was even an actual single bow. Just KIND of a bow.

Way back when I was a young pup, I remember watchiing my sister wrap ribbon around Xmas presents. First she would tie an overhand knot. That held the ribbon in place. Then she would tie a loose bow-tie knot on top of the firm overhand knot.

That's the knot combination that was found around Connor's neck. Moreover, as we all are aware, that twice-knotted circle of twine could not gotten around Connor's neck by slipping down over his head.

When an item of evidence such as this one defies a law of physics that is exonerating evidence.

[enlightenme]

Both Wudge and Jim Jones are totally overlookiing the possiblility (actually, probability) that the tape was debris floating on the surface and was already knotted. Conner's head slipped through it and it got tighter as his poor little body was tossed about in the waves, heading to shore. In fact, I'M positive of it, so it must be true!

There is a prosecution exhibit of a whole grocery type bag with a lot more of the same type of tape that was collected from the shoreline. I'll see if I can find it and post the link. I last saw it on the now defunct Justice4Scott site.

It defies logic and common sense that the "real killers" would wrap and tie, then make a bow of this tape material around Conner's head and shoulder. It wasn't used to kill him, carry him (no marks on his skin underneath the tape), or to keep him protected in some imaginary bag. Not with his head and shoulder sticking out. There is no reasonable, logical, sane explanation of why "human hands" would put this tape (which was floatsum, debris, garbage) that washed to shore along with Conner.

It is not and never will be "exonerating evidence".

MOO

[Anne2719]

"... the tape was debris floating on the surface and was already knotted. Conner's head slipped through it and it got tighter as his poor little body was tossed about in the waves, heading to shore."

This could not happen. You can't tighten a knot that's over another knot. No way. And when one knot is a bow, impossible. Try a single bow type knot in a piece of twine or rope or the like. Try to make it close up. It cannot be done.

"It defies logic and common sense that the "real killers" would wrap and tie, then make a bow of this tape material around Conner's head and shoulder".

Of course it does. Why would they? Laci wrapped him and tied the twine to keep him wrapped. That's why he was even more preserved than expected. It was her last gift to him.
In your opinion.

[LionRun]

Way back when I was a young pup, I remember watchiing my sister wrap ribbon around Xmas presents. First she would tie an overhand knot. That held the ribbon in place. Then she would tie a loose bow-tie knot on top of the firm overhand knot.

That's the knot combination that was found around Connor's neck. Moreover, as we all are aware, that twice-knotted circle of twine could not gotten around Connor's neck by slipping down over his head.

When an item of evidence such as this one defies a law of physics that is exonerating evidence.

Hi Wudge. Does a link exist for us to see the actual twine? I saw the pic posted with the mannequin and rope with twine. Do you know if that is the actual twine as it was found on Conner? Or is it a copy? I imagine there are no pics of poor Connor's little body with that twine around him. But, is there a link stating the circumference of his head at its widest and the exact size of the encircled portion of the rope? Also, due to the non-fused plates forming his skull couldn't his head have been somewhat flexible?

Thank you, and although I am an SIG and you are an SNG, I want to say again that I enjoy reading your posts, and I thank you for the respect you show on this forum

Lion

[enlightenme]

People's 253 A-I: Evidence envelope with plastic bag containing twine-like material, photos of the twine

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/P253.htm

People's 254: Debris at Recovery Site

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/P254.htm

[LionRun]

People's 253 A-I: Evidence envelope with plastic bag containing twine-like material, photos of the twine

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/P253.htm

People's 254: Debris at Recovery Site

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/P254.htm

Thank you, enlightenme.

Lion

[accordn2me]

HARRIS: So as part of that training to become a good dog handler, you learn about scent theory, which is based on scientific principles, correct?

SEITZ: There are several scientific principles of scent theory. If you look out there in the dog world there's probably three to four different variations. Some of them have common threads, and it basically, as a handler, you expose yourself to as many opportunities to receive scent theory from the theogians, so to speak, or gain knowledge in those different areas, and then use that as your, your toolbox or your foundation from different, different sources, or inputs from different sources, and not necessarily relying on one particular theory over and over.

HARRIS: So you're saying that there's a wealth of information based on lots of different sources that show that dogs have ability to detect scents far better than humans, right?

SEITZ: Yes.

snip

HARRIS: And you knew that Ms. Peterson had been missing from the 24th to the 28th. So we're talking about four days.

SEITZ: Correct.

HARRIS: Would you agree in your experience that your dog has been able to track trails or scents that are over four days old?

SEITZ: Would you repeat the question, please.

HARRIS: Would you agree that you and your dog have been able to track trails that are over four days old?

SEITZ: Are you prefacing that with a live person that has left that trail?

HARRIS: Well, let's try it that way then.

SEITZ: Yes.

HARRIS: Okay. A live person leaving a trail?

SEITZ: That is correct.

snip

HARRIS: And the family members that are giving you scent articles, they're giving you scent articles that aren't kept in pristine conditions, right?

SEITZ: The, they are not giving me scent articles. I am looking for specific types of scent articles, specific items, and I would interrogate or interview a family to ask them when the last time the subject had used them, when they possibly were, if they were possibly cross-contaminated, how recently they have been used, and things of that particular nature, and from a myriad of items try to pick the one that was most recently used or most recently available and had less opportunity for degradation of the article or the scent on it.

HARRIS: Okay. So you're not given pristine articles all the time, correct?

SEITZ: That is correct.

HARRIS: So you're given these non-pristine articles that maybe the individual hasn't touched, hasn't used, hasn't come in contact with for four days, correct?

SEITZ: That is correct.

HARRIS: So you've got something that's four days old that's a scent article, and going back to what we were talking about, scent articles don't give off skin rafts, correct?

SEITZ: That is correct.

HARRIS: So we're just dealing with the residual scent?

SEITZ: The buildup of the scent, yes.

HARRIS: So if a scent article, like an article of clothing, slippers, sunglasses, toothbrush, hairbrush, those things, if they can keep scent articles for four days, could somebody's clothing that may be on a dead body?

SEITZ: That is possible.

HARRIS: Okay. So it is possible. So when you were out there that particular day on the 28th and you were given some of these scenarios, you felt it was possible to work your dog and actually see if there was a trail out there at the marina, didn't you?

SEITZ: The discussion I had with Mr. Boyer was that, given the base line to which I trained my dog, the base line to which I felt, you know, that my dog had, would have the possibility of detecting the scent, or the live scent from an individual, and preface that by saying a scenario that you might be describing, it's likely that my dog would or would not have scent.

HARRIS: I'm sorry, would?

SEITZ: Would or would not have scent.

HARRIS: Well, which is it?

SEITZ: Again, it's, it's a possibility.

HARRIS: Well,

SEITZ: You don't know, if I could, if you could indulge me a minute. In the fact that, that you have scent, and if you just did it on a scale of one to ten, with an individual walking down to street being a ten, so to speak, and a deceased person who was a non, a non-living person who is not regenerating these scent rafts, and then also concealed them in an odd, or concealed them in some fashion, that it is probable that that scent may be down in the one, two category. And, again, it may be subtle enough that my dog may not have picked it up.

snip

HARRIS: And if you were trying to determine anything about that residual scent, would it not have been a better approach to work the choke points to make sure if there was somebody going into or out of that parking lot?

SEITZ: Probably so, but I didn't work the problem that way.

HARRIS: All right. So different, different handlers choose to work the same hypothesis different ways?

SEITZ: That is correct.

HARRIS: And, in fact, you know, you've told us that your dog's got about an 80 percent accuracy rate, so you would agree that sometimes your dog just doesn't get it right?

SEITZ: I would give you that, yes.

HARRIS: Well, again, I'm not asking you to give me that.

SEITZ: Yes.

HARRIS: Is that correct?

SEITZ: Yes.

HARRIS: Now, when Miss Anderson got there, and she's working this particular problem, you see her doing this, right?

SEITZ: At the very end.

HARRIS: At the very end when the dog's giving this alert, right?

SEITZ: I do not read Miss Anderson's dog, I do not know what her dog's alert is, I don't know what her dog's behavior is in those conditions. That would be for her to answer.

HARRIS: Well, did you make the statement that, based on your training, you could be right or she could be right?

SEITZ: That is correct.

GERAGOS: Objection, withdrawn.

JUDGE: No, it's a fair question. Overruled. Did you make that statement?

SEITZ: Pardon me?

JUDGE: Did you make that statement that either you could be right or she could be right?

SEITZ: Yes.

HARRIS: So, since she's the best person to determine what her dog is getting or not getting, the alert, as you said you don't know whatever alert she gets, she would be the best person to tell us that, isn't she?

SEITZ: That would be correct, yes.

HARRIS: And do different dogs have different abilities?

SEITZ: Yes.

HARRIS: Some dogs are better than others?

SEITZ: Yes.

HARRIS: Some dogs have good days and some dogs have bad days, correct?

SEITZ: Just like us, yes.

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/Dwitnesses/Seitz.htm#cross

[attorneywan2be]

According to the medical examiner, the twine was an already knotted loop that got over Conner's head ...of course that is ridiculous...IMO, that was the only explanation he could use, because he realized that he couldn't explain a scenario where the twine wrapped itself around Conner's neck and tied itself up into 2 knots, a bow-like knot and a very tight knot underneath it..

He testified that he couldn't remember whether or not he cut the twine in order to remove it..next he stated that he would typically remove something around the neck by cutting it...next he stated that he couldn't remember if he had tried to remove the twine by lifting the loop over the top of Conner's head..next he stated that he chose to cut it instead..

If it was a typical procedure for him to cut the twine, then he would have remembered that he cut it..he would have remembered that he didn't try to lift the loop over the top of Conner's head..he would NOT have said "I CHOSE to cut it INSTEAD"..

This part of his testimony is full of contradictions...why? because IMO he was trying his best not to admit the simple fact that the twine was not a debris...

The medical examiner's testimony at the prelim.

18 Q. Okay. The tape that you found around the neck of
19 Conner, that had been knotted; isn't that correct?
20 A. Well, there was -- yeah, there was a knot in the
21 tape near the left shoulder.
22 Q. Were you able to determine what kind of a knot that
23 was?
24 A. I didn't try to take it apart. I would leave that
25 to a criminalist. So it was simply a matter of removing the
26 evidence intact and handing it off.
27 Q. Okay. Did you cut it?
28 A. I think I cut it around the neck. I don't
1483
1 remember.
2 Q. Now, the -- if I were to tell you that the piece of
3 nylon -- or nylon is probably not accurate, but it's a piece
4 of tape, for lack of a better word, was cut when delivered
5 to the criminalist, would that refresh your recollection as
6 to the fact that you had to cut it to get it off?
7 A. That's how I would typically remove something
8 around the neck, cut it, but away from the knot.
9 Q. Okay. Now, you said that it was -- that there was
10 a area that was, I guess, removed from the skin of
11 approximately -- was it two centimeters?
12 A. That was a gap between the tape and the neck.
13 Q. Okay. Now, can we be specific about that gap? Was
14 that two centimeters all the way around or two centimeters
15 when you would pull it taut?
16 A. That was pulling the tape so that it was firm
17 against one side of the neck, and then measuring the gap
18 between the tape and the other surface of the neck.
19 Q. Okay. And is it also a fair statement that you
20 could not easily lift that circle of or loop of tape over
21 the top of the head?
22 A. You know, I don't remember trying that, probably
23 out of concern for damaging the body.
24 Q. Okay.
25 A. I chose to cut instead.

