Common Ground?

[thinkaboutit]

?? 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.

EXCELLENT post EKG - I agree with 100% of everything that you said.

[Wudge]

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".)

If you cannot cite the media report your reasoning relied upon, then you are speculating.

[JustMyOpinion]

If you cannot cite the media report your reasoning relied upon, then you are speculating.

I didn't speculate on when or how, you appear to be speculating that it had to be via media sources. The testimony from defense interview did not mention "when/how".IIRC

[JustMyOpinion]

?? it would take more effort to murder and frame someone rather than murder and forensically clean 5 crime scenes?




Scott had time to plan his act of domestic homicide. ( buy boat, search tides, obtain license, buy concrete, make anchors, etc) Evidentiary traces of Laci's presence would quite naturally be found in their home & vehicles because they co-habitated. If Laci was smothered or strangled, there may have been no blood evidence to "clean up"..IMO.
The burglars would not have had time to plan, ( they wouldn't have premeditated murder)they wouldn't necessarily have had access to a boat, they would have no idea what the computer showed about where Scott searched tides/currents or exactly where Scott told police he was "fishing"., IMO.
An informant tipped off police which led them to the burglars, there was a thousand dollar reward. I hardly think this tipster would turn them in for a thousand dollars because they knew they committed the burglary, but would ignore a half million dollar reward offered for whereabouts of Laci Peterson. There is no evidence the burglars had access or opportunity, IMO..and if they wanted to "frame" Scott..the body would have been placed where it could be quickly & easily found ( not submerged for months, only coming ashore due to a storm!) IMO

[Otter]

If you cannot cite the media report your reasoning relied upon, then you are speculating.

Wudge, you rely very much via your links to media opinions; i.e. LKL. For someone who puts so much stock in the sworn duty by all parties I find this comment disappointing and an unwarranted attack on another poster.

If you don't like media reports from someone else, please stop using them yourself and calling them sacrosanct.

Thanks in advance. :seeya:

[frydaddy]

?? 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.

I'm not here to convince you that your beliefs are wrong, even if I feel they are. You can believe what you want and there might actually be a few points I agree with you on.

JMO responded with a few points that I likely would have made. But, I'd add...

Where is the fifth crime scene? I got warehouse, home, truck, and boat. Am I missing an obvious one?

Assuming for conversation we agree he did it...what forensics would you expect to find at each scene that needed to be cleaned up?

I do not recall any dogs scenting with regards to Todd & Pearce...not saying it didn't happen, just that your post is the first I've heard of it. And forgive me, this is not a shot at you specifically, but seldom, if ever, is anything new I hear unfavorable to Scott. Thus, I'd need to see some pretty good evidence to convince me of it's veracity.

I'd never say you are blind because you might disagree with the verdict or Scott's involvement. I might, jokingly, suggest rather than blindness, that perhaps you are squeezing your eyes closed on purpose! LOL

I understand your need for physical, forensic evidence to prove to you, that SP did this. I also understand the background of LE and Prosecutorial malfeasance in the past. However, as stated so many times in the past, when you put all the arguments against it being SP together, Scott's already quirky demeanor looks ever more impossible to believe. I simply find it impossible for someone to play the role of guilty as well as Scott did.

I'll conclude with wondering, given the condition of the bodies, how someone could place Laci and Conner in the area of the bay where they were found? When were each placed? What determined that placement. How did each arrive at the condition that they were found in? How would a person know that placing them where they were found would fool those who testified?

[attorneywan2be]

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.

There is no one shred of evidence that she heard it from a neighbor or any other source..according to the police report, she told the police that she observed the men removing a safe from the Medina's house as she was driving by..

[attorneywan2be]

Wudge, you rely very much via your links to media opinions; i.e. LKL. For someone who puts so much stock in the sworn duty by all parties I find this comment disappointing and an unwarranted attack on another poster.

If you don't like media reports from someone else, please stop using them yourself and calling them sacrosanct.

Thanks in advance. :seeya:

Otter..I think Wudge was asking JustMyOpinion to post the media report regarding that issue...

[cookiewench]

There is no one shred of evidence that she heard it from a neighbor or any other source..according to the police report, she told the police that she observed the men removing a safe from the Medina's house as she was driving by..


Are you absolutely positive that she said that she "observed the men removing a safe from the Medina's house"?

[Anne2719]

Are you absolutely positive that she said that she "observed the men removing a safe from the Medina's house"?
My guess is that if she had, she wouldn't have waited a couple of days before calling the police.

[attorneywan2be]

Are you absolutely positive that she said that she "observed the men removing a safe from the Medina's house"?

Mark Geragos reading off Bates 14765 (a police report)

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

[enlightenme]

My guess is that if she had, she wouldn't have waited a couple of days before calling the police.

It's too unbelievable that Diane would wait 2 days to report this burglary, complete with a safe being rolled across the lawn, when she knew that a neighbor had dissappeared on the same day. I would have called LE immediately. Something is very "fishy" about this story.

You would think she would be contacting all the news programs to insist that Scott is innocent. :shrug:

[JustMyOpinion]

Mark Geragos reading off Bates 14765 (a police report)

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

??? Grogan did not establish the date and time of this report, nor did he establish the Bates number.

[frydaddy]

Mark Geragos reading off Bates 14765 (a police report)

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

This issue will likely never be common ground, unless someone somewhere answers some questions.

Why was Steele not called to testify, since he took the report?
Why were Stough and Banks not called, since they did the follow up investigation?
Why was this 14765 never admitted as evidence for the jurors to see?
Why (as enlightenme and Anne pointed out) did she wait two days and five hours to report anything?
Who was the third man she allegedly saw?
How did she confuse two pasty white guys with three dark skinned, but not African American men?
Why has no one ever contacted her, tossed a little cash her way, for her story?

FLADAGER: All right. Next I'm going to ask you about an interview Mr. Geragos referenced, statements by Diane Jackson. Do you remember that?
GROGAN: Yes, ma'am.
FLADAGER: And I'm going to refer you to a defense report. Do you have a copy of it? There is not a Bates number on it.
JUDGE: Remind the jury, this is the testimony that was off reports. A little different from the other.
GROGAN: All right, I have that report.
FLADAGER: What is the date of that interview?
GROGAN: I believe it's January 16th. Yes.
FLADAGER: The reports, in the course of that interview, is there any indication at all by Miss Jackson that she said she saw a safe?
GROGAN: No.
FLADAGER: Is there any indication at all in that interview that Ms. Jackson claimed to have witnessed a burglary?
GROGAN: No. It indicates that she made observations. And then she heard about the burglary and thought that the two individuals or these other vehicles and the burglary may be related.

[JustMyOpinion]

There is no one shred of evidence that she heard it from a neighbor or any other source..according to the police report, she told the police that she observed the men removing a safe from the Medina's house as she was driving by..

There was no testimony at all pertaining to how she heard about it.

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

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

GROGAN: All right, I have that report.

FLADAGER: What is the date of that interview?

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

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

GROGAN: No.

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

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

FLADAGER: Is that because she saw a van?

GROGAN: Yes, it appears so.

FLADAGER: And that she saw three short, dark-skinned males by the van?

GROGAN: Yes.

[Wudge]

Wudge, you rely very much via your links to media opinions; i.e. LKL. For someone who puts so much stock in the sworn duty by all parties I find this comment disappointing and an unwarranted attack on another poster.

If you don't like media reports from someone else, please stop using them yourself and calling them sacrosanct.

Thanks in advance. :seeya:


Look closely!!!!!!!!!!!!

The problem is that JMO did not post a link to any media report.

JMO said: "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."

Either there is a source that supports JMO's statement or it is pure speculation. There is a difference between informed opinion based on a potentially viable and reliable source versus gross conjecture.

(feel free to apologize at any time...chuckle)

[JustMyOpinion]

Look closely!!!!!!!!!!!!

The problem is that JMO did not post a link to any media report.

JMO said: "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."

Either there is a source that supports JMO's statement or it is pure speculation. There is a difference between informed opinion based on a potentially viable and reliable source versus gross conjecture.




My opinion is based on trial testimony.

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

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

GROGAN: All right, I have that report.

FLADAGER: What is the date of that interview?

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

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

GROGAN: No.

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

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

FLADAGER: Is that because she saw a van?

GROGAN: Yes, it appears so.

FLADAGER: And that she saw three short, dark-skinned males by the van?

GROGAN: Yes.

[Wudge]

My opinion is based on trial testimony.

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

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

GROGAN: All right, I have that report.

FLADAGER: What is the date of that interview?

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

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

GROGAN: No.

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

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

FLADAGER: Is that because she saw a van?

GROGAN: Yes, it appears so.

FLADAGER: And that she saw three short, dark-skinned males by the van?

GROGAN: Yes.


A January 16th interview is not a media report.

[JustMyOpinion]

A January 16th interview is not a media report.

You appear to be speculating that the only possible source for Jackson would have been a media report about the burglary. I don't know where or how she heard about it, this testimony gives no indication.

[Wudge]

You appear to be speculating that the only possible source for Jackson would have been a media report about the burglary. I don't know where or how she heard about it, this testimony gives no indication.

I asked for a media report. All you had to do was say that there is none you know of and post your source.

[ekg]

Scott had time to plan his act of domestic homicide. ( buy boat, search tides, obtain license, buy concrete, make anchors, etc) Evidentiary traces of Laci's presence would quite naturally be found in their home & vehicles because they co-habitated. If Laci was smothered or strangled, there may have been no blood evidence to "clean up"..IMO.
The burglars would not have had time to plan, ( they wouldn't have premeditated murder)they wouldn't necessarily have had access to a boat, they would have no idea what the computer showed about where Scott searched tides/currents or exactly where Scott told police he was "fishing"., IMO.
An informant tipped off police which led them to the burglars, there was a thousand dollar reward. I hardly think this tipster would turn them in for a thousand dollars because they knew they committed the burglary, but would ignore a half million dollar reward offered for whereabouts of Laci Peterson. There is no evidence the burglars had access or opportunity, IMO..and if they wanted to "frame" Scott..the body would have been placed where it could be quickly & easily found ( not submerged for months, only coming ashore due to a storm!) IMO

The tide search was a cpl weeks before she went missing right? What good were they 2 weeks later then? My husband won't even rely on the local fishing report if it's 48hrs old...So I can't convict on 2 week old searches.

since he DID search.... why did he pick the one and only area that had less than 5 ft of water? Why didn't he go just a little farther to deeper water with a more stable/stronger current?

and for that matter.... why risk taking a used boat out to an area he'd never been to and in water the boat had never been tested in.... and the biggest of all question is the used boat itself. Would you buy a used, untested vehicle to do something like this? or would you atleast have a test run 1st... image how screwed he'd have been if the boat didn't work that day...

by the 27-28th everyone across the country knew where Scott said he had been. I would have to assume that the ppl in modesto or the surrounding areas probably knew alot more then the rest of the country and probably knew sooner.

There are too many 'maybe's's to why the tipster wouldn't tell about Laci. What we do know is that a tipster DID call in and say she was being held in a building. Was it the same tipster? Was that robbery tip called in 1st and when Tood/Pearce didn't crack and/or were exonerated for Laci did the same tipster call about her being held in that shed in hopes of her being found that way?

The Aponte tip says Tood talked about a confrontation with Laci that morining.

Todd, allegededly told LE he saw Scott loading umbrella's early in the morning of the 24th.

take those 2 things and combine them with the unbelivable story of the theft in front of news vans and on a barracaded rd. And add Diane Jackson's report of seeing the robbery on the 24th and you have enough CE to convict Todd....

he had the means, the motive and the opp to do it as much, if not more, than Scott.

we don't know if Todd or Pearce had access to a boat.. and if Laci's body was easily found somewhere other than the bay, where by the 27th-28th everyone in the country knew that where Scott was... then Scott walks and the police keep looking for the killer....

When questioned the 1st thing out of their mouths was something like 'I'll tell you about the robbery but I don't know nothing about the woman and her baby.'....... what woman and baby? then they went on to lie about the day they were at the Medina's... saying it was the 27th when the Medina's had already been home and reported the robbery by the 26th. It wasn't until later that they change the story to the 26th.

Look I'm not saying this is what happened.... I am just saying that at 1st blush, there's more or equal evidence against Todd/Pearce than there is Scott. And they should have been looked into as hard, if not harder than Scott...

[thinkaboutit]

FLADAGER: The reports, in the course of that interview, is there any indication at all by Miss Jackson that she said she saw a safe?
GROGAN: No.
FLADAGER: Is there any indication at all in that interview that Ms. Jackson claimed to have witnessed a burglary?
GROGAN: No. It indicates that she made observations. And then she heard about the burglary and thought that the two individuals or these other vehicles and the burglary may be related.


Food for thought......let's say Diane Jackson DIDN'T see a safe. Let's say - she just saw 3 shady characters standing on the lawn of the Medina home near a van - at 11:40. Who were these people? The Medina's weren't home. Why didn't Karen Servas see these men when she returned home from her errands - somewhere between 5 and 20 minutes later?

I don't have Crier's book with me - but in it she says that Pierce said that inside the safe were two money bags - but Pierce says they were empty. Crier (who appears to have seen the police reports) also says that Susan Medina claimed there was $50000 in those bags. Susan Medina testified that the burglars had access to the key and the combination to the safe - she knows this because they took some of the cash out of the envelope that contained the key and the combination - they didn't take all of the cash - they left her 2 twenty dollar bills.

What if.....the men Jackson saw - were the men who took the $50000 from the safe....and the men who abducted/murdered Laci? Either Todd is there with them - or is later told about the empty Medina home - either in discussions about the burglary - or as a set up - to place him at the scene of the crime. Todd goes to the house - gets what he can on the bike - sees the safe and asks Pierce to help him retrieve it.

[frydaddy]

Cite a media report of the burglary at the Medina's residence that was made before Diane Jackson reported seeing the safe.

If you cannot cite the media report your reasoning relied upon, then you are speculating.

Look closely!!!!!!!!!!!!

The problem is that JMO did not post a link to any media report.

JMO said: "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."

Either there is a source that supports JMO's statement or it is pure speculation. There is a difference between informed opinion based on a potentially viable and reliable source versus gross conjecture.

(feel free to apologize at any time...chuckle)

I asked for a media report. All you had to do was say that there is none you know of and post your source.

This spin is reminiscent of the CTV boards. Aren't we beyond this here?

[JustMyOpinion]

The tide search was a cpl weeks before she went missing right? What good were they 2 weeks later then? My husband won't even rely on the local fishing report if it's 48hrs old...So I can't convict on 2 week old searches.

since he DID search.... why did he pick the one and only area that had less than 5 ft of water? Why didn't he go just a little farther to deeper water with a more stable/stronger current?

and for that matter.... why risk taking a used boat out to an area he'd never been to and in water the boat had never been tested in.... and the biggest of all question is the used boat itself. Would you buy a used, untested vehicle to do something like this? or would you atleast have a test run 1st... image how screwed he'd have been if the boat didn't work that day...

by the 27-28th everyone across the country knew where Scott said he had been. I would have to assume that the ppl in modesto or the surrounding areas probably knew alot more then the rest of the country and probably knew sooner.

There are too many 'maybe's's to why the tipster wouldn't tell about Laci. What we do know is that a tipster DID call in and say she was being held in a building. Was it the same tipster? Was that robbery tip called in 1st and when Tood/Pearce didn't crack and/or were exonerated for Laci did the same tipster call about her being held in that shed in hopes of her being found that way?

The Aponte tip says Tood talked about a confrontation with Laci that morining.

Todd, allegededly told LE he saw Scott loading umbrella's early in the morning of the 24th.

take those 2 things and combine them with the unbelivable story of the theft in front of news vans and on a barracaded rd. And add Diane Jackson's report of seeing the robbery on the 24th and you have enough CE to convict Todd....

he had the means, the motive and the opp to do it as much, if not more, than Scott.

we don't know if Todd or Pearce had access to a boat.. and if Laci's body was easily found somewhere other than the bay, where by the 27th-28th everyone in the country knew that where Scott was... then Scott walks and the police keep looking for the killer....

When questioned the 1st thing out of their mouths was something like 'I'll tell you about the robbery but I don't know nothing about the woman and her baby.'....... what woman and baby? then they went on to lie about the day they were at the Medina's... saying it was the 27th when the Medina's had already been home and reported the robbery by the 26th. It wasn't until later that they change the story to the 26th.

Look I'm not saying this is what happened.... I am just saying that at 1st blush, there's more or equal evidence against Todd/Pearce than there is Scott. And they should have been looked into as hard, if not harder than Scott...

There was evidence about precise location Scott searched on his computer, Evidence of Scott's own statements to police about where he took the boat out on 12/24, and testimony from hydrologist as to disposal site, storm/tidal movement and where Conner's remains came ashore. This evidence is only part of the evidence that proved Scott's guilt beyond my own reasonable doubt. JMO
Since Scott chose not to testify.. I can't answer "why" he did or did not do many things, only he could answer this for himself, IMO.
Todd didn't testify. Aponte didn't testify. Pearce didn't testify. Based on testimony at trial, I don't believe Diane Jackson saw a robbery on the 24th ( I do believe she said she saw three, short, dark-skinned men and a van).
When Pearce was questioned, he was immediately forthcoming about the burglary, including the date ( per Hick's testimony).
I disagree that there is ANY "evidence" that the burglars committed a crime against Laci Peterson, but Geragos did try to imply they could have, IMO.
I am satisfied the police investigated that possibility, it appears you are not.
I will agree to disagree.

[Wudge]

This spin is reminiscent of the CTV boards. Aren't we beyond this here?

We like to sort out speculation here; i.e., speculation like Belmessieri admitted the jury engaged even though they were forbidden to do so.

[frydaddy]

We like to sort out speculation here; i.e., speculation like Belmessieri admitted the jury engaged even though they were forbidden to do so.

LMAO - Why didn't you simply ask JMO for her source she based her statement on, rather than the resulting four post inquiry about media reports with the resulting blah, blah, blah?

[JustMyOpinion]

Food for thought......let's say Diane Jackson DIDN'T see a safe. Let's say - she just saw 3 shady characters standing on the lawn of the Medina home near a van - at 11:40. Who were these people? The Medina's weren't home. Why didn't Karen Servas see these men when she returned home from her errands - somewhere between 5 and 20 minutes later?

.

I didn't read that Jackson described them as "shady characters". I read she described them as three, short, dark-skinned men standing near a van. I don't know who they were, ( there has been some speculaton they were landscapers, but this has never been proven) and Servas l didn't see them when she returned from her errands because they were no longer there. JMO

[Wudge]

LMAO - Why didn't you simply ask JMO for her source she based her statement on, rather than the resulting four post inquiry about media reports with the resulting blah, blah, blah?

Because it is ridiculous to think that a media report could have had the news of the burglary before the Medina's even arrived back home from their Xmas trip around 4:30PM on 12/26 to find their house had been burglarized.

[JustMyOpinion]

Because it is ridiculous to think that a media report could have had the news of the burglary before the Medina's even arrived back home from their Xmas trip around 4:30PM on 12/26 to find their house had been burglarized.

It is not established by any testimony that Jackson called in a tip prior to the Medina's returning home, just as how she heard about it was not established via testimony at trial. JMO

[thinkaboutit]

There was evidence about precise location Scott searched on his computer, Evidence of Scott's own statements to police about where he took the boat out on 12/24, and testimony from hydrologist as to disposal site, storm/tidal movement and where Conner's remains came ashore...........snipped

However no trajectory for Laci.....which makes no sense to me - if Conner was with Laci up until just shortly before he washed ashore.


When Pearce was questioned, he was immediately forthcoming about the burglary, including the date ( per Hick's testimony).

Yes - I believe Pearce was forthcoming - however Todd - was not. He had the day wrong (did he lie - or was he mistaken) - and he initially said Pearce participated in the burglary with him - Pearce clarified that he never stepped foot in the Medina home. So who WAS in that home with Todd?

[frydaddy]

Because it is ridiculous to think that a media report could have had the news of the burglary before the Medina's even arrived back home from their Xmas trip around 4:30PM on 12/26 to find their house had been burglarized.

But JMO never mentioned a media report. So isn't your inferrence that a media report was involved just as ridiculous?

[Wudge]

It is not established by any testimony that Jackson called in a tip prior to the Medina's returning home, just as how she heard about it was not established via testimony at trial. JMO

Wrong. The certified trial record establishes the date for Bates #14765 as 12/26. The prosecution did not challenge that date. Under the doctrine of raise or waive, the prosecution has no basis to even appeal any issue regarding Bates #14765 being other than 12/26.

[JustMyOpinion]

However no trajectory for Laci.....which makes no sense to me - if Conner was with Laci up until just shortly before he washed ashore.



Yes - I believe Pearce was forthcoming - however Todd - was not. He had the day wrong (did he lie - or was he mistaken) - and he initially said Pearce participated in the burglary with him - Pearce clarified that he never stepped foot in the Medina home. So who WAS in that home with Todd?

IIRC the testimony, ME opined Conner was not in the water very long. However, from the moment he was expelled from the uterus, he would not have "been with Laci" anymore..JMO It's possible her remains were still weighted down, IMO.
I agree that Todd initially gave a different date than Pearce ( per Hick's testimony). Since I have no access to the complete investigatory file on the Medina Burglary, no access to the actual statements by Todd & Pearce, I don't know who may have been in the home with Todd or how he transported all of the items JMO.

[thinkaboutit]

I didn't read that Jackson described them as "shady characters". I read she described them as three, short, dark-skinned men standing near a van. I don't know who they were, ( there has been some speculaton they were landscapers, but this has never been proven) and Servas l didn't see them when she returned from her errands because they were no longer there. JMO

I knew someone was going to pick that specific part of my post and comment about it. I should have said "suspicious" characters. The only speculation that they were landscapers - to my knowledge - was that Jackson initially said she thought they were - but landscapers would have continued working - these men did not they looked at the traffic going by (not to mention she didn't notice any lawn equipment). To my knowledge - no one testified to or reported having any landscaping work done that day.

[JustMyOpinion]

Wrong. The certified trial record establishes the date for Bates #14765 as 12/26. The prosecution did not challenge that date. Under the doctrine of raise or waive, the prosecution has no basis to even appeal any issue regarding Bates #14765 being other than 12/26.

I realize that you believe a conversation between two defense lawyers establishes a date, but the actual testimony does not establish date of Bates as 12/26.

[frydaddy]

However no trajectory for Laci.....which makes no sense to me - if Conner was with Laci up until just shortly before he washed ashore.



Yes - I believe Pearce was forthcoming - however Todd - was not. He had the day wrong (did he lie - or was he mistaken) - and he initially said Pearce participated in the burglary with him - Pearce clarified that he never stepped foot in the Medina home. So who WAS in that home with Todd?

Per Crier's book, Todd took and passed a poly, just as Pearce did.

Does one have to be in a residence, to participate in a burglary? Driving the car, assisting in putting the safe in the seat, wouldn't that qualify?

Are any of the links to the Todd and Pearce statements still active? I know many of the media links show up as "page not found" after all this time. TIA if you have any active ones you know of.

[Wudge]

But JMO never mentioned a media report. So isn't your inferrence that a media report was involved just as ridiculous?

I know one thing for sure. The trial record (snicker) did not show that there was any reporting before Diane Jackson reported seeing three men, a van and a safe at 4:10PM on 12/26, which caused Sargeant Steele to record a 459 at the Medina's residence before the Medina's even knew their home had been burglarized.

[Wudge]

I realize that you believe a conversation between two defense lawyers establishes a date, but the actual testimony does not establish date of Bates as 12/26.

All that matters is that the certified trial record does. That's what the jury had to work with.

[frydaddy]

I realize that you believe a conversation between two defense lawyers establishes a date, but the actual testimony does not establish date of Bates as 12/26.

Indeed! And there's still been no response to why Bates 14765 was not admitted as a defense exhibit, nor one on why Steele didn't testify. I see there is still a reluctance to concede any points unfavorable to SP!

[JustMyOpinion]

All that matters is that the certified trial record does. That's what the jury had to work with.

The jury is instructed that lawyer's words are not evidence.

[thinkaboutit]

Wrong. The certified trial record establishes the date for Bates #14765 as 12/26. The prosecution did not challenge that date. Under the doctrine of raise or waive, the prosecution has no basis to even appeal any issue regarding Bates #14765 being other than 12/26.

Just for the record.

Mark Geragos: And the information about the three people who were, let me just show you something. Got Bates stamp 14765. And I would just ask if I could, do you remember what date, Mr. Harris, my Mr. Harris, do you remember what date that's from?
David Harris: Which one? What's the dates?
Mark Geragos: For Diane Jackson.
David Harris: Looks like 12-26.
Mark Geragos: Okay.
Mark Geragos: Does it appear that at 4:10 that Diane Jackson called and said that she witnessed the 459 on Covena at 11:40? She saw the van and the safe being removed from the house?

[thinkaboutit]

Indeed! And there's still been no response to why Bates 14765 was not admitted as a defense exhibit, nor one on why Steele didn't testify. I see there is still a reluctance to concede any points unfavorable to SP!


Why would Bates 14765 have needed to be admitted as evidence? The relevant information was brought out in testimony. Are you suggesting that we should disregard all the testimony regarding this tip sheet - because the jury wasn't able to look at it? Why drag Steele to court - all he would have testified to was that he wrote what was on the tip sheet right?

[JustMyOpinion]

Just for the record.