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

24 MR. GERAGOS: Thank you. I have no further questions.
25 THE COURT: Let me ask a question before the
26 prosecution has another one.
27 I want to understand this tape that you said, when you
28 pull it, it's only two centimeters?

1524
1 THE WITNESS: There was a gap, Your Honor. If you
2 pulled the tape snug against the neck, from the direction
3 you were pulling it, measuring from the neck to there, there
4 was a two-centimeter gap.
5 THE COURT: How could that be an item that floated onto
6 the baby if -- I assume two centimeters doesn't get it over
7 the head?
8 THE WITNESS: Simply because the head's deforming and
9 the skull plates were overriding, and that's dynamic
10 process. Depending upon what the baby is brushing up
11 against or washing onto, I see no problem with that
12 happening.

[accordn2me]

People's 253 A-I: Evidence envelope with plastic bag containing twine-like material, photos of the twine

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/P253.htm

People's 254: Debris at Recovery Site

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/P254.htmTHAT is what we've been discussing getting tangled around the baby's neck?

P253 bottom right-hand pic....is that the hard, tight knot some of us believe was tied by human hands?

You just enlightened me! Appreciate it....and if I didn't know....NOW I know!

[Wudge]

Hi Wudge. Does a link exist for us to see the actual twine? I saw the pic posted with the mannequin and rope with twine. Do you know if that is the actual twine as it was found on Conner? Or is it a copy? I imagine there are no pics of poor Connor's little body with that twine around him. But, is there a link stating the circumference of his head at its widest and the exact size of the encircled portion of the rope? Also, due to the non-fused plates forming his skull couldn't his head have been somewhat flexible?

Thank you, and although I am an SIG and you are an SNG, I want to say again that I enjoy reading your posts, and I thank you for the respect you show on this forum

Lion

HI Lion, I have the pictures in a private file. I am told you can find these pictures on Scottisinnocent.com. The pictures in my file that I consider to clearly evidence that neither serendipity nor Mother Nature tied those two knots (underneath overhand knot/bow-tie knot on top) are People's exhibit 253-I and 253-D and 253-E.

You should find the quality of the photos to be very good. However, the way I have found to best examine the knots is to take out my Sherlock Holmes magnifying glass and use it to enhance the images on the screen.

If you use a magnifying glass, I believe you will be in agreement with me on severl things. First, People's exhibit 253-I is a photo of the knot that found found underneath -- it could not be seen without first untying the box-tie knot. And when 253-I is examined with a magnifying glass, what should jump out is how tight that overknot was pulled. You will see that it is just as the criminalist, Pin Kyo, testified. It is definitely a tight knot. The magnifying glass should make that tight knot jump very clear. I think you will agree that knot was not tightened to that degree by happenstance. It is an overhand knot that a human hand would have tightened down.

Pin Kyo on Direct

278. Did you ever try to or attempt to take or take that knot out of
the twine?
279. I didn't try to unknot that one because pretty tight.
280. It was pretty tight?
281. Right.


Pin Kyo on Cross by Geragos

422. So before you untied this bow, you took a picture of it, right?
423. That’s right.
424. Okay. And before you untied the bow, you could not see this,
correct?
425. That’s right.
426. Once you untied the bow, what you saw untied -- this is the
closeup. This is the length version, the one you untied it and, lo and behold,
you have the tight knot, correct?
427. Yes


People's exhibit 253-D and 253-E show the bow-tie knot that hid the overhand knot found underneath. Once again, use a magnifying glass to examine 253-E. You will see a bow-tie knot with equal length bows to either side. It's definitely a bow-tie knot. It looks just like a bow-tie knot I make when I ty my shoes. Further, per Kyo's testimony, this knot pulled easily apart just as a slip knot would. A bow-tie knot is a slip-knot.

Net, Mother Nature did not tie those two knots in combination with one another. That knot arrangement is the same knot arrangement that, long ago, I watched my older sister use to fashion ribbon bows that decorated her Xmas presents.

[TuscanDreams]

It doesn't matter if it was a chrysanthemum knot. It isn't going to happen without human hands doing it. And the only one who would reasonably do it is Laci. QED.

OK, I'm going to stop this, Laci is dead and she will absolutely not be blamed for her own murder or that of her child.

I don't know if you realize this or not, but it is becoming more and more difficult to debate this topic with you. You don't appear to be open minded and a debate requires this. I realize we can't understand the tone of your post, but please be mindful that you are offending many readers when you blame Laci for her death and that of her unborn child. Thank you for understanding.

I NEED THE TRANSCRIPTS, does anyone have access to them online?

[TuscanDreams]

Both Wudge and Jim Jones are totally overlookiing the possiblility (actually, probability) that the tape was debris floating on the surface and was already knotted. Conner's head slipped through it and it got tighter as his poor little body was tossed about in the waves, heading to shore.
MOO

That is accurate, in my estimation. However, Wudge brings really good points to the forum and I don't think she/he over looked this, maybe she has another explaination for it.

My role is to stay nuetral in this debate and that said, your statement makes perfect sense to me.

[accordn2me]

People's 253 A-I: Evidence envelope with plastic bag containing twine-like material, photos of the twine

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/P253.htm

People's 254: Debris at Recovery Site

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/P254.htmenlighten me...i need some more light on these knots...if you don't mind...looking at these knots with your nekkid eyes can you knot [sic] sea [sic] they were tied by two very different forces?

the very tight, taut one could very well have been tied by human hands...or a tying machine...or something....BEFORE the other 50 inches wrapped around the baby's neck and the storm/water then tied the bow? Can you see that without any artificial enhancement?

OK...now read THE REST OF THE (expert's) STORY

HARRIS: And looking to the left of that particular item, is there some kind of place where the -- appears to be some type of overlap or curling of the material towards the end of the left?

KYO: It's almost like a bow-like knot, but it's the very loose knot, not a very tight knot.

HARRIS: Showing you -- did you take a close-up photograph of that?

KYO: Yes, I did.

HARRIS: Looking at 253 E.

KYO: As you can see it's look like a bow, but the way it tie is very loosely tied.

HARRIS: And did you take that knot out or the bow out at some point in time?

KYO: Yes.

HARRIS: Did you have any difficulty with it?

KYO: No difficulty with that.

HARRIS: Did you also try to see what the width of this type of material was?

KYO: Yes.

HARRIS: Showing you 250 F (sic).

KYO: The twine-like material, when I peeled it and stretch it out, this is a photograph of that material over here, and it's approximately six inch wide.

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

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

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

KYO: No.
HARRIS: Did you ever try to or attempt to take or take that knot out of the twine?

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

HARRIS: It was pretty tight?

KYO: Right.

HARRIS: Showing you 250 H (sic), is this the material to the -- towards the middle section of that?

KYO: That’s correct.

HARRIS: And then 250 I (sic), this goes back to that knot that you were describing for us?

KYO: That’s correct. And there are other insects, bugs in the bag also. So I just take a photograph of that also.

HARRIS: Now, that particular knot, you were saying that was pretty tight. Could you tell the distinct difference in that knot and that bow that you had seen, that you had taken out?

KYO: Correct. This knot has overhand, taut, very taut. The other one you can really see where -- where the tying part is very loosely placed together.

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

[enlightenme]

OK, I'm going to stop this, Laci is dead and she will absolutely not be blamed for her own murder or that of her child.

I don't know if you realize this or not, but it is becoming more and more difficult to debate this topic with you. You don't appear to be open minded and a debate requires this. I realize we can't understand the tone of your post, but please be mindful that you are offending many readers when you blame Laci for her death and that of her unborn child. Thank you for understanding.

I NEED THE TRANSCRIPTS, does anyone have access to them online?

To be fair to JJ, I don't think he was accusing Laci in any way. He said that Laci wrapping up Conner (who died by other means) was the last loving thing she did for him.

The problem is there is zero evidence of this, not even CE, and JJ refuses to post "in my opinion". Which really doesn't bother me because I know it's only his opinion.

That's my opinion anyway!

[Wudge]

That is accurate, in my estimation. However, Wudge brings really good points to the forum and I don't think she/he over looked this, maybe she has another explaination for it.

My role is to stay nuetral in this debate and that said, your statement makes perfect sense to me.

Tuscan, an overhand knot is not a slip knot. If you use a magnifying glass to examine the exhibits I cited in my above post, you will find that underneath the bow-tie knot was a truly tight overhand knot. The bow-tie knot was knotted on top of that tight overhand knot.

Someone would have needed to pull the twine in both directions to draw that knot to the tightness revealed in that exhibit.

[JustMyOpinion]

"... the tape was debris floating on the surface and was already knotted. Conner's head slipped through it and it got tighter as his poor little body was tossed about in the waves, heading to shore."

This could not happen. You can't tighten a knot that's over another knot. No way. And when one knot is a bow, impossible. Try a single bow type knot in a piece of twine or rope or the like. Try to make it close up. It cannot be done.

"It defies logic and common sense that the "real killers" would wrap and tie, then make a bow of this tape material around Conner's head and shoulder".

Of course it does. Why would they? Laci wrapped him and tied the twine to keep him wrapped. That's why he was even more preserved than expected. It was her last gift to him.

Really, this is so offensive. To suggest that Laci tied twine around the neck of her deceased baby boy as a "gift" to him not only defies every piece of known evidence in this case, but is a twisted and cruel fantasy of yours which seems quite misogynistic in nature ( which is consistent with content of other posts you author, IMO) I'll use my filter from here on out.

[thinkaboutit]

OK, I'm going to stop this, Laci is dead and she will absolutely not be blamed for her own murder or that of her child.

I don't know if you realize this or not, but it is becoming more and more difficult to debate this topic with you. You don't appear to be open minded and a debate requires this. I realize we can't understand the tone of your post, but please be mindful that you are offending many readers when you blame Laci for her death and that of her unborn child. Thank you for understanding.

I NEED THE TRANSCRIPTS, does anyone have access to them online?

Tuscan - here is the link to ScottIsInnocent.com

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/

In the list in the left hand column - scroll down until you see "Witnesses"

[TuscanDreams]

That's a totally sick statement. Laci was held prisoner somewhere, half starved, possibly beaten or fed drugs. Is it any wonder that Conner was still born or died after birth? How could you be so sick as to accuse Laci of killing Conner? I'm sure she would have given her life for him, as would Scott.

SHAME ON YOU. SHAME!

Uhm, you need to read your post that I responded to. It sounded as if you were accusing Laci of killing Conner. I was responding to you.

[Anne2719]

That's a totally sick statement. Laci was held prisoner somewhere, half starved, possibly beaten or fed drugs. IN YOUR OPINION. Is it any wonder that Conner was still born or died after birth? IN YOUR OPINION. How could you be so sick as to accuse Laci of killing Conner? I'm sure she would have given her life for him, as would Scott.

SHAME ON YOU. SHAME!

It's not so hard to add even an abbreviation: IMO.

[TuscanDreams]

Tuscan - here is the link to ScottIsInnocent.com

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/

In the list in the left hand column - scroll down until you see "Witnesses"

Thank you!:seeya:

[Toggie]

That's a totally sick statement. Laci was held prisoner somewhere, half starved, possibly beaten or fed drugs. Is it any wonder that Conner was still born or died after birth? How could you be so sick as to accuse Laci of killing Conner? I'm sure she would have given her life for him, as would Scott.