Quote:
Mark Geragos: And the information about the three people who were, let me just show you something. Got Bates stamp 14765. And I would just ask if I could, do you remember what date, Mr. Harris, my Mr. Harris, do you remember what date that's from?
David Harris: Which one? What's the dates?
Mark Geragos: For Diane Jackson.
David Harris: Looks like 12-26.
Mark Geragos: Okay.
Mark Geragos: Does it appear that at 4:10 that Diane Jackson called and said that she witnessed the 459 on Covena at 11:40? She saw the van and the safe being removed from the house?

For the record, this conversation between two defense lawyers about Bates 14765 took place earlier in the trial. "Bates 14765" is not mentioned by Geragos when he is questioning Grogan about Diane Jackson ( which came in "for the truth") nor does Grogan testify the report is Bates14765 or verify any date.

[frydaddy]

I know one thing for sure. The trial record (snicker) did not show that there was any reporting before Diane Jackson reported seeing three men, a van and a safe at 4:10PM on 12/26, which caused Sargeant Steele to record a 459 at the Medina's residence before the Medina's even knew their home had been burglarized.

Well, I am glad you know that. And I am not surprised that you have no response to the re-direct of Grogan that Fladager did, referencing Diane Jackson. Perhaps we will see if your legal acumen matters on appeal, when the appellate jurists review that re-direct along with that which you know for sure!

[thinkaboutit]

For the record, this conversation between two defense lawyers about Bates 14765 took place earlier in the trial. "Bates 14765" is not mentioned by Geragos when he is questioning Grogan about Diane Jackson ( which came in "for the truth") nor does Grogan testify the report is Bates14765 or verify any date.

Actually David Harris was not one of the defense attorneys - he was the district attorney.

So are you suggesting the district attorney was lying about the date of the tip sheet?

And I hope you don't think I was being snide or snippy by saying "just for the record" - every post has to have a comment - so in order to be able to enclose the testimony in a quote - I had to type something.

[JustMyOpinion]

Actually David Harris was not one of the defense attorneys - he was the district attorney.

So are you suggesting the district attorney was lying about the date of the tip sheet?

And I hope you don't think I was being snide or snippy by saying "just for the record" - every post has to have a comment - so in order to be able to enclose the testimony in a quote - I had to type something.

Oops, I got the Harris lawyers mixed up. No, I don't think the DA was lying when he said "looks like", but I have seen no evidence that this Bates # is in any way related to Grogan's testimony that came in for the truth.
I didn't think you were being rude or snippy at all, but I do wonder why this conversation about Bates is posted without proper context. JMO

[Wudge]

Indeed! And there's still been no response to why Bates 14765 was not admitted as a defense exhibit, nor one on why Steele didn't testify. I see there is still a reluctance to concede any points unfavorable to SP!

It sounds like you think that Detective Grogan could not or did not accurately verify to the jury what was reported on Bates 14765. Too difficult a task for him?

(snicker)

By the way, for all trial novices, Bates 14765 was read into the trial record for the defense based on Judge Delucchi ruling that it would be admitted for the truth. Bates 14765 was a cure Judge Deluuchi's ruled would come in as it did, because LE and or the D.A. were too stupid (or perhaps crooked) to have Diane Jackson hypnotized by an approved hypnotist.

And if anybody needed to call Sargeant Steele in an effort to rebute the burglary that had been recorded as a result of Diane Jackson's call, it would have been the State, not the defense.

[frydaddy]

Why would Bates 14765 have needed to be admitted as evidence? The relevant information was brought out in testimony. Are you suggesting that we should disregard all the testimony regarding this tip sheet - because the jury wasn't able to look at it? Why drag Steele to court - all he would have testified to was that he wrote what was on the tip sheet right?

Why? Where's Scott Peterson today?

Are you being serious when you ask about MG inconveniencing a Sargeant when a man's life is in HIS hands?

What would you rather do as a defense attorney? Ask a third party to testify to someone else's report, in which they went into chambers to discuss, leaving the testimony potentially unclear to a juror as to it's accuracy, relevance, and purpose? Or, when a man's life is on the line, would you rather give the jury THE document and have the man who took it testify to such? Especially if the tipsheet could stand up to the prosecutions questions?

I'm good with you all defending SP, but let's be somewhat realistic. You never, ever, leave something vague when you can hammer something home like this. If I saw the tipsheet and Steele confirmed the data on it as you all see it, even I would have to concede there may be merit to the idea. As it stands though, it is moot.

[Wudge]

Well, I am glad you know that. And I am not surprised that you have no response to the re-direct of Grogan that Fladager did, referencing Diane Jackson. Perhaps we will see if your legal acumen matters on appeal, when the appellate jurists review that re-direct along with that which you know for sure!

Trust me, it would not surprise me if you thought that a report subsequent to 4:10PM on 12/26 could erase the fact that Diane Jackson at 4:10PM on 12/26, reported seeing three men, a van and a safe in front of the Medina's home at 11;40PM on 12/24.

(double snicker)

[frydaddy]

Trust me, it would not surprise me if you thought that a report subsequent to 4:10PM on 12/26 could erase the fact that Diane Jackson at 4:10PM on 12/26, she reported seeing three men, a van and a safe in front of the Medina's home at 11;40PM on 12/24.

(double snicker)

Where did I say it erased anything? I asked you to comment on the oddity of the subsequent report. Are you inadequate and only capable of multiple snickers? Repetition always was your strong suit, how about something unique?

[thinkaboutit]

Per Crier's book, Todd took and passed a poly, just as Pearce did.

Does one have to be in a residence, to participate in a burglary? Driving the car, assisting in putting the safe in the seat, wouldn't that qualify?

Are any of the links to the Todd and Pearce statements still active? I know many of the media links show up as "page not found" after all this time. TIA if you have any active ones you know of.

This link has some - an interesting article with an interview with Pearce:

http://trialblog.tripod.com/


................

Lawyers for Scott Peterson, whose double-murder trial began June 1, have suggested that his wife could have been abducted while interrupting the crime.

"My answer to that is, I didn't have nothing to do with it," Pearce said. "I never knew she was gone. I never even heard of her till all this s--- happened."

Peterson's attorneys are scheduled Monday to begin calling witnesses. In addition to the burglary theory, the attorneys have said vagrants in Dry Creek Regional Park might have abducted Laci Peterson.

Pearce, who turns 46 on Thursday, said Steven Wayne Todd awakened him early Dec. 26, 2002 -- two days after the pregnant woman was reported missing. Pearce said he drove Todd in a Chevrolet Corsica to Covena Avenue about 6:30 a.m. and parked in front of a house.

Todd already had been to the house more than once the night before, Pearce said. The residents were away on a holiday trip. Todd used a dolly to bring a safe to the car, he said.

It yielded about $50,000 worth of jewelry and some weapons, much of which later was recovered.

"I didn't get out of the car," Pearce said. "I pulled up, he threw it in the car and we came back home."
....................


I find Pearce's use of "I" and not "we" interesting.


And Officer Hick's testimony:

FLADAGER: And 3:00 o'clock in the morning he makes a decision, that he rides his bicycle back over to that address?

HICKS: That's correct.

FLADAGER: Did he go through with you in detail the various steps that he took when he got to the house?

HICKS: Yes, he did.

FLADAGER: And the trips he made back to his own house?

HICKS: Yes.

FLADAGER: And return trip back to Covena when he actually went inside the house?

HICKS: Yes.

FLADAGER: And he confirmed that he involved Mr. Pearce in this whole burglary; is that right?

HICKS: Yes, he did.

[Wudge]

Where did I say it erased anything? I asked you to comment on the oddity of the subsequent report. Are you inadequate and only capable of multiple snickers? Repetition always was your strong suit, how about something unique?

I hope this gets through to you.

The point has long been and remains that a subsequent report cannot possibly erase the fact that before the Medina's even arrived back home to find their house had been burglarized, Sargeant Steele had a burglary recorded for the Medina's residence based on Diane Jackson reporting at at 4:10PM on 12/26 that she saw three men, a van and safe in front of the Medina's home at 11:40AM on 12/24.

[frydaddy]

Actually David Harris was not one of the defense attorneys - he was the district attorney.

So are you suggesting the district attorney was lying about the date of the tip sheet?

And I hope you don't think I was being snide or snippy by saying "just for the record" - every post has to have a comment - so in order to be able to enclose the testimony in a quote - I had to type something.

Pat Harris was the one who said "looks like 12-26".

[thinkaboutit]

Why? Where's Scott Peterson today?

Are you being serious when you ask about MG inconveniencing a Sargeant when a man's life is in HIS hands?

What would you rather do as a defense attorney? Ask a third party to testify to someone else's report, in which they went into chambers to discuss, leaving the testimony potentially unclear to a juror as to it's accuracy, relevance, and purpose? Or, when a man's life is on the line, would you rather give the jury THE document and have the man who took it testify to such? Especially if the tipsheet could stand up to the prosecutions questions?

I'm good with you all defending SP, but let's be somewhat realistic. You never, ever, leave something vague when you can hammer something home like this. If I saw the tipsheet and Steele confirmed the data on it as you all see it, even I would have to concede there may be merit to the idea. As it stands though, it is moot.

Personally - I would have brought everyone in to testify - I have no idea why Geragos didn't. It was a mistake - I agree. But how does that change what the tipsheet says? You can argue all day long that Steele didn't testify that the tipsheet was dated 12/26 - but the district attorney said it was - and I believe him. The same argument can be made for the prosecution. If that tip DIDN'T come in on the 26th - why didn't they bring Steele in to testify that it didn't? David Harris said it - and the jury heard it - why didn't he try to correct it if it was an error?

I don't think that Geragos realized the importance of the burglary until "Mr. R" contacted the prosecution with information regarding the abduction of Laci Peterson a few weeks before the END of the trial - which led him to the Aponte tip. Maybe that's why Geragos didn't drive this home. He didn't realize how important and relevant it was. Geragos was just throwing out other possible scenarios - the brown van occult and the burglary. If he had done his job - or someone had done their job - and investigated this burglary and the pawning of the croton watch - they would have realized how important it would have been to drive this home. IMO

[frydaddy]

I hope this gets through to you.

The point has long been and remains that a subsequent report cannot possibly erase the fact that before the Medina's even arrived back home to find their house had been burglarized, Sargeant Steele had a burglary recorded for the Medina's residence based on Diane Jackson reporting at at 4:10PM on 12/26 that she saw three men, a van and safe in front of the Medina's home at 11:40AM on 12/24.

I will concede that the report does not erase anything in your mind. I will assume you concede that you are unwilling or incapable of commenting on the subsequent report, as if you have convinced yourself it doesn't exist?

[thinkaboutit]

Pat Harris was the one who said "looks like 12-26".


The transcripts I have access to say it is David Harris:

Mark Geragos: And the information about the three people who were, let me just show you something. Got Bates stamp 14765. And I would just ask if I could, do you remember what date, Mr. Harris, my Mr. Harris, do you remember what date that's from?
David Harris: Which one? What's the dates?
Mark Geragos: For Diane Jackson.
David Harris: Looks like 12-26.
Mark Geragos: Okay.
Mark Geragos: Does it appear that at 4:10 that Diane Jackson called and said that she witnessed the 459 on Covena at 11:40? She saw the van and the safe being removed from the house?


Are these incorrect?

[frydaddy]

Personally - I would have brought everyone in to testify - I have no idea why Geragos didn't. It was a mistake - I agree. But how does that change what the tipsheet says? You can argue all day long that Steele didn't testify that the tipsheet was dated 12/26 - but the district attorney said it was - and I believe him. The same argument can be made for the prosecution. If that tip DIDN'T come in on the 26th - why didn't they bring Steele in to testify that it didn't? David Harris said it - and the jury heard it - why didn't he try to correct it if it was an error?

I don't think that Geragos realized the importance of the burglary until "Mr. R" contacted the prosecution with information regarding the abduction of Laci Peterson a few weeks before the END of the trial - which led him to the Aponte tip. Maybe that's why Geragos didn't drive this home. He didn't realize how important and relevant it was. Geragos was just throwing out other possible scenarios - the brown van occult and the burglary. If he had done his job - or someone had done their job - and investigated this burglary and the pawning of the croton watch - they would have realized how important it would have been to drive this home. IMO

Link the the DA saying it was? TIA!

[enlightenme]

IIRC the testimony, ME opined Conner was not in the water very long. However, from the moment he was expelled from the uterus, he would not have "been with Laci" anymore..JMO It's possible her remains were still weighted down, IMO.
I agree that Todd initially gave a different date than Pearce ( per Hick's testimony). Since I have no access to the complete investigatory file on the Medina Burglary, no access to the actual statements by Todd & Pearce, I don't know who may have been in the home with Todd or how he transported all of the items JMO.


I think some people think the prosecution should have read the entire 40,000 pages of LE reports and 7,000 tips. The trial would have been 2 yrs long if they did that!

They choose the parts that support the case they are presenting and I'm sure there are a lot of answers to some of our questions in them.

[thinkaboutit]

Oops, I got the Harris lawyers mixed up. No, I don't think the DA was lying when he said "looks like", but I have seen no evidence that this Bates # is in any way related to Grogan's testimony that came in for the truth.
I didn't think you were being rude or snippy at all, but I do wonder why this conversation about Bates is posted without proper context. JMO

I was only posting it to support Wudge's post:

Originally Posted by Wudge
Wrong. The certified trial record establishes the date for Bates #14765 as 12/26. The prosecution did not challenge that date. Under the doctrine of raise or waive, the prosecution has no basis to even appeal any issue regarding Bates #14765 being other than 12/26.


Which I quoted in my post ???

[Wudge]

The transcripts I have access to say it is David Harris:

Mark Geragos: And the information about the three people who were, let me just show you something. Got Bates stamp 14765. And I would just ask if I could, do you remember what date, Mr. Harris, my Mr. Harris, do you remember what date that's from?
David Harris: Which one? What's the dates?
Mark Geragos: For Diane Jackson.
David Harris: Looks like 12-26.
Mark Geragos: Okay.
Mark Geragos: Does it appear that at 4:10 that Diane Jackson called and said that she witnessed the 459 on Covena at 11:40? She saw the van and the safe being removed from the house?


Are these incorrect?


It was Pat Harris. Someone likely typed up a transcript instead of copying it, and in error, typed in the wrong Harris.

[thinkaboutit]

It was Pat Harris. Someone likely typed up a transcript instead of copying it, and in error, typed in the wrong Harris.


Wudge - I assume you know this because you have a copy of the transcripts that say it was Pat Harris? If so - could you post it here? TIA.

If so - my bad - sorry to everyone.

[thinkaboutit]

IIRC the testimony, ME opined Conner was not in the water very long. However, from the moment he was expelled from the uterus, he would not have "been with Laci" anymore..JMO It's possible her remains were still weighted down, IMO.
I agree that Todd initially gave a different date than Pearce ( per Hick's testimony). Since I have no access to the complete investigatory file on the Medina Burglary, no access to the actual statements by Todd & Pearce, I don't know who may have been in the home with Todd or how he transported all of the items JMO.

But they would have had to have started from the same point of origin - yes? I still don't understand how Cheng being able to track a trajectory for Conner is relevant if he can't track a trajectory for Laci - when they supposedly started out from the same spot?

[Wudge]

I will concede that the report does not erase anything in your mind. I will assume you concede that you are unwilling or incapable of commenting on the subsequent report, as if you have convinced yourself it doesn't exist?

I have no reason to believe that a Jan 16th report did not exist.

However, that means nothing. For we now agree that any subsequent report cannot erase Diane Jackson's prior report. Thus a subsequent Jan 16th report does provide either meaningful logic or probative evidence. Because the key point has long been and remains that officer Steele took Diane Jackson's reporting of three men, a van and a safe to be that a burglary was indicated to have taken place at the Medina's residence at 11:40PM on 12/24.

[Wudge]

Wudge - I assume you know this because you have a copy of the transcripts that say it was Pat Harris? If so - could you post it here? TIA.

If so - my bad - sorry to everyone.

10318
1 Got Bates stamp 14765.
2 And I would just ask if I could, do you remember
3 what date, Mr. Harris -- my Mr. Harris, do you remember
4 what date that's from?
5 MR. PAT HARRIS: Which one? What's the dates?
6 MR. GERAGOS: For Diane Jackson.
7 MR. PAT HARRIS: Looks like 12-26.
8 MR. GERAGOS: Okay.

[attorneywan2be]

The transcripts I have access to say it is David Harris:

Mark Geragos: And the information about the three people who were, let me just show you something. Got Bates stamp 14765. And I would just ask if I could, do you remember what date, Mr. Harris, my Mr. Harris, do you remember what date that's from?
David Harris: Which one? What's the dates?
Mark Geragos: For Diane Jackson.
David Harris: Looks like 12-26.
Mark Geragos: Okay.
Mark Geragos: Does it appear that at 4:10 that Diane Jackson called and said that she witnessed the 459 on Covena at 11:40? She saw the van and the safe being removed from the house?


Are these incorrect?

This is incorrect..I have the original TS..I mentioned it to Marlene, but she probably forgot to change it...


10318
1 Got Bates stamp 14765.
2 And I would just ask if I could, do you remember
3 what date, Mr. Harris -- my Mr. Harris, do you remember
4 what date that's from?
5 MR. PAT HARRIS: Which one? What's the dates?
6 MR. GERAGOS: For Diane Jackson.
7 MR. PAT HARRIS: Looks like 12-26.
8 MR. GERAGOS: Okay.

[frydaddy]

Personally - I would have brought everyone in to testify - I have no idea why Geragos didn't. It was a mistake - I agree. But how does that change what the tipsheet says? You can argue all day long that Steele didn't testify that the tipsheet was dated 12/26 - but the district attorney said it was - and I believe him. The same argument can be made for the prosecution. If that tip DIDN'T come in on the 26th - why didn't they bring Steele in to testify that it didn't? David Harris said it - and the jury heard it - why didn't he try to correct it if it was an error?

I don't think that Geragos realized the importance of the burglary until "Mr. R" contacted the prosecution with information regarding the abduction of Laci Peterson a few weeks before the END of the trial - which led him to the Aponte tip. Maybe that's why Geragos didn't drive this home. He didn't realize how important and relevant it was. Geragos was just throwing out other possible scenarios - the brown van occult and the burglary. If he had done his job - or someone had done their job - and investigated this burglary and the pawning of the croton watch - they would have realized how important it would have been to drive this home. IMO

First part...I don't think anyone from the prosecution thought much of the tipsheet and obviously, by the result of the trial, neither did the jury. So, in hindsight, prehaps it is the defense who should have put a little more effort into this IF it had merit. Truthfully, any discussion of it is more likely simply a willingness to indulge SP's advocates in conversation about it.

Second part...I think MG knew full well the importance HE wanted the burglary to have. His job was to create reasonable doubt. It is my opinion, in spite of Wudge's best efforts to portray it otherwise, that this was an attempt to create reasonable doubt, without having the details scrutinized and potentially removing the reasonable part. We obviously won't have certainty until all appeals are final, but as of this moment, it was a gaffe by MG if the burglary had actual merit. The more important question as it relates to SP is whether MG was ineffective at presenting this point, or if he knew full well that this point was just a flyer that didn't work.

[frydaddy]

I have no reason to believe that a Jan 16th report did not exist.

However, that means nothing.

*snip*



That's what I expected. I agree that there were two reports and that you think the first one will be of some value on appeal. Good luck with that!

[enlightenme]

Personally - I would have brought everyone in to testify - I have no idea why Geragos didn't. It was a mistake - I agree. But how does that change what the tipsheet says? You can argue all day long that Steele didn't testify that the tipsheet was dated 12/26 - but the district attorney said it was - and I believe him. The same argument can be made for the prosecution. If that tip DIDN'T come in on the 26th - why didn't they bring Steele in to testify that it didn't? David Harris said it - and the jury heard it - why didn't he try to correct it if it was an error?

I don't think that Geragos realized the importance of the burglary until "Mr. R" contacted the prosecution with information regarding the abduction of Laci Peterson a few weeks before the END of the trial - which led him to the Aponte tip. Maybe that's why Geragos didn't drive this home. He didn't realize how important and relevant it was. Geragos was just throwing out other possible scenarios - the brown van occult and the burglary. If he had done his job - or someone had done their job - and investigated this burglary and the pawning of the croton watch - they would have realized how important it would have been to drive this home. IMO


I believe that there was probably a very good reason that Geragos did not call the witnesses he talked about during his opening statement and during the trial. He had all the discovery from the prosecution and he, or someone on his defense team, probably interviewed many of them. He didn't want them on the stand, IMO.

I have never seen a trial with so much hearsay and double hearsay allowed. Remember though, that except for Jackson's "testimony" (through Grogan), the judge said that the other witness reports were not coming in for the truth of the matter but rather to show whether LE conducted a reasonable investigation.

[frydaddy]

I believe that there was probably a very good reason that Geragos did not call the witnesses he talked about during his opening statement and during the trial. He had all the discovery from the prosecution and he, or someone on his defense team, probably interviewed many of them. He didn't want them on the stand, IMO.

I have never seen a trial with so much hearsay and double hearsay allowed. Remember though, that except for Jackson's "testimony" (through Grogan), the judge said that the other witness reports were not coming in for the truth of the matter but rather to show whether LE conducted a reasonable investigation.

This is precisely why I wondered shortly after the trial, if MG was woefully incompetent or if he had no choice but to play out these scenes to create doubt, knowing each would be smashed on the stand if the actual players had to testify.

[Wudge]

SNIP


It is my opinion, in spite of Wudge's best efforts to portray it otherwise, that this was an attempt to create reasonable doubt, without having the details scrutinized and potentially removing the reasonable part. We obviously won't have certainty until all appeals are final, but as of this moment, it was a gaffe by MG if the burglary had actual merit. The more important question as it relates to SP is whether MG was ineffective at presenting this point, or if he knew full well that this point was just a flyer that didn't work.

(triple snicker)

It is proof perfect deductive logic that extends from Bates 14765 and places the burglars across from the Peterson home at 11:40AM on 12/24. In turn, this makes the burglars strong alternative suspects.

(and if you do not like my snickers, I suggest you stop with LMAO)

[frydaddy]

(triple snicker)

It is proof perfect deductive logic that extends from Bates 14765 and places the burglars across from the Peterson home at 11:40AM on 12/24. In turn, this makes the burglars strong alternative suspects.

(and if you do not like my snickers, I suggest you stop with LMAO)

LMAO - As I stated...good luck with those "strong alternative suspects". Too bad they weren't that strong BEFORE Scott started his incarneration, don't you agree?

[Wudge]

LMAO - As I stated...good luck with those "strong alternative suspects". Too bad they weren't that strong BEFORE Scott started his incarneration, don't you agree?


I won't up the ante on LMAO. I will simply ignore you based on your offering no value add and a failure to heed my reasonable request.

[frydaddy]

I won't up the ante on LMAO. I will simply ignore you based on your offering no value add and a failure to heed my reasonable request.

Fair enough! :seeya:

[frydaddy]

All right - you're in the Wudge ignore club! As you have probably figured out, this means you were one step away from painting her into a corner with logic, so she chose to ignore you rather than admit defeat.

I'm a proud ignore list member since 2004.

Wudge is a she? :eek: I never knew! And I'm a member of a club (again)? WAHOO!!!

[JustMyOpinion]

But they would have had to have started from the same point of origin - yes? I still don't understand how Cheng being able to track a trajectory for Conner is relevant if he can't track a trajectory for Laci - when they supposedly started out from the same spot?

Agree that at the point of expulsion from the uterus, Conner & Laci were in the same location. The trajectory for Conner established that he was expelled from Laci's body near where Scott claimed he took the boat on 12/24IMO.

[Wudge]

Agree that at the point of expulsion from the uterus, Conner & Laci were in the same location. The trajectory for Conner established that he was expelled from Laci's body near where Scott claimed he took the boat on 12/24IMO.

Dr. Cheng admitted he could not explain the places where the bodies were found.

[JustMyOpinion]

Dr. Cheng admitted he could not explain the places where the bodies were found.

I didn't say Dr Cheng offered an explanation.

[JustMyOpinion]

This is incorrect..I have the original TS..I mentioned it to Marlene, but she probably forgot to change it...


.

This is another example of why there are questions as to the accuracy of the trancripts posted at SII, IMO.

[JustMyOpinion]

This is precisely why I wondered shortly after the trial, if MG was woefully incompetent or if he had no choice but to play out these scenes to create doubt, knowing each would be smashed on the stand if the actual players had to testify.

I think it is the latter explanation, but that's JMO.

[frydaddy]

I think it is the latter explanation, but that's JMO.

I've yet to even slightly disagree with any of your opinions, so I hold that particular one with very high regard. Gotta run for awhile...please keep handling your business here, it's appreciated in my short time back! ;)

[Wudge]

I didn't say Dr Cheng offered an explanation.

Did any expert offer an expanation for the location of the bodies? If not, then the jury would have had to speculate.

[JustMyOpinion]

Did anybody offer an expanation for the location of the bodies. If not, then the jury would have had to speculate.


I wasn't inside the jury room. I personally utilized the facts in evidence to infer facts not in direct evidence. The jury may have done the same, IMO.

[thinkaboutit]

I wasn't inside the jury room. I personally utilized the facts in evidence to infer facts not in direct evidence. The jury may have done the same, IMO.

Or they chose to ignore or discount the fact that Cheng could not track a trajectory from where Scott was on the 24th to where she was found.