SHAME ON YOU. SHAME!


Jim, has it ever crossed your mind that if what you described happened to Laci...Scott was responsible for setting it up????????

Scott did not IMO, ACT like a worried husband...Scott wanted to sell their house furnished for cripes sake...Scott wanted to get rid of Laci's car...What a great guy - NOT.

Honestly, I don't know how Sharon Rocha made it through without jumping over the bench in Court and going after Scott.:flamemad:

[accordn2me]

I lived with a couple of people and one killed himself in the house.
Bet I know why.

[enlightenme]

This is so predictable. I knew he'd get around to the Rocha bashing eventually.

Like setting my watch. It's not a croton either.

[Anne2719]

OK. In my opinion Laci would have given her life for Conner. You may disagree of course.
That wasn't the statement I was referring to, and I think you know it.

[Toggie]

No, there was no evidence that Scott "set it up". The burglary of the Medina house and Laci going over there is not a plan anyone would rely on.

He acted like a VERY worried husband who literally got caught with his pants down.

Would you take your wife and son back to that house after what happened? I lived with a couple of people and one killed himself in the house. We never went back there.

As for the car, he owned it, Laci drove it, he needed a truck and she wanted a new car anyway so it made sense.

As for the Rochas, I judge them by their burglary and thefts. Remember, everything Sharon claimed she wanted was waiting at Scott's lawyer's office for her to pick up but she ignored that, broke into his house, and stole the gifts that the Peterson's had given them. Nice lady.


Jim, Jim, Jim...I do not look at what Sharon did as a B & E.:no: Good Lord, I would have done the same thing in her position. Laci was her daughter and that was Laci's house with her things inside. Just imagine how Sharon felt hearing about "Amber & Scott".

I'm telling you...I would have "lost it". I give Sharon credit for not "losing it".

[One2Snoop]

As for the Rochas, I judge them by their burglary and thefts. Remember, everything Sharon claimed she wanted was waiting at Scott's lawyer's office for her to pick up but she ignored that, broke into his house, and stole the gifts that the Peterson's had given them. Nice lady.

Can you post a link please? TIA

[thinkaboutit]

Can you post a link please? TIA


Honestly, I think Sharon wrote about that in her book, IIRC. (I think the gift the Petersons gave to them that JJ is referring to is the baby crib)

[thinkaboutit]

Jim, Jim, Jim...I do not look at what Sharon did as a B & E.:no: Good Lord, I would have done the same thing in her position. Laci was her daughter and that was Laci's house with her things inside. Just imagine how Sharon felt hearing about "Amber & Scott".

I'm telling you...I would have "lost it". I give Sharon credit for not "losing it".

First let me say - I'm not here to bash Sharon Rocha. But let's just say for one second - that Scott did not kill Laci - but he did have an affair. Would it have been wrong, then, for Sharon to do what she did, which included cutting the wires on the alarm system?

I really think that technically, according to the law - it was breaking and entering.

[One2Snoop]

It was felony burglary. Scott had already allowed his lawyers to remove a list of things Sharon wanted to their office for pick up.

SHE COMMITTED A CRIME. NO IF'S, BUT'S OR MAYBE'S. A CRIME.

Its obvious you have no compassion for the Rocha family and maybe in your eyes it was a crime, but she was never charged - ever.

[accordn2me]

[QUOTE=accordn2me;8834749]

Hey A2M, I and 12 jurors agree with you. :D :D

He could purposely have asked her in order to say later that he wasn't "up" to anything, after all - that's what premediation means: thought out/planned ahead.

Or - he very easily would have assumed that even if Amy did come over, eventually she'd go home, so I don't see the big deal in his favor either way.

Hey TG, This must be the Common Ground thread...yep! Have to scroll up and look to make sure sometimes....

An invite for pizza, pizza and a movie even...doesn't support one side or the other. (refer to screen name)

I hope the dog statements get taken off. I tried to post enough supporting testimony that it's not an exact science, one that can be duplicated anyway. I haven't read the testimony to see why the state presented them in the first place. Do you know?

[Toggie]

First let me say - I'm not here to bash Sharon Rocha. But let's just say for one second - that Scott did not kill Laci - but he did have an affair. Would it have been wrong, then, for Sharon to do what she did, which included cutting the wires on the alarm system?

I really think that technically, according to the law - it was breaking and entering.

If Sharon did cut the wires (and I believe you) it's clear she had no other choice. The Peterson's changed the alarm code so what else could she do? All Sharon wanted was to get in the house and "smell" her daughter and get some of Laci's things. I don't think her intent was to rob the house (like Todd did @ the Medina's) but if that's considered a B & E....I guess she broke the law.

[accordn2me]

If Sharon did cut the wires (and I believe you) it's clear she had no other choice. The Peterson's changed the alarm code so what else could she do? All Sharon wanted was to get in the house and "smell" her daughter and get some of Laci's things. I don't think her intent was to rob the house (like Todd did @ the Medina's) but if that's considered a B & E....I guess she broke the law.She cut the wires? Why? It wasn't like she was sneaking around. Maybe she needed some peace and quite while she was in there.

Let's say Sharon did break the letter of the law....if you were on her jury...could you return a guilty verdict?

[thinkaboutit]

She cut the wires? Why? It wasn't like she was sneaking around. Maybe she needed some peace and quite while she was in there.

Let's say Sharon did break the letter of the law....if you were on her jury...could you return a guilty verdict?

She cut the wires so the alarm would stop going off. :)

Do I understand her emotions, anger, etc - absolutely - but I would have to find her guilty - yes - if I were going to follow the law.

If I might add, according to her book - they did not arrest her - but IIRC, they (MPD) did confiscate the items she took. I imagine she eventually got them back though.

[One2Snoop]

Modesto: run for criminals by criminals.

In your opinion.

[Anne2719]

I'd say a double premiditated murder was a tad more serious.
According to the jury, it was only a single premeditated murder.

[Toggie]

She cut the wires? Why? It wasn't like she was sneaking around. Maybe she needed some peace and quite while she was in there.

Let's say Sharon did break the letter of the law....if you were on her jury...could you return a guilty verdict?

If Sharon did break the law...I would have to find her guilty.

I can honestly say I would have done the same thing Sharon did. I would not care if I got arrested or not.

[concernedperson]

Does anyone remember Jackie in the truck with the ironing board sans her oxygen? She made a good haul that day.

Jackie was very taken with anything and everything against the Rocha's. Reading Anne Byrd's book again refreshed my memory.She had a great sense of entitlement and took up for her golden boy no matter how trivial. It took Anne way too long to accept this but she ultimately did.

[accordn2me]

If Sharon did break the law...I would have to find her guilty.Have you ever heard of jury nullification? It's one of your rights!:seeya:

[cookiewench]

My question would be WHY Sharon had to "break in" to her daughter's house in the first place - after repeated requests to go in and get a few of her daughter's things.

And on top of that, having to put up with knowing that members of the legal team who were defending her murderer had stayed there and swum in her pool.

.....and some people tried to claim, after the Petersons, the defense team, and who knows else coming & going at will - that Sharon was messing with a "crime scene".

[accordn2me]

My question would be WHY Sharon had to "break in" to her daughter's house in the first place - after repeated requests to go in and get a few of her daughter's things.

And on top of that, having to put up with knowing that members of the legal team who were defending her murderer had stayed there and swum in her pool.

.....and some people tried to claim, after the Petersons, the defense team, and who knows else coming & going at will - that Sharon was messing with a "crime scene".A resounding question cookiewench! The mother of the victim should be given the utmost reverence. No simple request should be denied her.

The assertion that the members of the legal team who were defending Scott had stayed in Laci's house and swum in the very pool that Laci's sister-in-law, Anne, speculated could have been where Scott took her life, is beyond despicable.

True or not, Sharon had every right to her daughter's belongings and the place Laci spent her last moments. The fact that the Peterson's could fathom denying her that access is yet another clue into the reason Scott turned out to be the monster that he is.

After reading and rereading aloud, accordn2me approves this message.

[thinkaboutit]

A resounding question cookiewench! The mother of the victim should be given the utmost reverence. No simple request should be denied her.

The assertion that the members of the legal team who were defending Scott had stayed in Laci's house and swum in the very pool that Laci's sister-in-law, Anne, speculated could have been where Scott took her life, is beyond despicable.

True or not, Sharon had every right to her daughter's belongings and the place Laci spent her last moments. The fact that the Peterson's could fathom denying her that access is yet another clue into the reason Scott turned out to be the monster that he is.

After reading and rereading aloud, accordn2me approves this message.

You are funny! :)

I can definitely see where you are coming from. Looking at it from a guilty perspective - I understand her anger, her frustration, her pain, - I'm sure the list is endless. I cannot imagine losing one of my children - and I honestly don't know what I would do if the person I thought was responsible was available to get my hands around his or her neck.

But from an innocent perspective....those things that were Laci's did not belong to Sharon. They would have gone to her husband. And considering the serious turn their relationship had taken (Sharon and Scott's) and some of the really awful things that Sharon had said to Scott - I can see the Petersons' side of this also.

[JustMyOpinion]

You are funny! :)

I can definitely see where you are coming from. Looking at it from a guilty perspective - I understand her anger, her frustration, her pain, - I'm sure the list is endless. I cannot imagine losing one of my children - and I honestly don't know what I would do if the person I thought was responsible was available to get my hands around his or her neck.

But from an innocent perspective....those things that were Laci's did not belong to Sharon. They would have gone to her husband. And considering the serious turn their relationship had taken (Sharon and Scott's) and some of the really awful things that Sharon had said to Scott - I can see the Petersons' side of this also.
So, you believe Scott felt angry with Sharon, therefore he controlled her access to the home and Laci's belongings ( via his parents) as punishment?

[Wudge]

Now, many of those same people are asking for proof that Laci was actually murdered there, thus claiming it wasn't a crime scene.

SNIP

:confused:



Confusion antidote is here. Sit down. Get ready.

It's not a crime scene.

Glad to help.

[thinkaboutit]

So, you believe Scott felt angry with Sharon, therefore he controlled her access to the home and Laci's belongings ( via his parents) as punishment?

Anger? I have no idea. No - not as "punishment". They were not on good terms. To ask her to go through proper "channels" doesn't seem unreasonable to me. I'm just saying I understand if they weren't as accomodating as Sharon would have liked them to be. I know that Lee said in an interview that Scott was in the process of going through Sharon's requests. I have no idea what the situation was - but I can imagine the Petersons were very busy since their son had been arrested and they lived quite a ways from Modesto.

And I also understand Sharon's panic and impatience.

[JustMyOpinion]

Anger? I have no idea. No - not as "punishment". They were not on good terms. To ask her to go through proper "channels" doesn't seem unreasonable to me. I'm just saying I understand if they weren't as accomodating as Sharon would have liked them to be. I know that Lee said in an interview that Scott was in the process of going through Sharon's requests. I have no idea what the situation was - but I can imagine the Petersons were very busy since their son had been arrested and they lived quite a ways from Modesto.

And I also understand Sharon's panic and impatience.