This still makes no sense to me.....you stated in one of your posts that you believe Laci and Conner were together (I think you mentioned you believe Laci was still weighted) - they separated (at the location they were put by Scott?) - which is why Cheng was able to track Conner's trajectory - but this still does not explain why he could not track a trajectory for Laci from that same point to where she was found.

The other thing that contradicts this theory - is that the water is shallow there - and they searched and searched that area - and never found a thing. Yet you are proposing she was there - all along in approx. 6 feet of water. Also take into account - that if she was weighted with only 30 pounds of weight - once she bloated with gases - she would have surfaced, IMO and based on what Stephens said (that AW posted) - so there were days she was floating on the surface - in this area - and no one saw her - even though they were specifically looking for her?

[thinkaboutit]

This is another example of why there are questions as to the accuracy of the trancripts posted at SII, IMO.

That discrepancy, in my opinion is minor - and does not change the testimony in the least bit, IMO.

[attorneywan2be]

I wasn't inside the jury room. I personally utilized the facts in evidence to infer facts not in direct evidence. The jury may have done the same, IMO.

What are the facts in evidence that you used to infer that the location of the bodies was explained/justified in line of the prosecution's theory..and were those facts proved beyond a reasonable doubt?

[Wudge]

I wasn't inside the jury room. I personally utilized the facts in evidence to infer facts not in direct evidence. The jury may have done the same, IMO.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt represents an extremely high level of certainty. And the reliability of an inferred conclusion cannot be greater than the reliability of the premises it is based on.

If an expert, such as Dr. Cheng, could not even reasonably explain the location of the bodies, what other facts were entered at trial that would allow the jury to conclude at the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the location of the bodies were supported by the State's theory as to where Scott allegedly submerged Laci's body?

[JustMyOpinion]

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt represents an extremely high level of certainty. And the reliability of an inferred conclusion cannot be greater than the reliability of the premises it is based on.

If an expert, such as Dr. Cheng, could not even reasonably explain the location of the bodies, what other facts were entered at trial that would allow the jury to conclude at the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the location of the bodies were supported by the State's theory as to where Scott allegedly submerged Laci's body?

Dr Cheng proved the trajectory of Conner's body, he established this evidence, IMO. He also testified about tidal movement, long/short waves, using slides as he explained the water/sediment movement in the Bay. The ME established evidence about the condition of the two bodies and testified as to his own opinion as to why they were in this state, and how long Conner was in the water, etc. Scott made statements to the police about his whereabouts with the boat on 12/24 that were in evidence. Searches of tides/currents from Scott's computer were in evidence. Scott's shifting, varying explanations for what happened to the remainder of a bag of concrete were in evidence. A concrete anchor was in evidence. A petrographer testified that the concrete in the anchor did not match the concrete in the driveway, and..that a different object other than the anchor had been mixed/molded in a pitcher found at the warehouse. Five, circular imprints made of concrete residue on the trailer were photographed and in evidence.
This evidence ( along with other evidence presented) convinces me beyond a reasonable doubt that Scott Peterson made concrete anchors, weighted Laci's body, disposed of Laci ( with Conner still inside) in the Bay near where he claimed he was fishing on 12/24.

[ekg]

I'm not here to convince you that your beliefs are wrong, even if I feel they are. You can believe what you want and there might actually be a few points I agree with you on.

JMO responded with a few points that I likely would have made. But, I'd add...

Where is the fifth crime scene? I got warehouse, home, truck, and boat. Am I missing an obvious one?

Assuming for conversation we agree he did it...what forensics would you expect to find at each scene that needed to be cleaned up?

I do not recall any dogs scenting with regards to Todd & Pearce...not saying it didn't happen, just that your post is the first I've heard of it. And forgive me, this is not a shot at you specifically, but seldom, if ever, is anything new I hear unfavorable to Scott. Thus, I'd need to see some pretty good evidence to convince me of it's veracity.

I'd never say you are blind because you might disagree with the verdict or Scott's involvement. I might, jokingly, suggest rather than blindness, that perhaps you are squeezing your eyes closed on purpose! LOL

I understand your need for physical, forensic evidence to prove to you, that SP did this. I also understand the background of LE and Prosecutorial malfeasance in the past. However, as stated so many times in the past, when you put all the arguments against it being SP together, Scott's already quirky demeanor looks ever more impossible to believe. I simply find it impossible for someone to play the role of guilty as well as Scott did.

I'll conclude with wondering, given the condition of the bodies, how someone could place Laci and Conner in the area of the bay where they were found? When were each placed? What determined that placement. How did each arrive at the condition that they were found in? How would a person know that placing them where they were found would fool those who testified?


The 5 crime scenes are the house, truck,boat,warehouse and marina.

I am going to have to say “My Bad” on the dogs scenting to Todd’s place. There used to be such great links to this case, but I cannot find them anymore. The only thing I can find is the dogs were pulled off a scent that they kept going to at the Gallo Winery. I remember there being a connection to the Winery, Todd and the airport district, I just can’t find it. So I offer my ‘mea culpa’ and ask that you disregard what I said about it, until a time when I can offer you more than my memory. Or until someone else knows and can help make the connection. :o All I can say is the Mad Cow and all.....lol

I don’t know what I would expect to find…. Blood, broken nails, scratches, some history, disorder atleast somewhere. I would expect to find something. Anything. The only reason we know about the crimes scenes in this case is b/c Scott told us. There isn’t anything odd in the truck, but we know he was in it so it ‘has’ to be a crime scene. We know he was in the warehouse b/c he told us so it ‘has’ to be a crime scene, we know he was at the marina and in the boat b/c he told us so it ‘has’ to be a crime scene… and he lives in the house where she went missing so it ‘has’ to also be a crime scene… but none of them show a crime was committed. And with the exception of the house, all of them are only crime scenes b/c LE and the DA said Scott was guilty. Not from anything found in them. What if they were wrong?

Sure you can say he acted guilty… I can understand him calling Amber, believe it or not she was the only normal thing in his life at the time. The “Euro-trip” I will never understand and never try to explain. I can’t…lol. But I see him calling as a sign of innocence more than guilt. If he was guilty he wouldn’t want to be caught talking to his mistress, but if he was innocent he would think that sure it wouldn’t look good, but it wouldn’t make him guilty either… innocent people wouldn’t think that what they are doing makes them look guilty. They would have faith in th truth.

It’s all about context. Like the crime scenes are only crime scenes if it was Scott. Take the pics of him smiling and lol’ing at the vigil. Taken out of context and they look really bad. But maybe he was laughing b/c someone said a funny “ I remember when one time Laci……” same with the smile. Maybe a fond memory popped up and he couldn’t help but smile about it. IMO a guilty man would be more aware and try to make himself look the grieving part. But an innocent man wouldn’t see anything guilty in smiling/laughing during a vigil or funeral for that matter when there was a reason to.

I can’t explain the bodies… It escapes me that someone would plant them in that condition. But I can’t rule it out… why? B/c the only parts of her that were found were the parts that would prove his guilt. If she was found someplace else, he walks. If her head was found with a fracture or bullet he walks, if her hands were found with someone else’s DNA under the nails he walks. But only the partial remains were found in the only place the could have been in order for it to be blamed on Scott. I just don’t like the neatness of it..

Yes, my eyes might be shut a little to tightly….and oh what a headache that can cause-lol…But there are too many questions left to be answered….so until someone confesses I’m stuck with asking the same ole questions. And I’m stuck with the same ole doubt.

[ekg]

snipped

.
I will agree to disagree.

fair enough.....:)

[Wudge]

The 5 crime scenes are the house, truck,boat,warehouse and marina.

I am going to have to say “My Bad” on the dogs scenting to Todd’s place. There used to be such great links to this case, but I cannot find them anymore. The only thing I can find is the dogs were pulled off a scent that they kept going to at the Gallo Winery. I remember there being a connection to the Winery, Todd and the airport district, I just can’t find it. So I offer my ‘mea culpa’ and ask that you disregard what I said about it, until a time when I can offer you more than my memory. Or until someone else knows and can help make the connection. :o All I can say is the Mad Cow and all.....lol

I don’t know what I would expect to find…. Blood, broken nails, scratches, some history, disorder atleast somewhere. I would expect to find something. Anything. The only reason we know about the crimes scenes in this case is b/c Scott told us. There isn’t anything odd in the truck, but we know he was in it so it ‘has’ to be a crime scene. We know he was in the warehouse b/c he told us so it ‘has’ to be a crime scene, we know he was at the marina and in the boat b/c he told us so it ‘has’ to be a crime scene… and he lives in the house where she went missing so it ‘has’ to also be a crime scene… but none of them show a crime was committed. And with the exception of the house, all of them are only crime scenes b/c LE and the DA said Scott was guilty. Not from anything found in them. What if they were wrong?

Sure you can say he acted guilty… I can understand him calling Amber, believe it or not she was the only normal thing in his life at the time. The “Euro-trip” I will never understand and never try to explain. I can’t…lol. But I see him calling as a sign of innocence more than guilt. If he was guilty he wouldn’t want to be caught talking to his mistress, but if he was innocent he would think that sure it wouldn’t look good, but it wouldn’t make him guilty either… innocent people wouldn’t think that what they are doing makes them look guilty. They would have faith in th truth.

It’s all about context. Like the crime scenes are only crime scenes if it was Scott. Take the pics of him smiling and lol’ing at the vigil. Taken out of context and they look really bad. But maybe he was laughing b/c someone said a funny “ I remember when one time Laci……” same with the smile. Maybe a fond memory popped up and he couldn’t help but smile about it. IMO a guilty man would be more aware and try to make himself look the grieving part. But an innocent man wouldn’t see anything guilty in smiling/laughing during a vigil or funeral for that matter when there was a reason to.

I can’t explain the bodies… It escapes me that someone would plant them in that condition. But I can’t rule it out… why? B/c the only parts of her that were found were the parts that would prove his guilt. If she was found someplace else, he walks. If her head was found with a fracture or bullet he walks, if her hands were found with someone else’s DNA under the nails he walks. But only the partial remains were found in the only place the could have been in order for it to be blamed on Scott. I just don’t like the neatness of it..

Yes, my eyes might be shut a little to tightly….and oh what a headache that can cause-lol…But there are too many questions left to be answered….so until someone confesses I’m stuck with asking the same ole questions. And I’m stuck with the same ole doubt.

Those doubts are absolutely proper.

We've both learned that the jury speculated and determined that the jury also found the required inculpatory evidence was not there to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the necessary elements of premeditation, deliberation, intent and malice aforethought.

[thinkaboutit]

The 5 crime scenes are the house, truck,boat,warehouse and marina.

I am going to have to say “My Bad” on the dogs scenting to Todd’s place. There used to be such great links to this case, but I cannot find them anymore. The only thing I can find is the dogs were pulled off a scent that they kept going to at the Gallo Winery. I remember there being a connection to the Winery, Todd and the airport district, I just can’t find it. So I offer
my ‘mea culpa’ and ask that you disregard what I said about it, until a time when I can offer you more than my memory. Or until someone else knows and can help make the connection. :o All I can say is the Mad Cow and all.....lol



Cindy Valentin testified at prelim that her dog tracked to the Gallo Winery. I believe Delucchi ruled her testimony inadmissable at the trial:


David Harris: You indicated he goes down this driveway to the backyard. Where does that back yard abut to?
Cindee Valentin: The backyard at 1326 Highland Drive is catty corner to the property, catty corner and behind the property at 523 Covena Avenue.
David Harris: The Peterson property?
Cindee Valentin: Yes, the Peterson property.
David Harris: The dog circled around the area catty corner to the Peterson property, and goes back out on to the street?
Cindee Valentin: That's correct.
David Harris: Where does the dog go from there?
Cindee Valentin: He then continues heading west on Highland Drive. He gets to Santa Barbara Avenue. He goes several areas past that. I don't remember. It is stated in my report. And then he turned back and headed south on Santa Barbara Avenue. He crossed several intersections and came to the intersection of San Barbara Avenue and La Loma Avenue, at which point, he turned southeast on La Loma Avenue and continued to the intersection of La Loma and Yosemite Boulevard. At Yosemite Boulevard, he turned west and continued to Santa Rosa Avenue, at which point he turned south and headed down Santa Rosa Avenue. And I stopped him at the Gallo, inside of the Gallo property at the end of Santa Rosa Avenue.
David Harris: Why did you stop him?
Cindee Valentin: As we were traveling down Santa Rosa Avenue, he wasn't showing all the signs of being on trail. And when we hit the dead end into the Gallo property, there was nowhere else to go. I could have taken him back and worked to see if there was an in and out trail there. However, with the information that we have, I stopped him and we went back to debrief with the detectives at the command post.
David Harris: Now, in terms of when Merlin is working, do you use the terminology, has a strong pull on the harness?
Cindee Valentin: A strong pull on the harness, yes. That is a terminology that we use.
David Harris: What does that mean, for the Court's information?
Cindee Valentin: When they are pulling strong in the harness, they are on trail and driving hard to get to the end to find the person.
David Harris: And in this,
Cindee Valentin: Motivation.
David Harris: With this particular track that's depicted in People's Number 9, where, approximately, was it that he stopped really pulling on the harness?
Cindee Valentin: It was after working through the intersection at Yosemite Boulevard and Santa Rosa, he wasn't giving me a strong pull in the harness. He was not, he was not, he was showing me that he really didn't have anything.


http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Pretrial/valentin.htm

The dog wasn't pulling strongly after the intersection of Yosemite and Santa Rosa.