Not on good terms doesn't begin to describe the reality, IMO. Sharon's daughter had been murdered & disposed of in the Bay, her SIL had lied to her for months, he had been arrested on suspicion of murdering her daughter & grandbaby, and he ( via his parents) was locking her out of Laci's home. I doubt Sharon felt panic or impatience, she more likely felt angry and unwilling to be abused any further by Scott Peterson. (It's quite clear to me that by then, Sharon believed Scott had murdered her child.) How might you feel if you believed this about someone and this perpetrator was denying you access to your child's home & belongings?

[thinkaboutit]

Not on good terms doesn't begin to describe the reality, IMO. Sharon's daughter had been murdered & disposed of in the Bay, her SIL had lied to her for months, he had been arrested on suspicion of murdering her daughter & grandbaby, and he ( via his parents) was locking her out of Laci's home. I doubt Sharon felt panic or impatience, she more likely felt angry and unwilling to be abused any further by Scott Peterson. (It's quite clear to me that by then, Sharon believed Scott had murdered her child.) How might you feel if you believed this about someone and this perpetrator was denying you access to your child's home & belongings?


I think I've already said I completely understand Sharon's feelings - and in case you missed one of my posts - I mentioned anger also. And like I also said - I see exactly what you are saying from a guilty perspective. I assume you are unable to see it from my innocent perspective.

[JustMyOpinion]

I think I've already said I completely understand Sharon's feelings - and in case you missed one of my posts - I mentioned anger also. And like I also said - I see exactly what you are saying from a guilty perspective. I assume you are unable to see it from my innocent perspective.

I can well imagine that Scott felt angry with Sharon ( and it also appears to me he had no empathy toward her. Nada, zero, zip. ) IMO To me it has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, it just speaks volumes about Scott's conscience & character that he would ask his parents to lock a grieving mother out of her murdered daughter's home. JMO

[accordn2me]

I can well imagine that Scott felt angry with Sharon ( and it also appears to me he had no empathy toward her. Nada, zero, zip. ) IMO To me it has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, it just speaks volumes about Scott's conscience & character that he would ask his parents to lock a grieving mother out of her murdered daughter's home. JMO

I have to agree with this post, innocence/guilt perspective has nothing to do with it. And that's without light of the fact that Scott inquired about selling the house furnished.

Although, I'm not sure I believe it was behind-bars-Scott calling the shots in this particular fiasco.

[Rachel Cory]

It was felony burglary. Scott had already allowed his lawyers to remove a list of things Sharon wanted to their office for pick up.

SHE COMMITTED A CRIME. NO IF'S, BUT'S OR MAYBE'S. A CRIME.
No. Not in this case.

[Rachel Cory]

Confusion antidote is here. Sit down. Get ready.

It's not a crime scene.

Glad to help.Thank you.

[TuscanDreams]

My daughter used to be in a very abusive relationship. If she were harmed during that time, you bet I would have entered her home and taken things that had sentinmental value.

Sharon Rocha is the victim's mom and grandmother. I completely understand her reacting the way she did. And actually, I think that as the estate hadn't been settled, she had some legal standing to enter the home on Laci's behalf. Her estate would go to Sharon, since Scott is convicted of killing her and legally, the perp can't make a profit off of their crimmes.

[Wudge]

Would it be accurate to state that it is not known whether or not the Peterson home was a crime scene since we do not know if Laci was killed in her home or not? Legally; however, I imagine it would not be considered to be a crime scene simply because there was no evidence found there to indicate that the home was a crime scene.

Lion

Correct. It could not be considered a crime scene. To do so would represent facts not in evidence.

[LionRun]

Correct. It could not be considered a crime scene. To do so would represent facts not in evidence.

I see. And, I agree.

Lion

[accordn2me]

I see. And, I agree.

Lion
In my opinion, the point of contention is the people who were complaining about Sharon's accessing the house used the "house is a crime scene" card, yet they are the very ones who claim it's not a crime scene.

[cookiewench]

Correct. It could not be considered a crime scene. To do so would represent facts not in evidence.

It wouldn't matter.

Crime scene or not, it had been processed and people had been coming in and out of it and strangers had been living in it for months.

The Peterson's had lived there and had full access and privacy to do anything they want, change anything they want, hide anything they want.

It's impossible for anyone to assert that Sharon was "tampering with a crime scene".

[LionRun]

In my opinion, the point of contention is the people who were complaining about Sharon's accessing the house used the "house is a crime scene" card, yet they are the very ones who claim it's not a crime scene.

Yes, sorry, my mistake.

Lion

[accordn2me]

Contention confirmation is here. Sit down. Get ready.

This is exactly right. In my opinion, anyway.
Can you prove it?

[accordn2me]

Yes, sorry, my mistake.

Lion

No apology necessary, dear Lion. Just trying to add some clarification.

[TuscanDreams]

First common ground statement- do we all agree this is added:

1. Laci and Conner were murdered, Scott Peterson was convicted in the deaths of both.

We will go through them one by one and then have one thread with common ground statements.

[LionRun]

Good morning TuscanDreams. I agree.

Lion

[Wudge]

It wouldn't matter.

Crime scene or not, it had been processed and people had been coming in and out of it and strangers had been living in it for months.

The Peterson's had lived there and had full access and privacy to do anything they want, change anything they want, hide anything they want.

It's impossible for anyone to assert that Sharon was "tampering with a crime scene".


Evidence comes in two flavors. Findings inside the house sourced exculpatory evidence. Unauthorized entrance and/or removing objects should not have taken place without the Court's permission.

[JustMyOpinion]

Evidence comes in two flavors. Findings inside the house sourced exculpatory evidence. Unauthorized entrance and/or removing objects should not have taken place without the Court's permission.

Then are you saying you think the house should have been sealed and no person allowed to enter, leave, remove any objects without the Court's permission? ( including Jackie, Lee, Defense lawyers, private investigators)?

[Wudge]

Then are you saying you think the house should have been sealed and no person allowed to enter, leave, remove any objects without the Court's permission? ( including Jackie, Lee, Defense lawyers, private investigators)?

In the absence of Scott authorizing entry, obviously a Court should have. [breaking and entering, unlawful entrance et al, not good]

[enlightenme]

Then are you saying you think the house should have been sealed and no person allowed to enter, leave, remove any objects without the Court's permission? ( including Jackie, Lee, Defense lawyers, private investigators)?

Reminds me of Jackie wanting to give Conner's nursery items away to a relative but Scott told her he should keep them "for appearance sake".

Source - Crier's book. Taped call between Jackie and Scott.

[TuscanDreams]

First common ground statement- do we all agree this is added:

1. Laci and Conner were murdered, Scott Peterson was convicted in the deaths of both.

We will go through them one by one and then have one thread with common ground statements.

Let's go for #2.

2. Their bodies washed ashore in the same area that Scott stated he was fishing at, on or about the time of Laci's disappearance.

Both sides agree?

[accordn2me]

First common ground statement- do we all agree this is added:

1. Laci and Conner were murdered, Scott Peterson was convicted in the deaths of both.

We will go through them one by one and then have one thread with common ground statements.Tuscan Dreams, I agree with you and Lion on this statement. How about, I second Lion's agreement and move that the statement stands as printed above.

a2me:patriot:

[accordn2me]

Let's go for #2.

2. Their bodies washed ashore in the same area that Scott stated he was fishing at, on or about the time of Laci's disappearance.

Both sides agree? I'm fine with this one, too. If I were on the other side, I might want the phrase "About 4 months after Laci was reported missing" (or something like that) at the beginning of this statement.

[accordn2me]

Hey A2M,

Happy Easter!

Just my 2 cents, but I'd love to ask the NG's what kind of evidence, exactly, would they expect to find if someone who lives and moves in the location they were strangled in? Exactly what kind of evidence could we expect or even hope to find under these conditions in addition to the murderer having an addition 19+ hours afterwards to dispose of evidence (and the body) before anyone became aware that the victim was even missing?

I can't think of anything. Not a single thing.Hey TG! Happy Easter to you and yours.:rose:

Honestly, TG, I've always had a hard time with CE cases (thinking of Darlie Routier) because I can usually "what if" something into reasonable doubt. Not in this case though....not this one.

You know all those missing trash bags? Anyone who's watched enough CSI knows LE can match all that stuff up unless you get rid of the whole bunch...in my opinion. Duct tape, too....in my opinion. If two people are living in the same house, and one throws a trash bag over the other one and suffocates them to death in that house...how much forensic evidence could we expect to find? Broken ribs just wouldn't get left behind....so, I'm guessing virtually none.

Is there going to be a test?

[cookiewench]

Evidence comes in two flavors. Findings inside the house sourced exculpatory evidence. Unauthorized entrance and/or removing objects should not have taken place without the Court's permission.And I will state that, once all of those people had been in & out for so many months, there was nothing to be found there that one side or the other couldn't have had banned as evidence.

If you really feel there could have still be evidence there, why have you no issue with the Petersons and many strangers having lived there?

Even if LE hadn't been completely finished with their processing (and they WERE), anything found there would have been virtually worthless as evidence.

[Wudge]

And I will state that, once all of those people had been in & out for so many months, there was nothing to be found there that one side or the other couldn't have had banned as evidence.

If you really feel there could have still be evidence there, why have you no issue with the Petersons and many strangers having lived there?

Even if LE hadn't been completely finished with their processing (and they WERE), anything found there would have been virtually worthless as evidence.

This issue is not central to the case. Consider my comment to have been similar to noting a dangling participle.

[Lili007]

This issue is not central to the case. Consider my comment to have been similar to noting a dangling participle.

That's over-valued as well.

JMO

[accordn2me]

Are we on #3 yet?

[TuscanDreams]

Are we on #3 yet?

Don't wait for me, please, add others as we go along. What do we agree on for number 3?

[accordn2me]

Don't wait for me, please, add others as we go along. What do we agree on for number 3?
The original: "Scott had an affair with Amber Frey." I would like to add: Amber did not know he was married.

There has been some discussion as to whether it's appropriate to call Amber Scott's mistress because Amber thought Scott was single. She didn't realize she was having "an affair."

[Anne2719]

The original: "Scott had an affair with Amber Frey." I would like to add: Amber did not know he was married.

There has been some discussion as to whether it's appropriate to call Amber Scott's mistress because Amber thought Scott was single. She didn't realize she was having "an affair."
I agree -- Amber seems to be vilified by many people, and her biggest sin, as far as I'm concerned, was being naive.

[thinkaboutit]

I have no problem with stipulating that Amber did not know Scott was married.

[thinkaboutit]

I believe stating that Amber was ISP mistress is a back door way of implying she did know he was married. :no:

No TopGunner - go check the definition - there is no stipulation that the mistress must know that the man is married. If you find one, please post it.

This is the common ground thread. I agreed to #3 and you had to post something sarcastic. As far as I'm concerned that is considered nothing but trying to start trouble.

[thinkaboutit]

I beg to differ. The common understanding of the word "mistress" implies she knew he was married and went out with him anyway. I do not have to "check" definitions, and you know exactly what you mean when you said that.

I also suggest that you be careful when you accuse me of something. I'll let you know when/if I want to start trouble, there'll be no guessing, I assure you.

Really? The common understanding of the word "mistress" implies she knew he was married? Tell that to Oprah, Court TV, MSNBC and the rest of the media:

Scott Peterson's Mistress: Amber Frey Reveals Her Story To Oprah
http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/200501/tows_past_20050105.jhtml

Report: Peterson mistress Amber Frey two-timed detectives
http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/062504_crier_ctv.html

Peterson's ex-mistress set to testify
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/1188710/posts

Former Peterson Mistress Amber Frey Inks Book Deal
http://www.foxreno.com/news/4004571/detail.html

Former mistress of Scott Peterson to wed neighbor
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13726762/

Defense Attorneys Cross-Examine Scott Peterson Mistress Amber Frey
http://www.lifenews.com/nat752.html

Need more? I've got 10 pages of hits on "Amber Frey Mistress".

Don't tell me to be careful of anything - I stand by my opinion that your previous post had no purpose but to cause trouble.

I know exactly what I mean when I say it. You actually think you know me well enough to tell me I am insinuating things with the use of a word (which by definition does not mean what you say it means) that has been so commonly used to describe Amber Frey's relationship with Scott Peterson?

Sheesh.

[TuscanDreams]

#3: Scott Peterson had an affair with Amber Frey while Laci Peterson was pregnant with Conner. Amber Frey did not know he was married.

Good work gals and guys!

Now, what do you want to make #4?

[Rachel Cory]

Topgunner to thinkaboutit: "You lack knowledge as well."

If there was ever a misunderstanding, this takes the cake. Pardon me for sticking my nose in, but I know what think knows, and she knows more than I do. I really don't see how she can put up with the constant tunnelvision. You have no idea what some of us know. We're not going to tell you. But the fact that Scott Peterson did not kill Laci can be banked on. I can't hang out here anymore. See you all when the Truth is finally revealed. We'll be :seeya: : and yelling, "We told you so."

[enlightenme]

Topgunner to thinkaboutit: "You lack knowledge as well."

If there was ever a misunderstanding, this takes the cake. Pardon me for sticking my nose in, but I know what think knows, and she knows more than I do. I really don't see how she can put up with the constant tunnelvision. You have no idea what some of us know. We're not going to tell you. But the fact that Scott Peterson did not kill Laci can be banked on. I can't hang out here anymore. See you all when the Truth is finally revealed. We'll be :seeya: : and yelling, "We told you so."


Well, this sure sounds like Jr. High School.

I know something that you don't know...neener, neener, neener!

Brother! There are many, many people that are positive that Scott Lee Peterson killed his wife and unborn baby boy. We were told on the CourtTV boards during the trial to "bank on" lots of things by NGs that never came to pass.

Your exonerating evidence can't be too great since Scott still sits on DR at SQ.

:rolleyes:

JMO

[Toggie]

Well, this sure sounds like Jr. High School.

I know something that you don't know...neener, neener, neener!

Brother! There are many, many people that are positive that Scott Lee Peterson killed his wife and unborn baby boy. We were told on the CourtTV boards during the trial to "bank on" lots of things by NGs that never came to pass.

Your exonerating evidence can't be too great since Scott still sits on DR at SQ.

:rolleyes:

JMO

Well, if someone has information to free Scott from the chains/bars that bind him..I wish to heck they'd hurry up and share their information with someone who can do something about it.

I researched on my own when I was so certain Scott was innocent and kept hitting dead ends. If someone does have information that proves Scott is innocent, I wish they'd get the ball rolling and contact the authorities.

Laci's family deserves to know what happened to her.

[accordn2me]

Topgunner to thinkaboutit: "You lack knowledge as well."

If there was ever a misunderstanding, this takes the cake. Pardon me for sticking my nose in, but I know what think knows, and she knows more than I do. I really don't see how she can put up with the constant tunnelvision. You have no idea what some of us know. We're not going to tell you. But the fact that Scott Peterson did not kill Laci can be banked on. I can't hang out here anymore. See you all when the Truth is finally revealed. We'll be :seeya: : and yelling, "We told you so."What are you waiting for? Does Scott enjoy the concrete hotel by the bay? How long are you planning on sitting on the big secret? Why keep something that could set Scott free a secret? Something's fishy about that.:no:

[enlightenme]

Well, if someone has information to free Scott from the chains/bars that bind him..I wish to heck they'd hurry up and share their information with someone who can do something about it.

I researched on my own when I was so certain Scott was innocent and kept hitting dead ends. If someone does have information that proves Scott is innocent, I wish they'd get the ball rolling and contact the authorities.

Laci's family deserves to know what happened to her.


I assure you that Laci's family had NO doubt about what happened to her and baby Conner. Zip, zero, zilch. They finally had to realize that they were all duped by Scott and his double life, double personality. What I'm sure they are kicking themselves about is that they didn't see it early enough to save Laci.

You do know that there are people and con men in life who can fool even the most savvy people, don't you? It happens quite frequently, unfortunately.

JMO

[accordn2me]

I assure you that Laci's family had NO doubt about what happened to her and baby Conner. Zip, zero, zilch. They finally had to realize that they were all duped by Scott and his double life, double personality. What I'm sure they are kicking themselves about is that they didn't see it early enough to save Laci.

You do know that there are people and con men in life who can fool even the most savvy people, don't you? It happens quite frequently, unfortunately.

JMOI concur. Someone made the comment the other day that not all psychopaths are murders. The dangerous aspect about such an individual is if they happen to get the idea of eliminating an obstacle that's blocking their desires, they have no conscience to prevent them from carrying out a cold, calculated plan like the murder and dumping of Laci & Conner.

[TuscanDreams]

Whoever would have thought that trying to find common ground between adults would result in a downward posting spiral?

[TuscanDreams]

I concur. Someone made the comment the other day that not all psychopaths are murders. The dangerous aspect about such an individual is if they happen to get the idea of eliminating an obstacle that's blocking their desires, they have no conscience to prevent them from carrying out a cold, calculated plan like the murder and dumping of Laci & Conner.

Not sure, but that may have been me that made that statement. It is accurate that not all sociopaths or psychopaths physically harm anyone. They can channel their negative emotions into being paratroopers, CEO's of large companies, etc.

[JustMyOpinion]

#3: Scott Peterson had an affair with Amber Frey while Laci Peterson was pregnant with Conner. Amber Frey did not know he was married.

Good work gals and guys!

Now, what do you want to make #4?

I would re-phrase #3:

3. Scott Peterson had an affair with Amber Frey while Laci was pregnant with Conner. Scott represented himself to Shawn Sibley and Amber Frey as single, never married.

Suggestion for #4:
4. Shawn Sibley & Amber Frey testified that Scott told them ( Dec 6 & Dec 9)
He had been married, but had lost his wife. Scott confirms he told Amber this in taped conversation on January 6.

[accordn2me]

I would re-phrase #3:

3. Scott Peterson had an affair with Amber Frey while Laci was pregnant with Conner. Scott represented himself to Shawn Sibley and Amber Frey as single, never married.

Suggestion for #4:
4. Shawn Sibley & Amber Frey testified that Scott told them ( Dec 6 & Dec 9)
He had been married, but had lost his wife. Scott confirms he told Amber this in taped conversation on January 6.
I agree with this revision and suggestion.

[One2Snoop]

Originally Posted by JustMyOpinion
I would re-phrase #3:

3. Scott Peterson had an affair with Amber Frey while Laci was pregnant with Conner. Scott represented himself to Shawn Sibley and Amber Frey as single, never married.

Suggestion for #4:
4. Shawn Sibley & Amber Frey testified that Scott told them ( Dec 6 & Dec 9)
He had been married, but had lost his wife. Scott confirms he told Amber this in taped conversation on January 6.

I agree with this revision and suggestion.

ditto.....

[enlightenme]

I would re-phrase #3:

3. Scott Peterson had an affair with Amber Frey while Laci was pregnant with Conner. Scott represented himself to Shawn Sibley and Amber Frey as single, never married.

Suggestion for #4:
4. Shawn Sibley & Amber Frey testified that Scott told them ( Dec 6 & Dec 9)
He had been married, but had lost his wife. Scott confirms he told Amber this in taped conversation on January 6.


Sounds right to me too.

[accordn2me]

No. I believe they died and that criminal behavior was involved but is it murder if the homicide wasn't planned or intended? If, say, bank robbers kill someone while escaping the cops in a car?
Or in this case if kidnappers let someone die by neglect while holding them captive?
That would be second degree murder.

[Anne2719]

No. I believe they died and that criminal behavior was involved but is it murder if the homicide wasn't planned or intended? If, say, bank robbers kill someone while escaping the cops in a car?

Or in this case if kidnappers let someone die by neglect while holding them captive?
You're talking about "felony homicide," which I believe is considered murder.

[Wudge]

That's my understanding - actus reus but no mens rea. But the use of the term murder here implies a desire to kill Laci and not to merely cover up another crime. This is California, the craziest three strikes state, where homicides have increased (I am told) because of the law.

If Laci was abducted by the burglars and died as a result, it is felony murder -- for each burglar who was there at the time of the abduction.

This is why the burglars would have needed to frame Scott. They would have had no way out.

If they abducted Lavi and something went wrong like Laci or Conner dying, then doomsday. If Connor died, then they would have had little choice but to frame Scott, because it's an abduction and a murder by then. So murdering Laci too would mean nothing by then.

The burglars knew by January 2nd that this case was high-profile and was not going to go away. They also would have also known that if Scott was not framed, then their ridiculous storyline that alleges the Medina's burglary took place the morning of 12/26 would eventually unravel. They would have been placed at the scene of Laci's disappearance and could and likely would have been tried for two murders.

Hence, framing Scott would have been their only move, and given they could have driven within 25 feet of the Hoffman marsh, a boat would not even have been needed.

[ekg]

I don't think Scott murdered Laci for money, either - at least not directly.

I think he wanted freedom do do as he pleased without the responsibility of accounting to anyone. Trouble was... he needed money to live that life. So I think that he might have thought the insurance policies would come in handy.

snipped




what ins. policy? you mean the one Laci and Scott bought from Brian Ullrich? B/c that one had a clause in it that in the event that someone went missing the benefactor had to wait 7 yrs to collect....

I just don't think he planned to kill her for the insurance that he'd have to wait 7yrs for.... Not when he only had a short time to wait for the baby and the g/parents will to go into effect.

oh...and...

259. Now, is there a clause in the policy that, if somebody goes missing, that they -- the insurance company does not pay for seven years?

260. Brian Ullrich That is from my understanding there, but I don't have the expertise to...

261. After Laci went missing, did Scott ever call you up and put in a claim for Laci's life insurance?

262. Brian Ullrich No.

263. To the best of your knowledge did he ever call anybody connected to Principal -- it's Principal Life, correct?

264. Brian Ullrich Correct.

265. Did he ever call anybody that you're aware of, did you see any memo regarding Scott specifically making a request regarding insurance?

266. Brian Ullrich No.

[ekg]

I still have to wonder why, if it were possible to do this analysis, the defense didn't offer its own proof that it was Laci on the computer that morning. Easy enough to say the prosecution didn't have it done, but the actual analysis that might save his client is conspicuous by its absence.