Pearce and Todd were living in the 1400 block of Tenaya. The route the dog took is definitely a possible route from Covena to their residence on Tenaya. The only difference - you would have made a left two blocks earlier off of Yosemite - onto South Santa Cruz, which would have been two blocks before the dog lost Laci's scent.

[attorneywan2be]

It’s all about context. Like the crime scenes are only crime scenes if it was Scott. Take the pics of him smiling and lol’ing at the vigil. Taken out of context and they look really bad. But maybe he was laughing b/c someone said a funny “ I remember when one time Laci……” same with the smile. Maybe a fond memory popped up and he couldn’t help but smile about it. IMO a guilty man would be more aware and try to make himself look the grieving part. But an innocent man wouldn’t see anything guilty in smiling/laughing during a vigil or funeral for that matter when there was a reason to.

I totally agree..to me that's consciouness of innocence..

I can’t explain the bodies… It escapes me that someone would plant them in that condition. But I can’t rule it out… why? B/c the only parts of her that were found were the parts that would prove his guilt. If she was found someplace else, he walks. If her head was found with a fracture or bullet he walks, if her hands were found with someone else’s DNA under the nails he walks. But only the partial remains were found in the only place the could have been in order for it to be blamed on Scott. I just don’t like the neatness of it.

You basically stated the reasons why the killer would plant the bodies where they were found..Conner being the largest and heaviest as compared to the debris shown in the picture, you would think his body would have settled before the lighter items, however, he was found passed the debris line and close to the dirt foot path...and the TWICE-KNOTTED twine around his neck indicates that someone put that twine there, it could not have been a debris in a million years, as Dr. Wecht said..

IMO, this picture speaks volume..the red flag is where Conner's body was found..defense's exhibit ww-4

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i231/dream777/WW-4.jpg

[frydaddy]

The 5 crime scenes are the house, truck,boat,warehouse and marina.

I am going to have to say “My Bad” on the dogs scenting to Todd’s place. There used to be such great links to this case, but I cannot find them anymore. The only thing I can find is the dogs were pulled off a scent that they kept going to at the Gallo Winery. I remember there being a connection to the Winery, Todd and the airport district, I just can’t find it. So I offer my ‘mea culpa’ and ask that you disregard what I said about it, until a time when I can offer you more than my memory. Or until someone else knows and can help make the connection. :o All I can say is the Mad Cow and all.....lol

I don’t know what I would expect to find…. Blood, broken nails, scratches, some history, disorder atleast somewhere. I would expect to find something. Anything. The only reason we know about the crimes scenes in this case is b/c Scott told us. There isn’t anything odd in the truck, but we know he was in it so it ‘has’ to be a crime scene. We know he was in the warehouse b/c he told us so it ‘has’ to be a crime scene, we know he was at the marina and in the boat b/c he told us so it ‘has’ to be a crime scene… and he lives in the house where she went missing so it ‘has’ to also be a crime scene… but none of them show a crime was committed. And with the exception of the house, all of them are only crime scenes b/c LE and the DA said Scott was guilty. Not from anything found in them. What if they were wrong?

Sure you can say he acted guilty… I can understand him calling Amber, believe it or not she was the only normal thing in his life at the time. The “Euro-trip” I will never understand and never try to explain. I can’t…lol. But I see him calling as a sign of innocence more than guilt. If he was guilty he wouldn’t want to be caught talking to his mistress, but if he was innocent he would think that sure it wouldn’t look good, but it wouldn’t make him guilty either… innocent people wouldn’t think that what they are doing makes them look guilty. They would have faith in th truth.

It’s all about context. Like the crime scenes are only crime scenes if it was Scott. Take the pics of him smiling and lol’ing at the vigil. Taken out of context and they look really bad. But maybe he was laughing b/c someone said a funny “ I remember when one time Laci……” same with the smile. Maybe a fond memory popped up and he couldn’t help but smile about it. IMO a guilty man would be more aware and try to make himself look the grieving part. But an innocent man wouldn’t see anything guilty in smiling/laughing during a vigil or funeral for that matter when there was a reason to.

I can’t explain the bodies… It escapes me that someone would plant them in that condition. But I can’t rule it out… why? B/c the only parts of her that were found were the parts that would prove his guilt. If she was found someplace else, he walks. If her head was found with a fracture or bullet he walks, if her hands were found with someone else’s DNA under the nails he walks. But only the partial remains were found in the only place the could have been in order for it to be blamed on Scott. I just don’t like the neatness of it..

Yes, my eyes might be shut a little to tightly….and oh what a headache that can cause-lol…But there are too many questions left to be answered….so until someone confesses I’m stuck with asking the same ole questions. And I’m stuck with the same ole doubt.


I was going to speculate marina as #5, but figured it best to ask rather than assume. And trust me when I say it is no problem on the lack of links on Todd and the scents. It is 2007, after all, I doubt there are many sites equipped to archive information forever. Also, I appreciate the discussion without an adversarial tone even though there may be disagreement.

I can comprehend your doubt and what you need as proof. Myself, I have no doubt. I don't necessarily think that doubt is reasonable, but I don't expect you or anyone else to agree with me. The only folks I cannot comprehend are those who refuse to acknowledge anything unfavorable to Scott. I don't see you as such, thus far anyway! :)

Okay, the vigil. The picture of Scott...in and of itself, proves nothing. But, along with many of the other oddities surrounding his appearance, lends itself to pattern. I don't have all the things listed anymore. But, I am certain if you followed the case, you know what's been mentioned. When someone has to explain so many of the behaviors and statements and such, at what point does one wonder, why am I having to create possibilities for so many quirky, guilty looking things? The fact he didn't want to be with family, the fact he's calling Amber with a fanciful tale of Europe and sounding excited while his wife and unborn child are missing. How's that possible for an innocent man to fake excitement? How's it possible to crack a smile when your wife could be getting tortured at that very moment? Who at a vigil for a missing pregnant woman would hint at a past tense statement? Why'd Scott look so polished when most abducted family members I've seen on TV look like hell and that they hadn't slept in days. Compare Scott to Sharon that night, for example. The picture alone does not tell the vigil story...but in the context of the entire vigil, it stands out as abnormal as heck. Even his friends Argain and Milagi were questioning SP.

I could go on with the other parts of your post, but I am sure you've heard it all before. I know you have questions, some that I do not have the smarts to answer. I don't recall anyone stating that all was known as fact. I think the statement was there was nothing that caused enough doubt to overcome the CE. I think there was once a list of like 130+ oddities someone had listed in this case. I'm certain one at a time there was an alternate, innocent explanation for every one offered by advocates for Scott. When you lay those alternates end to end, it truly does boggle the mind that one could believe the resulting story. Perhaps one day I'll have the energy to try and recall the items on the list for conversations sake.

[JustMyOpinion]

I've yet to even slightly disagree with any of your opinions, so I hold that particular one with very high regard. Gotta run for awhile...please keep handling your business here, it's appreciated in my short time back! ;)

Hi frydaddy
I have so enjoyed reading your posts, and I'm glad you chose to participate in this forum. I look forward to reading more from you, it's been such a pleasure !

[Anne2719]

The "Wayback Machine" is a possible resource for tracking down links that are no longer working. There's a lot of archived stuff available here:

http://www.archive.org/index.php

[Wudge]

Dr Cheng proved the trajectory of Conner's body, he established this evidence, IMO. He also testified about tidal movement, long/short waves, using slides as he explained the water/sediment movement in the Bay. The ME established evidence about the condition of the two bodies and testified as to his own opinion as to why they were in this state, and how long Conner was in the water, etc. Scott made statements to the police about his whereabouts with the boat on 12/24 that were in evidence. Searches of tides/currents from Scott's computer were in evidence. Scott's shifting, varying explanations for what happened to the remainder of a bag of concrete were in evidence. A concrete anchor was in evidence. A petrographer testified that the concrete in the anchor did not match the concrete in the driveway, and..that a different object other than the anchor had been mixed/molded in a pitcher found at the warehouse. Five, circular imprints made of concrete residue on the trailer were photographed and in evidence.
This evidence ( along with other evidence presented) convinces me beyond a reasonable doubt that Scott Peterson made concrete anchors, weighted Laci's body, disposed of Laci ( with Conner still inside) in the Bay near where he claimed he was fishing on 12/24.


Without speculating, what evidence was presented at trial that allow you to conclude that the total weight of the concrete anchors was sufficient to have allegedly kept Laci submerged for over three months?

[JustMyOpinion]

Without speculating, what evidence was presented at trial that allow you to conclude that the total weight of the concrete anchors was sufficient to have allegedly kept Laci submerged for over three months?

It isn't necessary for me to calculate the total weight of the anchors or for me to know precisely how long Laci's body stayed submerged to utilize all of the evidence that was presented and conclude that Scott made concrete anchors, Scott weighted her body, Scott put her in the Bay in the location where he claimed to be fishing. JMO

[frydaddy]

Hi frydaddy
I have so enjoyed reading your posts, and I'm glad you chose to participate in this forum. I look forward to reading more from you, it's been such a pleasure !


Very kind of you JMO, I appreciate it! ;)

[Wudge]

It isn't necessary for me to calculate the total weight of the anchors or for me to know precisely how long Laci's body stayed submerged to utilize all of the evidence that was presented and conclude that Scott made concrete anchors, Scott weighted her body, Scott put her in the Bay in the location where he claimed to be fishing. JMO


It's necessary that evidence presented at trial allow you to then conclude at the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the total weight you adduce to the alleged concrete anchors is sufficient to have kept Laci's body submerged.

[JustMyOpinion]

It's necessary that evidence presented at trial allow you to then conclude at the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the total weight you adduce to the alleged concrete anchors is sufficient to have kept Laci's body submerged.


For you this may be necessary. Calculating the precise, total weight of the anchors is not necessary for me. ( Scott claimed the bag he bought was between 60-90 lbs, subtract the 8 lb anchor remaing in the boat, there is an probable total weight of between 52 and 82 lbs. IMO). All of the evidence that was presented at trial proved Scott's guilt beyond my own reasonable doubt.

[Wudge]

For you this may be necessary. Calculating the precise, total weight of the anchors is not necessary for me. ( Scott claimed the bag he bought was between 60-90 lbs, subtract the 8 lb anchor remaing in the boat, there is an probable total weight of between 52 and 82 lbs. IMO). All of the evidence that was presented at trial proved Scott's guilt beyond my own reasonable doubt.


Was it 60 lbs or 90 lbs?

Why did Distaso tell the jury that he adduced but 30 lbs of submerging weight?

Where is the testimony that established at a level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt what the sufficient submerging weight was?

[JustMyOpinion]

Was it 60 lbs or 90 lbs?

Why did Distaso tell the jury that he adduced but 30 lbs of submerging weight?

Where is the testimony that established at a level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt what the sufficient submerging weight was?

You'd have to ask Distaso that question, I can't answer for him. Since words of attorneys are not evidence ( and jurors are instructed in this regard), it doesn't matter to me what Distaso said in closing argument. JMO

[attorneywan2be]

For you this may be necessary. Calculating the precise, total weight of the anchors is not necessary for me. ( Scott claimed the bag he bought was between 60-90 lbs, subtract the 8 lb anchor remaing in the boat, there is an probable total weight of between 52 and 82 lbs. IMO). All of the evidence that was presented at trial proved Scott's guilt beyond my own reasonable doubt.

No evidence was proved beyond a reasonable doubt as to how much weight supposedly Scott attached to her body..

No evidence was presented as to how much weight would be needed to keep a body submerged for 4 months..

No evidence was proved beyond a reasonable doubt that both bodies washed ashore...IMO, Dr Cheng's testimony indicates that both bodies didn't travel to shore from the same point of origin..that refutes the prosecution's theory that Conner was expelled from her womb during the storm, and that point, both bodies supposedly travelled to shore...

Given the above, how could anyone conclude that her body was dumped in the bay on Dec 24, 2002??

[Anne2719]

I don't understand the need to determine how much concrete was missing or how long it would've taken for concrete to set or how many pounds it would've taken to hold a body underwater for a certain length of time. It's an exercise in futility, IMO. Especially since a few bags of rocks could've been collected from the roadside, or cement blocks stolen (NO RECEIPTS!) from a construction site. Should we count the number of rocks along roads in California before and after 12/24/2002 to see if there was enough weight to hold down a body?