This leads me to believe that the defense DID have the analysis done and didn't introduce it because the results didn't support their argument.

you can look at it that way or you can look at it this way.... a trial this size costs money...lots and lots of money.. so if a defense lawyer can get a pros. witness to testify for him, then why bother hiring his own witness... and that's what MG did to alot of the Pros' witness'.. he used them to make his own valid points thinking that not only is it saving money, but it looks better to have the pros. witness testify for the defense during the prosecutors case, then it does to have a defense witness say something to help the prosecutioon during the defenses case...

which is why I believe Wecht and Lee didn't testify.. they couldn't add anything more than what MG got out of the Da's ME...but the DA could have gotten an 'it's possible' out of them...*shrug

I also want to say that the comp usage goes along way in proving Scotts innocent IMO...if you believe it was Laci online, then that means Scott had roughly 90 mins to kill her,wrap her, get her in the truck and then clean the house of any evidence....all in broad daylight...

now maybe a heat of passion thing could have happened....but not pre-med.

and really, could a heat of passion thing happened and been cleaned up in 90 minutes? and would any one risk carring out a body at 9-10am in the morning? sorry... I just don't think so.

if it wasn't Laci online then it was Scott.... so why didn't he mention it? IIRC the 1st anyone heard of it was when Wall testified. Wouldn't Scott have mentioned "She was even on the computer that morning, check for yourself" or something...?

[ekg]

I'm sorry - but this is a joke - truly laughable. You've got G's on here like Miss Bootsie that accuse us of predictably discrediting witnesses - but here you are with a prosecution witnesses testimony sitting right in front of you - and you're saying - nope I don't believe it. Won't agree that it's a fact because Geragos SHOULD have hired his own expert.

I might as well just go bang my head against a wall. :cuss:

he-he-he.... now you know why I have stock in Excedrin and Zantac....

:beer:

you get used to it tai...... you really do.....



well ok you don't.... but what can you do about it?:shrug:

[ekg]

I'm still waiting for any reasonalbe explanation of how Laci's hair got in the teeth of the pliers found in Scott's boat.

The storm is the answer to your question.

and I'm still waiting on proof it was Laci's hair

:seeya: a2me

one out of every 112 ppl had the same mDNA right? that's alot of ppl....AND the pliers were rusted shut weren't they? If it's Laci's hair, how'd they get rusted shut in just a cpl hrs? ;)

I wonder if Brian Peterson had a wife with brown hair??? :chicken:

[ekg]

#3: Scott Peterson had an affair with Amber Frey while Laci Peterson was pregnant with Conner. Amber Frey did not know he was married.

Good work gals and guys!

Now, what do you want to make #4?


sorry..... I can't agree with that.

all we have is her word on that..... and I don't believe everything out of her mouth..I'm not the Amber expert, but I know there are some who are and if they are on here, can give you reasons not to totally believe her either.:shrug:

but how about this for a compromise "Amber Frey says she did not know he was married"

[accordn2me]

and I'm still waiting on proof it was Laci's hair

:seeya: a2me

one out of every 112 ppl had the same mDNA right? that's alot of ppl....AND the pliers were rusted shut weren't they? If it's Laci's hair, how'd they get rusted shut in just a cpl hrs? ;)

I wonder if Brian Peterson had a wife with brown hair??? :chicken:Don't chew judge me........ekg!

Did you see that twisted hair in them pliers.........I saw it...and I saw it before I wuz on the wine............believeme.......don't............. .i do not and never will care..........wine or not..........i see what i see..........

what do you see?

[JustMyOpinion]

sorry..... I can't agree with that.

all we have is her word on that..... and I don't believe everything out of her mouth..I'm not the Amber expert, but I know there are some who are and if they are on here, can give you reasons not to totally believe her either.:shrug:

but how about this for a compromise "Amber Frey says she did not know he was married"

It is a FACT that Scott ADMITS he told her he lost his wife. See January 6 transcript.

[JustMyOpinion]

Laci's inheritance would have been worth waiting for AND he would probably get it in less than 7 years.

Laci stood to come into her portion of inheritance when she reached age 30, she was 27 when Scott killed her.
Property inherited by one spouse is not community property in California. Inherited property is separate property, (even when spouses are happily living together.)
http://family-law.freeadvice.com/divorce_law/1community_property.htm
There are nine community property states - Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin. In addition, Puerto Rico is a community property jurisdiction.
These states generally regard as community property all property that has been acquired during the marriage, other than a gift or inheritance. Even if one spouse earns all the money to acquire the property, all the property acquired is considered to be community property. While there are a number of differences in each state, all states have special laws that operate on the theory that both spouses contribute equally to the marriage; thus all property acquired during the marriage is the result of the combined efforts of both spouses. In community property jurisdictions, spouses equally own all community property (fifty percent owned by the husband and fifty percent owned by the wife)

Scott stood to profit financially from the murder, (had he not been convicted)
( i.e. equity in the house, golf club membership, Laci's jewelry, etc).

[JustMyOpinion]

If Laci was abducted by the burglars and died as a result, it is felony murder -- for each burglar who was there at the time of the abduction.

This is why the burglars would have needed to frame Scott. They would have had no way out.

.

There is no evidence that Laci was abducted by the burglars. And framing someone else is not the "only way out". IMO

[ekg]

It is a FACT that Scott ADMITS he told her he lost his wife. See January 6 transcript.

it's a FACT that Amber didn't know he was married?

huh, I just thought it was her word...and she does have credibility issues IMO...

I stand by my protest tho.... I don't believe everything out if her mouth..... but I'm ok with "Amber Frey says she did not know he was married"

[JustMyOpinion]

it's a FACT that Amber didn't know he was married?

huh, I just thought it was her word...and she does have credibility issues IMO...

I stand by my protest tho.... I don't believe everything out if her mouth..... but I'm ok with "Amber Frey says she did not know he was married"

These were my suggestions from a previous post:
Originally Posted by JustMyOpinion
I would re-phrase #3:

3. Scott Peterson had an affair with Amber Frey while Laci was pregnant with Conner. Scott represented himself to Shawn Sibley and Amber Frey as single, never married.

Suggestion for #4:
4. Shawn Sibley & Amber Frey testified that Scott told them ( Dec 6 & Dec 9)
He had been married, but had lost his wife. Scott confirms he told Amber this in taped conversation on January 6.

[ekg]

Laci stood to come into her portion of inheritance when she reached age 30, she was 27 when Scott killed her.
Property inherited by one spouse is not community property in California. Inherited property is separate property, (even when spouses are happily living together.)
http://family-law.freeadvice.com/divorce_law/1community_property.htm
There are nine community property states - Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin. In addition, Puerto Rico is a community property jurisdiction.
These states generally regard as community property all property that has been acquired during the marriage, other than a gift or inheritance. Even if one spouse earns all the money to acquire the property, all the property acquired is considered to be community property. While there are a number of differences in each state, all states have special laws that operate on the theory that both spouses contribute equally to the marriage; thus all property acquired during the marriage is the result of the combined efforts of both spouses. In community property jurisdictions, spouses equally own all community property (fifty percent owned by the husband and fifty percent owned by the wife)

Scott stood to profit financially from the murder, (had he not been convicted)
( i.e. equity in the house, golf club membership, Laci's jewelry, etc).

Scott wouldn't have gotten her share, but the baby would have right? and wouldn't Scott have access to it as the baby's father?

and to be fair.. Scott isn't the only one who would profit financially from her murder either....

[JustMyOpinion]

Scott wouldn't have gotten her share, but the baby would have right? and wouldn't Scott have access to it as the baby's father?

...

?? I don't understand your question. How does the baby fit into community property laws?

[ekg]

There is no evidence that Laci was abducted by the burglars. And framing someone else is not the "only way out". IMO


there also isn't any evidence that Scott killed her..

There is evidence that there was a burglary around the same time she went missing...

There is evidence that the ppl who did it were 3rd strikers.

There is evidence that Laci was the type of woman who would confront ppl if she felt they were doing wrong.

There is evidence that the dog was prepped for a walk and the found in the street.

It's an avenue that should have been ripped apart by investigation instead of being swept under the rug. IMO a great injustice was done against Laci, Scott and the rest of the family b/c the tunnelvision in this case was so strong...

[ekg]

?? I don't understand your question. How does the baby fit into community property laws?

if Scott had wanted the money.... couldn't he have just waited until Laci got the inheritance...by that time the baby would have been born, and with her dead, Laci's share would have gone to her heir. Right?

and since he's the father, he would have access to it by default....or am I way off?

[ekg]

These were my suggestions from a previous post:
Originally Posted by JustMyOpinion
I would re-phrase #3:

3. Scott Peterson had an affair with Amber Frey while Laci was pregnant with Conner. Scott represented himself to Shawn Sibley and Amber Frey as single, never married.

Suggestion for #4:
4. Shawn Sibley & Amber Frey testified that Scott told them ( Dec 6 & Dec 9)
He had been married, but had lost his wife. Scott confirms he told Amber this in taped conversation on January 6.

yeah.... both of those work for me...

the confirming part can go both ways.... he did question her when she said he told her that, and then he just admitted it... either he admitted it b/c he did say it or b/c he didn't want to argue.. But I'm still good with your wording..

the wording I didn't like was "Amber Frey did not know he was married."

we don't know if she knew or not... all we have is her word and IMO her word isn't worth a whole lot...

[JustMyOpinion]

there also isn't any evidence that Scott killed her..

There is evidence that there was a burglary around the same time she went missing...

There is evidence that the ppl who did it were 3rd strikers.

There is evidence that Laci was the type of woman who would confront ppl if she felt they were doing wrong.

There is evidence that the dog was prepped for a walk and the found in the street.

It's an avenue that should have been ripped apart by investigation instead of being swept under the rug. IMO a great injustice was done against Laci, Scott and the rest of the family b/c the tunnelvision in this case was so strong...


There was a great deal of circumstantial evidence brought by the Prosecution over 19 weeks that proved to me that Scott murdered Laci & Conner. There was evidence that the burglary took place on 12/26. ( and evidence that Diane Jackson reported she saw three, dark-skinned men in front of Medina home at 11:40 a.m. on 12/24) There was no evidence presented that these three men were the burglars, no evidence presented that the burglars were "3 strikers". JMO
MPD did investigate & solve the Medina burglary, did try to get more information from Jackson ( she was hypnotized), this wasn't swept under the rug, IMO.
MPD conducted a parallel investigation ( "abducted while walking dog" vs "domestic homicide") IMO.
Justice has been done, the killer was indicted, tried, convicted & sentenced IMO. It is apparent to me that Scott's family continues to claim an unjustice was done, Laci's family is satisfied with the verdict & sentence..IMO.

[frydaddy]

there also isn't any evidence that Scott killed her..

There is evidence that there was a burglary around the same time she went missing...

There is evidence that the ppl who did it were 3rd strikers.

There is evidence that Laci was the type of woman who would confront ppl if she felt they were doing wrong.

There is evidence that the dog was prepped for a walk and the found in the street.

It's an avenue that should have been ripped apart by investigation instead of being swept under the rug. IMO a great injustice was done against Laci, Scott and the rest of the family b/c the tunnelvision in this case was so strong...

There's plenty of evidence (circumstantial) that Scott had motive, means, and opportunity to kill Laci.

There is evidence that a burglary occured. When, is tricky at best, though I know certain posters are desperately clinging to the tipsheet that was never enterered into evidence. Neither of the participants in the tipsheet info (Steele or Jackson) testified. So, given that Steele nor his tipsheet were presented by MG, one must decide if this is red herring material or not.

Third strike petty thieves...you think they'd risk DP to avoid jail time? Do you think petty thieves would be petty thieves by nature if they were bright enough to pull off the great conspiracy/frame of our time? Wouldn't they set their sights a little higher than residential burglary, if they were willing to kill and smart enough to frame? Would they be third strikers with those traits?

Yelling at a bum squating in the park with her husband present is a lot different than confronting a burglar. The dog sat idly by and Laci put her baby and self in harms way over a burglary? How is it that Laci knew if was a burglary and not a repairman or a relative?

It's an avenue that was explored and investigated and MG used nothing but a little snippet through a third (or fourth) party in Grogan. Good news is that NG's and I's can revert to ineffective counsel if this burglary nonsense doesn't fly.

[thinkaboutit]

Scott told Brent that Amber didn't know about Laci.

To save time, I am happy to stipulate that Scott has credibility issues, of course.


Obviously there is another argument to your statement, besides Scott's credibility issues. That would be that it could have been possible that Amber knew Scott was married - but didn't tell Scott she knew.

I wonder if everyone would agree that Amber suspected Scott was married?

[Anne2719]

. . .There is evidence that the ppl who did it were 3rd strikers.

There is evidence that Laci was the type of woman who would confront ppl if she felt they were doing wrong. . . .

Were they actually 3rd strikers? I was under the impression that the first two strikes had to have involved violence, and burglary convictions wouldn't contribute to the first two strikes.

Did Laci carry a cell phone? Whether or not she was the type of woman who would confront wrong-doers, what person in their right mind would confront and scold people she thought were in the midst of a burglary? When there were no other people around and she was outnumbered and outsized? I can't imagine anyone in her right mind doing such a thing. My sister, who is one of those people who confronts people, foiled pickpockets in Prague on several occasions, but always when there were other people around.

[Wudge]

There's plenty of evidence (circumstantial) that Scott had motive, means, and opportunity to kill Laci.

There is evidence that a burglary occured. When, is tricky at best, though I know certain posters are desperately clinging to the tipsheet that was never enterered into evidence. Neither of the participants in the tipsheet info (Steele or Jackson) testified. So, given that Steele nor his tipsheet were presented by MG, one must decide if this is red herring material or not.

Third strike petty thieves...you think they'd risk DP to avoid jail time? Do you think petty thieves would be petty thieves by nature if they were bright enough to pull off the great conspiracy/frame of our time? Wouldn't they set their sights a little higher than residential burglary, if they were willing to kill and smart enough to frame? Would they be third strikers with those traits?

Yelling at a bum squating in the park with her husband present is a lot different than confronting a burglar. The dog sat idly by and Laci put her baby and self in harms way over a burglary? How is it that Laci knew if was a burglary and not a repairman or a relative?

It's an avenue that was explored and investigated and MG used nothing but a little snippet through a third (or fourth) party in Grogan. Good news is that NG's and I's can revert to ineffective counsel if this burglary nonsense doesn't fly.


Motive was absent from the jury's verdict. Given that truth and given that all of the others potential soucres of inculpatory evidence were dry as regards proof of: premeditation, deliberation, intent and malice, then Scott was wrongfully convicted.

[JustMyOpinion]

Motive was absent from the jury's verdict. Given that truth and given that all of the others potential soucres of inculpatory evidence were dry as regards proof of: premeditation, deliberation, intent and malice, then Scott was wrongfully convicted.

IN YOUR OWN OPINION.

[Wudge]

IN YOUR OWN OPINION.

.......Fact.

[JustMyOpinion]

.......Fact.

IF an appellate court rules this is so, it will become fact. Until then, it is only your opinion. It is my own opinion the evidence proved malice, premeditation, deliberation, intent. Scott was rightfully convicted. JMO

[Anne2719]

IF an appellate court rules this is so, it will become fact. Until then, it is only your opinion. It is my own opinion the evidence proved malice, premeditation, deliberation, intent. Scott was rightfully convicted. JMO
I agree -- it's Wudge's opinion only.

[Wudge]

I agree -- it's Wudge's opinion only.

It's not. It's fact. After motive was proven to be absent from the jury's verdict, there is no other source of inculpatory evidence that could legally prove (proof beyond a reasonable doubt) premeditation, deliberation, intent and malice aforethought, fact.

We have been through this over and over, and no one has established the necessary inculpatory evidence, which in and of itself must too have been proven to be true beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Wudge]

IF an appellate court rules this is so, it will become fact. Until then, it is only your opinion. It is my own opinion the evidence proved malice, premeditation, deliberation, intent. Scott was rightfully convicted. JMO

You are begging the question, which is fallacious logic. You are assumming that that you wish to prove. If Scott was not wrongfully convicted, then cite the necessary inculpatory evidence that proved: premeditation, deliberation, intent and malice aforethought. And remember, that evidence too has to be proven to be true beyond a reasonable doubt.

[JustMyOpinion]

You are begging the question, which is fallacious logic. You are assumming that that you wish to prove. If Scott was not wrongfully convicted, then cite the necessary inculpatory evidence that proved: premeditation, deliberation, intent and malice aforethought. And remember, that evidence too has to be proven to be true beyond a reasonable doubt.

I have previously cited the evidence which proved premeditation, deliberation, intent & malice aforethought beyond my own reasonable and lingering doubt. And, it is disrespectful to state that others engage in fallacious logic and make assumptions simply because you don't agree, IMO.
I'm not going to engage in a circular, repetitive debate with you. I accept that the evidence brought which proved beyond my own reasonable doubt, does not exceed your own reasonable doubt. I agree to disagree.

[Anne2719]

It's not. It's fact. After motive was proven to be absent from the jury's verdict, there is no other source of inculpatory evidence that could legally prove (proof beyond a reasonable doubt) premeditation, deliberation, intent and malice aforethought, fact.

We have been through this over and over, and no one has established the necessary inculpatory evidence, which in and of itself must too have been proven to be true beyond a reasonable doubt.
circumstantial evidence
n.
Evidence not bearing directly on the fact in dispute but on various attendant circumstances from which the judge or jury might infer the occurrence of the fact in dispute.

[From the American Heritage Dictionary]


circumstantial evidence
In law, evidence that is drawn not from direct observation of a fact at issue but from events or circumstances that surround it. If a witness arrives at a crime scene seconds after hearing a gunshot to find someone standing over a corpse and holding a smoking pistol, the evidence is circumstantial, since the person may merely be a bystander who picked up the weapon after the killer dropped it. The popular notion that one cannot be convicted on circumstantial evidence is false. Most criminal convictions are based, at least in part, on circumstantial evidence that sufficiently links criminal and crime.

[From Britannica Concise Encyclopedia]


http://www.answers.com/topic/circumstantial-evidence -- scroll down to the Thomson Gale ("Law Encyclopedia") section for more . . . too long to quote here.


Bottom line: It's not a fact. It's your opinion.

[thinkaboutit]

The answer would depend on the date.

As of 12/24 I would say "NO", some would say "YES".

As of the January press conference just about everyone would say "YES", I assume.

You really don't think that Amber suspected Scott was married on 12/24?

[Wudge]

circumstantial evidence
n.
Evidence not bearing directly on the fact in dispute but on various attendant circumstances from which the judge or jury might infer the occurrence of the fact in dispute.

[From the American Heritage Dictionary]


circumstantial evidence
In law, evidence that is drawn not from direct observation of a fact at issue but from events or circumstances that surround it. If a witness arrives at a crime scene seconds after hearing a gunshot to find someone standing over a corpse and holding a smoking pistol, the evidence is circumstantial, since the person may merely be a bystander who picked up the weapon after the killer dropped it. The popular notion that one cannot be convicted on circumstantial evidence is false. Most criminal convictions are based, at least in part, on circumstantial evidence that sufficiently links criminal and crime.

[From Britannica Concise Encyclopedia]


http://www.answers.com/topic/circumstantial-evidence -- scroll down to the Thomson Gale ("Law Encyclopedia") section for more . . . too long to quote here.


Bottom line: It's not a fact. It's your opinion.


Failure to cite the necessary inculpatory evidence does not provide the necessary inculpatory evidence. And without necessary inculpatory evidence, then of logical necessity, the verdicts were wrongfully decided.

Flight is corroborative evidence.

Consciousness of guilt is corroborative evidence.

Dog evidence is corroborative evidence.

And the jury found no motive.

There is no cause of death.

There is no time of death.

There are no circumstances of death.

There is no place of death.

There is no crime scene nor forensics from a crime scene.

There is no eyewitness.

There is no confession.

Inculpatory evidence that proved premeditation, deliberation, untent and malice aforethought was also required to be proven to be true beyond a reasonable doubt.

When all sources of inculpatory evidence cannot be the source the jury used to support its finding that premeditation, deliberation and intent were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then of logical necessity, the jury’s verdict either had to rely on impermissible speculation or had to be fallaciously derived.

[frydaddy]

Motive was absent from the jury's verdict. Given that truth and given that all of the others potential soucres of inculpatory evidence were dry as regards proof of: premeditation, deliberation, intent and malice, then Scott was wrongfully convicted.

Oddly enough, I do not recall the words "we the jury...find the defendent guilty...though we admit there was no motive".

[Wudge]

Oddly enough, I do not recall the words "we the jury...find the defendent guilty...though we admit there was no motive".






Larry King Show...December 14, 2004

”KING: And what do you think his motive was?”

”BERATLIS: You know, Larry, I think if we all knew the motive, if there was this one thing that stuck out, we'd probably have the answer to the whole thing.”

Greg Beratlis's "if/then" statement fashions deduction. Greg Beratlis, himself, is included in "We". At the very least, motive was unclear in his mind.

Greta's Interview With Jurors

VAN SUSTEREN: Steve, if you could say anything at all tonight to Scott Peterson what would it be?

CARDOSI: I'm at a loss. I have really nothing to say at this point to him. I could ask him a question. It's just why would you do this? That would be it.

[frydaddy]

Larry King Show...December 14, 2004

”KING: And what do you think his motive was?”

”BERATLIS: You know, Larry, I think if we all knew the motive, if there was this one thing that stuck out, we'd probably have the answer to the whole thing.”

Greg Beratlis's "if/then" statement fashions deduction. Greg Beratlis, himself, is included in "We". At the very least, motive was unclear in his mind.

Greta's Interview With Jurors

VAN SUSTEREN: Steve, if you could say anything at all tonight to Scott Peterson what would it be?

CARDOSI: I'm at a loss. I have really nothing to say at this point to him. I could ask him a question. It's just why would you do this? That would be it.

So, you've now moved from absense of motive to lack of clarity in motive? Fair enough...I doubt any SIG feels certainty on motive, same with jurors. Short a confession, certainty on motive requires mind-reading skills.

[Wudge]

So, you've now moved from absense of motive to lack of clarity in motive? Fair enough...I doubt any SIG feels certainty on motive, same with jurors. Short a confession, certainty on motive requires mind-reading skills.

If a motive is unclear to jurors, as it obviously is here, then a motive certainly is not proven beyond a reasonble doubt to the jury. Thus, the verdict was decided absent motive.

[Anne2719]

Question: Is it necessary to prove what the actual motive is? What's the legal requirement?

[Wudge]

Question: Is it necessary to prove what the actual motive is? What's the legal requirement?

It is not necessary to prove motive. However, motive is one possible source of inculpatory evidence, which is an absolute necessity to prove premeditation, intent, deliberation and malice aforethought. And such inculpatory evidence, too, had to be proved at the level of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

Motive was not the source of that absolutely necessary inculpatory evidence.

[JustMyOpinion]

if Scott had wanted the money.... couldn't he have just waited until Laci got the inheritance...by that time the baby would have been born, and with her dead, Laci's share would have gone to her heir. Right?

and since he's the father, he would have access to it by default....or am I way off?