This need to logically deduce what happened is beyond me. Some things just defy logic. IMO.

[JustMyOpinion]

No evidence was proved beyond a reasonable doubt as to how much weight supposedly Scott attached to her body..

No evidence was presented as to how much weight would be needed to keep a body submerged for 4 months..

No evidence was proved beyond a reasonable doubt that both bodies washed ashore...IMO, Dr Cheng's testimony indicates that both bodies didn't travel to shore from the same point of origin..that refutes the prosecution's theory that Conner was expelled from her womb during the storm, and that point, both bodies supposedly travelled to shore...

Given the above, how could anyone conclude that her body was dumped in the bay on Dec 24, 2002??

No evidence was presented that proved there was sufficient weight attached or both bodies came ashore beyond your own reasonable doubt. Given your own reasonable doubt, you apparently cannot conclude Scott put Laci in the Bay. Do I have this right?

[ekg]

Personally - I would have brought everyone in to testify - I have no idea why Geragos didn't. It was a mistake - I agree. But how does that change what the tipsheet says? You can argue all day long that Steele didn't testify that the tipsheet was dated 12/26 - but the district attorney said it was - and I believe him. The same argument can be made for the prosecution. If that tip DIDN'T come in on the 26th - why didn't they bring Steele in to testify that it didn't? David Harris said it - and the jury heard it - why didn't he try to correct it if it was an error?

I don't think that Geragos realized the importance of the burglary until "Mr. R" contacted the prosecution with information regarding the abduction of Laci Peterson a few weeks before the END of the trial - which led him to the Aponte tip. Maybe that's why Geragos didn't drive this home. He didn't realize how important and relevant it was. Geragos was just throwing out other possible scenarios - the brown van occult and the burglary. If he had done his job - or someone had done their job - and investigated this burglary and the pawning of the croton watch - they would have realized how important it would have been to drive this home. IMO

IIRC MG had to tiptoe around Todd and Pearce .... I think he was able to bring some in but not all...

"MR. GERAGOS: Thank you. This is as far as I can go on direct, judge, with him today."

[frydaddy]

I don't understand the need to determine how much concrete was missing or how long it would've taken for concrete to set or how many pounds it would've taken to hold a body underwater for a certain length of time. It's an exercise in futility, IMO. Especially since a few bags of rocks could've been collected from the roadside, or cement blocks stolen (NO RECEIPTS!) from a construction site. Should we count the number of rocks along roads in California before and after 12/24/2002 to see if there was enough weight to hold down a body?

This need to logically deduce what happened is beyond me. Some things just defy logic. IMO.

Interesting question...could be applied to a great many of the issues in the case. I often thought and do so now, that some people have an emotional investment in SP (God knows why) or they simply need validation from others regarding their supposed intellect or sleuthing abilities. IMO

[JustMyOpinion]

IIRC MG had to tiptoe around Todd and Pearce .... I think he was able to bring some in but not all...

"MR. GERAGOS: Thank you. This is as far as I can go on direct, judge, with him today."

I don't think he "had" to tip-toe around them JMO, but he did know the State had Todd on their witness list and he had been moved to Stanislaus County jail in the event they decided to call him.
http://www.ktvu.com/news/2744674/detail.html
MODESTO, Calif. -- One of the men who burglarized a home in Scott Peterson's neighborhood hours after Laci Peterson's Christmas Eve disappearance will be called as a witness by the prosecution in the upcoming double murder trial, according to court documents filed Tuesday.

Prosecutors filed a request and it was granted to have Steven Wayne Todd moved from the Deuel Vocational Institution in Tracy to the Stanislaus County jail for the duration of the Peterson trial. In its filing, prosecutors called Todd a 'necessary and material witness' in its case against Peterson.

[ekg]

But they would have had to have started from the same point of origin - yes? I still don't understand how Cheng being able to track a trajectory for Conner is relevant if he can't track a trajectory for Laci - when they supposedly started out from the same spot?

I'm right there with you... it's just one of a few things about the bay that bother me...:D

[attorneywan2be]

I don't understand the need to determine how much concrete was missing or how long it would've taken for concrete to set or how many pounds it would've taken to hold a body underwater for a certain length of time. It's an exercise in futility, IMO. Especially since a few bags of rocks could've been collected from the roadside, or cement blocks stolen (NO RECEIPTS!) from a construction site. Should we count the number of rocks along roads in California before and after 12/24/2002 to see if there was enough weight to hold down a body?

This need to logically deduce what happened is beyond me. Some things just defy logic. IMO.


Anne.. you can speculate that he used some rocks or cement blocks from a construction site..but the jury CAN NOT do that..they have to work with the evidence presented to them..they have to make sure that the facts presented justify the prosecution's theory before sending someone to death row..there were a lot of unanswered questions as to how the body remained submerged for 4 months..IMO, the prosecution failed to explain that to the jury..this is the core of their theory..in addition, their own expert could not prove that Laci's and Conner's body both washed ashore from the same point of origin (where Scott supposedly dumped the body)..AGAIN, this is the core of the prosecution's theory..

[Anne2719]

Anne.. you can speculate that he used some rocks or cement blocks from a construction site..but the jury CAN NOT do that..they have to work with the evidence presented to them..they have to make sure that the facts presented justify the prosecution's theory before sending someone to death row..there were a lot of unanswered questions as to how the body remained submerged for 4 months..IMO, the prosecution failed to explain that to the jury..this is the core of their theory..in addition, their own expert could not prove that Laci's and Conner's body both washed ashore from the same point of origin (where Scott supposedly dumped the body)..AGAIN, this is the core of the prosecution's theory..
Luckily I don't have to worry about the same constraints the jury had in deciding for myself whether Scott is guilty or innocent. And for me there is no problem in this trajectory issue, since my belief is that the fetus was expelled from the womb prior to the disarticulation of the body parts that were, in my opinion, weighted down, and different water patterns due to the storm and different times/dates of release would dictate different trajectories.

[JustMyOpinion]

Anne.. you can speculate that he used some rocks or cement blocks from a construction site..but the jury CAN NOT do that..they have to work with the evidence presented to them..they have to make sure that the facts presented justify the prosecution's theory before sending someone to death row..there were a lot of unanswered questions as to how the body remained submerged for 4 months..IMO, the prosecution failed to explain that to the jury..this is the core of their theory..in addition, their own expert could not prove that Laci's and Conner's body both washed ashore from the same point of origin (where Scott supposedly dumped the body)..AGAIN, this is the core of the prosecution's theory..

You have a lot of unanswered questions, but the jurors apparently found the evidence presented was sufficient to prove him guilty beyond their collective, reasonable doubt. What kind of expert could the State or Defense have called who could testify as to how much weight it would take to submerge a body in the Bay for 3 - 6 months, IYO? What is the background of the man Richard Cole quoted in his article, do you know?

[JustMyOpinion]

And for me there is no problem in this trajectory issue, since my belief is that the fetus was expelled from the womb prior to the disarticulation of the body parts that were, in my opinion, weighted down, and different water patterns due to the storm and different times/dates of release would dictate different trajectories.

I agree with you, Anne2719.

[attorneywan2be]

Snip
And for me there is no problem in this trajectory issue, since my belief is that the fetus was expelled from the womb prior to the disarticulation of the body parts that were.

Snip




When do you think Conner was expelled? and on what basis did you form that opinion?

[ekg]

Cindy Valentin testified at prelim that her dog tracked to the Gallo Winery. I believe Delucchi ruled her testimony inadmissable at the trial:



http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Pretrial/valentin.htm

The dog wasn't pulling strongly after the intersection of Yosemite and Santa Rosa.

Pearce and Todd were living in the 1400 block of Tenaya. The route the dog took is definitely a possible route from Covena to their residence on Tenaya. The only difference - you would have made a left two blocks earlier off of Yosemite - onto South Santa Cruz, which would have been two blocks before the dog lost Laci's scent.

Thanks tia...


here's what Boyer says.... seems a little different than what Cindy said?


Q. But yet it continued on down the street all the way

down to the winery, correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Seemed to be showing, I guess what we're, for lack

of a better term, the term mild interest?

A. I'm not an expert on that dog, sir. I couldn't

tell you. As a security escort, I'm not necessarily paying

attention to the dog itself. I'm watching the perimeter,

make sure we don't get run over by any wine trucks.

Q. Good point. The term mild interest, let me, just

so I'm clear on this. The term itself, mild interest, would

be something a dog handler would use when the dog isn't

full-force pulling but is showing some sort of --

A. Searching behavior, yes, sir.

Q. Searching behavior. So, for example, if a dog was

sniffing and going in a direction, but wasn't pulling hard,

that might be a mild interest?

A. Yes, sir, it might.

Q. And that, in fact, is what the dog was doing at the

Gallo gate that day, correct?

A. That's what Miss Valentin told me. I don't know

that for a fact, because I didn't see.

Q. That was -- the dog was, in fact, showing a mild

interest?

A. That's what she told me, yes, sir.

Q. And, in fact, she asked the Gallo Winery people to

allow you in the gate and allow you into the area, because

the dog seemed to have been showing at least some interest?

A. No, sir, she did not. I did.

Q. You asked for that?

A. Yes.

[Anne2719]

When do you think Conner was expelled? and on what basis did you form that opinion?
My opinion: the fetus was expelled a couple of days before the body was recovered. The basis of that is the testimony that he was only "in the water" for a short time, which I'm guessing was a couple of days.
PETERSON: I did. And ultimately this came by comparing the two autopsies and by comparing the condition of Laci's uterus to the rest of her body. My thinking was that Conner had likely been protected by that uterus, and ultimately, with time in the water and with tidal action, the uterus was abraded open. At that time Conner was released and ended up washing ashore very shortly thereafter. http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/Pwitnesses/Petersonbrian.htm

[Wudge]

I don't understand the need to determine how much concrete was missing or how long it would've taken for concrete to set or how many pounds it would've taken to hold a body underwater for a certain length of time. It's an exercise in futility, IMO. Especially since a few bags of rocks could've been collected from the roadside, or cement blocks stolen (NO RECEIPTS!) from a construction site. Should we count the number of rocks along roads in California before and after 12/24/2002 to see if there was enough weight to hold down a body?

This need to logically deduce what happened is beyond me. Some things just defy logic. IMO.


The jury was forbidden to speculate. Jurors had to rely on evidence presented at trial. And if they inferred a fact, the basis upon which that inference rests had to be substantial.

If you are a juror, you cannot just wing conclusions.

Jury instruction 38 is a standard jury instruction in all criminal trials

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

[JustMyOpinion]

The jury was forbidden to speculate. Jurors had to rely on evidence presented at trial. And if they inferred something, that evidence had to be substantial.

.

I think there was substantial circumstantial evidence, I also think this was a common sense case. Jurors are instructed they may bring their common sense to deliberations..true?

[Anne2719]

The jury was forbidden to speculate. Jurors had to rely on evidence presented at trial. And if they inferred a fact, the basis upon which that inference rests had to be substantial.

If you are a juror, you cannot just wing conclusions.

Jury instruction 38 is a standard jury instruction in all criminal trials

Each fact which is essential to complete a set of circumstances necessary to establish the defendant's guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, before an inference essential to establish guilt may be found to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, each fact or circumstance on which the inference necessarily rests must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
"Reasonable doubt" can be very subjective. What might be reasonable doubt to you may have been explained satisfactorily to me. And logic has little to do with that.

[Wudge]

I think there was substantial circumstantial evidence, I also think this was a common sense case. Jurors are instructed they may bring their common sense to deliberations..true?

The jury was not instructed to use common sense. You really should read the jury instructions to see what you understand and what you do not understand.

[Wudge]

"Reasonable doubt" can be very subjective. What might be reasonable doubt to you may have been explained satisfactorily to me. And logic has little to do with that.

Anne, the standard for reasonable doubt is extremely high. It basically rests next to I "know".

And I'll clarify here for others. Our standard is not proof based on common sense. Our standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence that was presented at trial.

[JustMyOpinion]

Anne, the standard for reasonable doubt is extremely high. It basically rests next to I "know".

And I'll clarify here for others. Our standard is not proof based on common sense. Our standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence that was presented at trial.

I didn't say the standard was proof based on common sense, Wudge. I asked if the jurors were instructed they may bring their common sense.

[Wudge]

I didn't say the standard was proof based on common sense, Wudge. I asked if the jurors were instructed they may bring their common sense.

...........No

[Miss Bootsie]

The jury was not instructed to use common sense. You really should read the jury instructions to see what you understand and what you do not understand.