Based on evidence, I don't think Scott wanted to wait until Laci gave birth because then would have a child to support over the next 18 years ( whether he chose to stay married, or not). JMO

[ekg]

There was a great deal of circumstantial evidence brought by the Prosecution over 19 weeks that proved to me that Scott murdered Laci & Conner. There was evidence that the burglary took place on 12/26. ( and evidence that Diane Jackson reported she saw three, dark-skinned men in front of Medina home at 11:40 a.m. on 12/24) There was no evidence presented that these three men were the burglars, no evidence presented that the burglars were "3 strikers". JMO
MPD did investigate & solve the Medina burglary, did try to get more information from Jackson ( she was hypnotized), this wasn't swept under the rug, IMO.
MPD conducted a parallel investigation ( "abducted while walking dog" vs "domestic homicide") IMO.
Justice has been done, the killer was indicted, tried, convicted & sentenced IMO. It is apparent to me that Scott's family continues to claim an unjustice was done, Laci's family is satisfied with the verdict & sentence..IMO.



but the evidence that shows it happened on the 26th was from the robbers themselves wasn't it?

And Diane Jackson did see the safe....


Todd said he saw the media van but he still used a dolly to push the safe to the car that was parked on the street where the media would have seen him easily.. and it doesn't bother him? or make him stop?

and are we to really believe that they pulled up in front of the house and threw the safe in the car while reporters were right there?

Are we to believe the list of things Todd stole and drove off with on his bicycle?


MEDINA: We can't get into the little, when we were trying to make a right turn from Edgebrook Drive to Covena, we can't get in because there were some police, like some sort of barricade, and we have to identify to the police people that we live in that area, to let us in.

HARRIS: Did you show some identification and then they let you go to your house?

MEDINA: Yeah, my husband tried to pull out his driver's license, and he pulled it out and showed it to them that we live in that area

HARRIS: And then are you allowed to go through the police barricade?

but Todd was able to get thru this on the same day?




HARRIS: Did you notice something a little bit unusual or out of the ordinary as you were there in your driveway when you first get home?

MEDINA: Yes. We saw a lot of people. People are on our lawns. There were a lot of police officers. There was a car, a police car, many police cars. And when we drove into our driveway, we glanced at, at our front door, and it was locked. So we thought, you know, it must not be our house. And as my husband proceeded to open the south gate, he told me to get out and ask the couple of, I think they were sheriff from Contra Costa, to ask what's happening.


and none of them notice Todd and Peirce, pulling up in the early morning hrs, Todd getting out, Pearce waiting in the car and the Todd wheeling a dolly down to the street and then putting a safe in the front seat.... then driving off? and besides the fact of noone seeing them...what kind of balls would it take for them to do this?

I don't know.......their story of the theft and the day they say it was is as unbelievable to me as anything Scott made a valid excuse to, is to you.....and it makes me question what they are hiding...:shrug:

[JustMyOpinion]

but the evidence that shows it happened on the 26th was from the robbers themselves wasn't it?

And Diane Jackson did see the safe....


Todd said he saw the media van but he still used a dolly to push the safe to the car that was parked on the street where the media would have seen him easily.. and it doesn't bother him? or make him stop?

and are we to really believe that they pulled up in front of the house and threw the safe in the car while reporters were right there?

Are we to believe the list of things Todd stole and drove off with on his bicycle?

but Todd was able to get thru this on the same dayand none of them notice Todd and Peirce, pulling up in the early morning hrs, Todd getting out, Pearce waiting in the car and the Todd wheeling a dolly down to the street and then putting a safe in the front seat.... then driving off? and besides the fact of noone seeing them...what kind of balls would it take for them to do this?

I don't know.......their story of the theft and the day they say it was is as unbelievable to me as anything Scott made a valid excuse to, is to you.....and it makes me question what they are hiding...:shrug:

Based on the evidence, I think Diane Jackson reported seeing a safe at some point in time, but later explained to the defense investigator that she had heard about the burglary prior to making the report. JMO Also, the description she gave of the three men does not match Pearce & Todd..JMO
Yes, the time and date of the burglary was supplied by Pearce & Todd. Pearce was forthcoming with police right away, gave that information immediately. IIRC
I don't have access to the complete statements or all of the evidence against the burglars, so I will not assume that Todd transported all of those items on his bicycle. JMO
Todd and Pearce told police they did see one media truck on the morning of the 26th ( parked up the street) IIRC

[ekg]

There's plenty of evidence (circumstantial) that
snipped

Third strike petty thieves...you think they'd risk DP to avoid jail time? Do you think petty thieves would be petty thieves by nature if they were bright enough to pull off the great conspiracy/frame of our time? .

but you can belive Scott was smart enought? remember he commited an almost 100% forensically free murder....with 5 crime scenes and only one hair that may or may not be Laci's...

and if they(todd and pearce) weren't look into very hard... and their stories bought on 1st-2nd pass.. then we don't know if the pulled anything off or not...

[ekg]

Based on evidence, I don't think Scott wanted to wait until Laci gave birth because then would have a child to support over the next 18 years ( whether he chose to stay married, or not). JMO

but am I right?

Originally Posted by ekg View Post
if Scott had wanted the money.... couldn't he have just waited until Laci got the inheritance...by that time the baby would have been born, and with her dead, Laci's share would have gone to her heir. Right?

and since he's the father, he would have access to it by default....or am I way off?



and your saying that he didn't want the inheritance, Laci or the baby?

then wasn't his intent to kill her and the baby since you think he didn't want either?

and if that's your thought..... then you must not agree with the jury either, since they don't think he meant to kill the baby... and if you question/disagree with them, can't you see why I would too?

[ekg]

Based on the evidence, I think Diane Jackson reported seeing a safe at some point in time, but later explained to the defense investigator that she had heard about the burglary prior to making the report. JMO Also, the description she gave of the three men does not match Pearce & Todd..JMO
Yes, the time and date of the burglary was supplied by Pearce & Todd. Pearce was forthcoming with police right away, gave that information immediately. IIRC
I don't have access to the complete statements or all of the evidence against the burglars, so I will not assume that Todd transported all of those items on his bicycle. JMO
Todd and Pearce told police they did see one media truck on the morning of the 26th ( parked up the street) IIRC

"I think Diane Jackson reported seeing a safe at some point in time, but later explained to the defense investigator that she had heard about the burglary prior to making the report."

I've never heard that before....

and I will look thru all my old links for the Todd story, Medina list, and everything else having to do with them..... most of the links are dead, so maybe someelse has one they can give...... I'll post them if I find them..maybe re-reading will help us both to see things we may have missed.

[ekg]

No. All that's required for a guilty verdict is for the jury to determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant's actions caused the victim's death (and that the various conditions for the degree of murder were met). For instance, they do not HAVE to determine:

-Place of death;
-Manner of death
-Location of crime scene;
-Time of death;
-Motive;
-Weapon

or any of the other items on those lists we see from time to time.

but can they not determine all of those all at once.....LOL

meaning... some cases may not prove motive, but prove the rest..

others may prove COD,TOD,POD and not the rest...

but in a DP case..... shouldn't atleast some of them be proven for a DP verdict?

I mean it's kinda scary that it's not if you ask me...

[Wudge]

Based on the evidence, I think Diane Jackson reported seeing a safe at some point in time, but later explained to the defense investigator that she had heard about the burglary prior to making the report. JMO Also, the description she gave of the three men does not match Pearce & Todd..JMO
Yes, the time and date of the burglary was supplied by Pearce & Todd. Pearce was forthcoming with police right away, gave that information immediately. IIRC
I don't have access to the complete statements or all of the evidence against the burglars, so I will not assume that Todd transported all of those items on his bicycle. JMO
Todd and Pearce told police they did see one media truck on the morning of the 26th ( parked up the street) IIRC

Cite a media report of the burglary at the Medina's residence that was made before Diane Jackson reported seeing the safe.

[frydaddy]

but you can belive Scott was smart enought? remember he commited an almost 100% forensically free murder....with 5 crime scenes and only one hair that may or may not be Laci's...

and if they(todd and pearce) weren't look into very hard... and their stories bought on 1st-2nd pass.. then we don't know if the pulled anything off or not...

Scott was likely smarter than them and yes, I believe smart enough to do this as it was done. It would take much more effort and detail to murder and frame for murder than to murder, IMO. SP's undoing was one of arrogance, not ignorance.

As for how hard Pearce and Todd were looked at/into, doesn't that depend on what you want to believe? Pearce passed a poly and as stated in previous post, doesn't look like the type that would be a third strike burglar if he could cheat a poly. And it makes little sense that a man who's guilty (or complicit) of murder would willingly take one and pass while a man who is innocent will not take one for fear of failing.

[JustMyOpinion]

Cite a media report of the burglary at the Medina's residence that was made before Diane Jackson reported seeing the safe.

Why would I do that? I don't know when/how/where Jackson found out about the burglary ( The testimony pertaining to the Defense interview of Jackson didn't mention "the media".)

[Anne2719]

I thought she just heard about it from the neighbors. But I don't remember if I read that somewhere or just assumed it after reading somewhere that she called the police after hearing about the burglary.

[ekg]

Scott was likely smarter than them and yes, I believe smart enough to do this as it was done. It would take much more effort and detail to murder and frame for murder than to murder, IMO. SP's undoing was one of arrogance, not ignorance.

As for how hard Pearce and Todd were looked at/into, doesn't that depend on what you want to believe? Pearce passed a poly and as stated in previous post, doesn't look like the type that would be a third strike burglar if he could cheat a poly. And it makes little sense that a man who's guilty (or complicit) of murder would willingly take one and pass while a man who is innocent will not take one for fear of failing.

?? it would take more effort to murder and frame someone rather than murder and forensically clean 5 crime scenes?

we know there isn't any crime scene related to Scott. We know there is a crime scene related Todd and Pearce. But what we don't know is if there are any more..

didn't one of the dogs who was sent to Laci's house to search for her...'scent' her in the area of Todd or Pearces home? But since noone thought the dog was on the right track, it was pulled off the trail.. IIRC that is..

Thing is... I can see why ppl think Scott may have done this... I'm not blind..lol. I just can't wrap my head around him being good enough to erase every single atom of forensic evidence in 5 crime scenes. I don't know that a CSI expert would be that good at doing it...So I'm left with 2 scenero's... he did it and he IS that good, or he didn't and the real crime scene just hasn't been found yet.

remember if the bodies showed up anywhere else in the world..... Scott would have walked.

yeah... its hard to image someone else doing it. Especially when common sense tells you that when a wife goes missing and her body is found where the husband was that day. But I need more than just the body being 2 miles from where he was. If it was 2 mile from his home he would be sitting at home right now.

Framing or shoddy police work, are just as acceptable to me as him being able to completely sterilize 5 crimes scenes is to you..But because I know it wouldn't be the 1st time a DA tried to force a case or hide evidence, I have to ask where the real proof is here in this case. Not the emotional proof...but the real proof. I mean think about this for a sec if Laci had never been found, there wouldn't even be proof that a crime was even commited.

and that's why I'm willing to believe Todd and Pearce or any other lead needs to be completly investigated. B/c I don't think they were.. I think this police force and this DA had tunnelvision.. and recent events prove that it can and does happen...add that the absolute zero proof of a crime(with the exception of the bodies) and I'm left with way too many questions to close the books on Scott.