Just when I thought I had heard it all. :eek:

[Spencer]

frydaddy said:
Interesting question...could be applied to a great many of the issues in the case. I often thought and do so now, that some people have an emotional investment in SP (God knows why) or they simply need validation from others regarding their supposed intellect or sleuthing abilities. IMO

I can only speak for myself but of course there is an emotional investment in this case. The only real difference between all of us is what side that investment is on. Mine is with Scott Peterson. I have grown kids, both sons and daughters and some life experience that shows terrible things can happen to good people. There is no question that Scott made a terrible mistake with his infidelity. But I don't think it takes needing "validation from others to bolster our intellect or sleuthing abilities" to support him. I feel that the evidence did not support a conviction of anything other than the affair and when one feels as I do that a terrible injustice has been done to this young man, it's only natural to try to do what you can to support him. At the same time, you don't invest this much of your life to this cause without becoming close to the person you are trying to defend.........hence the emotional attachment.
Those of you who feel he is guilty have this same attachment and emotional investment in Laci Peterson. It doesn't make one side right or wrong. In fact, the only difference I can see between the two sides is those that still support Scott after all of these years do so because of their sincere belief that he is in fact innocent of this crime of murder and want to see him exonerated. Those that support the other side have already achieved their goals....in that they believe the verdict was just, the murderer caught and that, in reality, should be the end of the story for those people. But it's not. So my conclusions are that everybody who posts anywhere has an emotional investment in this case and for Scott's side, I know I will not rest until he is free and the true killer(s) caught.

[One2Snoop]

The jury was not instructed to use common sense. You really should read the jury instructions to see what you understand and what you do not understand.

Just something I found that states in general about jury instructions....

You are permitted to draw such reasonable inferences from the testimony and exhibits as you feel are justified in the light of common experience. In other words, you may make deductions and reach conclusions which reason and common sense lead you to draw from the facts which have been established by the testimony and evidence in the case.

The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. It requires only that you weigh all of the evidence and be convinced of the Defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before he/she can be convicted.

http://www.state.wv.us/wvsca/jury/charge.htm

[ekg]

I was going to speculate marina as #5, but figured it best to ask rather than assume. And trust me when I say it is no problem on the lack of links on Todd and the scents. It is 2007, after all, I doubt there are many sites equipped to archive information forever. Also, I appreciate the discussion without an adversarial tone even though there may be disagreement.

I like a debate.... I like a heated, yet civil one even more...lol If someone wants to talk about it in an agreeable way, even tho there's bound to be disagreement, I'm good with that... if they want to get 'school-yard' I'm good with that too.... HA!:D

There was way too much 'emotion' when we all talked about this the 1st time around... even tho we all may not have posted together, we all saw the same fights and insults... We all went to our separate corners and websites to post amongst our own 'kind' b/c of it..But nothing can be learned that way...

(that doesn't mean I won't go 'low-brow' even when unprovoked...lol.. but I try very hard not too..:tongue: )

Thank you for understanding the Todd-link problem. It's a shame all that great info is lost to us...



I can comprehend your doubt and what you need as proof. Myself, I have no doubt. I don't necessarily think that doubt is reasonable, but I don't expect you or anyone else to agree with me. The only folks I cannot comprehend are those who refuse to acknowledge anything unfavorable to Scott. I don't see you as such, thus far anyway! :)



you will see that I can 'give' when it comes to the unfavorable stuff he did... I do not understand the way he acted. It's so counter to what I would expect of him(or anyone).. But at the same time, if he had been the 'grieving husband' I think I would have found that more sinister.. I can only tack what he did up to he thought his innocence would prevail. *shrug

and I'm with you on not being able to comprehend ppl who refuse to see things that are right there... it goes both ways tho.. G and NG alike... ;~)


Okay, the vigil. The picture of Scott...in and of itself, proves nothing. But, along with many of the other oddities surrounding his appearance, lends itself to pattern. I don't have all the things listed anymore. But, I am certain if you followed the case, you know what's been mentioned. When someone has to explain so many of the behaviors and statements and such, at what point does one wonder, why am I having to create possibilities for so many quirky, guilty looking things? The fact he didn't want to be with family, the fact he's calling Amber with a fanciful tale of Europe and sounding excited while his wife and unborn child are missing. How's that possible for an innocent man to fake excitement? How's it possible to crack a smile when your wife could be getting tortured at that very moment? Who at a vigil for a missing pregnant woman would hint at a past tense statement? Why'd Scott look so polished when most abducted family members I've seen on TV look like hell and that they hadn't slept in days. Compare Scott to Sharon that night, for example. The picture alone does not tell the vigil story...but in the context of the entire vigil, it stands out as abnormal as heck. Even his friends Argain and Milagi were questioning SP.

I could go on with the other parts of your post, but I am sure you've heard it all before. I know you have questions, some that I do not have the smarts to answer. I don't recall anyone stating that all was known as fact. I think the statement was there was nothing that caused enough doubt to overcome the CE. I think there was once a list of like 130+ oddities someone had listed in this case. I'm certain one at a time there was an alternate, innocent explanation for every one offered by advocates for Scott. When you lay those alternates end to end, it truly does boggle the mind that one could believe the resulting story. Perhaps one day I'll have the energy to try and recall the items on the list for conversations sake.

yes, we both know enough that nothing short of confession will change our minds.... but there are those ppl out there and maybe on here that don't know so we're here to keep each side honest so to speak.

We must have posted in the same places b/c I remember a list like the one your talking about... well I should say it was the NG version of it...LOL..but yes, it did boggle the mind....

at one point I had my own list that I've forgotten now... it was like the 'President Lincoln/JFK coincidences' tho.... it was like

~The name Peterson.....Scott,Laci,ME and boat ower.
~The name Boyer.... Laci's friend, MPD officer
~Sharon lived on Walnut Grove rd. Lee (or jackie I don't remember anymore) grew up in the real Walnut Grove(little house on the prairie)
~Ava Frey lived in between Scott/Laci and Sharon/Ron
~Amber's LE friend worked at the same DOJ office that Brent worked at...

that's about all I can remember right now... but it was just odd coincidences like that.. it was kinda fun in a spooky way when I'd notice them....lol

[deputydi]

frydaddy said:
<snip>So my conclusions are that everybody who posts anywhere has an emotional investment in this case and for Scott's side, I know I will not rest until he is free and the true killer(s) caught.
Posting on a message board isn't furthering "the cause". May I ask what you are doing to free Scott? You can post as often as you choose and on as many boards as you choose, but that isn't going to get him released from SQ ~ I assume you are actively working to prove his innocence, right?

[Wudge]

Just something I found that states in general about jury instructions....

You are permitted to draw such reasonable inferences from the testimony and exhibits as you feel are justified in the light of common experience. In other words, you may make deductions and reach conclusions which reason and common sense lead you to draw from the facts which have been established by the testimony and evidence in the case.

The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. It requires only that you weigh all of the evidence and be convinced of the Defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before he/she can be convicted.

http://www.state.wv.us/wvsca/jury/charge.htm


Common sense is something everyone thinks they have, yet many assessments do not lend themselves to a finding of proof beyond a reasonable doubt through common sense. For example, many people say it is common sense that women should have a right to abort their fetuses. But about an equal population in America, believe the life of a fetus should be sacred.

A 5-4 verdict by the Supreme Court might be common sense based to 5 Justices, I can assure you the other 4 Justices see just the opposite.

On the other hand, applied logic uses well defined processes and rules to assess the reliability of inferred conclusions.

[JustMyOpinion]

frydaddy said:
Interesting question...could be applied to a great many of the issues in the case. I often thought and do so now, that some people have an emotional investment in SP (God knows why) or they simply need validation from others regarding their supposed intellect or sleuthing abilities. IMO

I can only speak for myself but of course there is an emotional investment in this case. The only real difference between all of us is what side that investment is on. Mine is with Scott Peterson. I have grown kids, both sons and daughters and some life experience that shows terrible things can happen to good people. There is no question that Scott made a terrible mistake with his infidelity. But I don't think it takes needing "validation from others to bolster our intellect or sleuthing abilities" to support him. I feel that the evidence did not support a conviction of anything other than the affair and when one feels as I do that a terrible injustice has been done to this young man, it's only natural to try to do what you can to support him. At the same time, you don't invest this much of your life to this cause without becoming close to the person you are trying to defend.........hence the emotional attachment.
Those of you who feel he is guilty have this same attachment and emotional investment in Laci Peterson. It doesn't make one side right or wrong. In fact, the only difference I can see between the two sides is those that still support Scott after all of these years do so because of their sincere belief that he is in fact innocent of this crime of murder and want to see him exonerated. Those that support the other side have already achieved their goals....in that they believe the verdict was just, the murderer caught and that, in reality, should be the end of the story for those people. But it's not. So my conclusions are that everybody who posts anywhere has an emotional investment in this case and for Scott's side, I know I will not rest until he is free and the true killer(s) caught.

I disagree with your premise that one's position on guilt or innocence determines which one party ( victim or defendant) one feels emotions for or about. I, too have sons & daughters. I have ( to the best of my ability) tried to put myself in the shoes of Laci's parents & Scott's parents and I've tried to imagine if one of my children was murdered by their spouse, or..if one of my children was accused of murdering their spouse, tried to imagine how that would feel. There are no adequate words to describe the many, deep emotions a parent surely must have in these situations, for me it would be agonizing.
Where I differ with you, is that I don't believe a "terrible thing happened" to Scott Peterson. Based on everything I've read and heard about this case, I believe Scott made his own choices, he's earned the consequences of those choices.
I don't choose to actively "support Scott" or "support Laci", because I never met either of them, I don't know their families.
The verdict in this case didn't cause me to celebrate. A woman and baby are dead, the man who killed them is locked away ( for life, and may be executed) It is very, very sad. I think Scott had a fair trial, I think the verdict was just, and I do feel satisfaction and relief that Scott will likely never be free again to harm another, precious human being. Actually imagining him in that cell 24-7 brings me no joy, whatsoever. JMO

[attorneywan2be]

frydaddy said:
Interesting question...could be applied to a great many of the issues in the case. I often thought and do so now, that some people have an emotional investment in SP (God knows why) or they simply need validation from others regarding their supposed intellect or sleuthing abilities. IMO

I can only speak for myself but of course there is an emotional investment in this case. The only real difference between all of us is what side that investment is on. Mine is with Scott Peterson. I have grown kids, both sons and daughters and some life experience that shows terrible things can happen to good people. There is no question that Scott made a terrible mistake with his infidelity. But I don't think it takes needing "validation from others to bolster our intellect or sleuthing abilities" to support him. I feel that the evidence did not support a conviction of anything other than the affair and when one feels as I do that a terrible injustice has been done to this young man, it's only natural to try to do what you can to support him. At the same time, you don't invest this much of your life to this cause without becoming close to the person you are trying to defend.........hence the emotional attachment.
Those of you who feel he is guilty have this same attachment and emotional investment in Laci Peterson. It doesn't make one side right or wrong. In fact, the only difference I can see between the two sides is those that still support Scott after all of these years do so because of their sincere belief that he is in fact innocent of this crime of murder and want to see him exonerated. Those that support the other side have already achieved their goals....in that they believe the verdict was just, the murderer caught and that, in reality, should be the end of the story for those people. But it's not. So my conclusions are that everybody who posts anywhere has an emotional investment in this case and for Scott's side, I know I will not rest until he is free and the true killer(s) caught.

Great post..!!!

My investment is in justice for Scott, Laci and Conner..

Justice for Scott = Justice for Laci and Conner.

[ekg]

I don't think he "had" to tip-toe around them JMO, but he did know the State had Todd on their witness list and he had been moved to Stanislaus County jail in the event they decided to call him.
http://www.ktvu.com/news/2744674/detail.html
MODESTO, Calif. -- One of the men who burglarized a home in Scott Peterson's neighborhood hours after Laci Peterson's Christmas Eve disappearance will be called as a witness by the prosecution in the upcoming double murder trial, according to court documents filed Tuesday.

Prosecutors filed a request and it was granted to have Steven Wayne Todd moved from the Deuel Vocational Institution in Tracy to the Stanislaus County jail for the duration of the Peterson trial. In its filing, prosecutors called Todd a 'necessary and material witness' in its case against Peterson.

No, I think he lost a 402 hearing(or whatever they are called) on bringing up too much about Todd...

I could be wrong tho...:shrug:

[Otter]

I disagree with your premise that one's position on guilt or innocence determines which one party ( victim or defendant) one feels emotions for or about. I, too have sons & daughters. I have ( to the best of my ability) tried to put myself in the shoes of Laci's parents & Scott's parents and I've tried to imagine if one of my children was murdered by their spouse, or..if one of my children was accused of murdering their spouse, tried to imagine how that would feel. There are no adequate words to describe the many, deep emotions a parent surely must have in these situations, for me it would be agonizing.
Where I differ with you, is that I don't believe a "terrible thing happened" to Scott Peterson. Based on everything I've read and heard about this case, I believe Scott made his own choices, he's earned the consequences of those choices.
I don't choose to actively "support Scott" or "support Laci", because I never met either of them, I don't know their families.
The verdict in this case didn't cause me to celebrate. A woman and baby are dead, the man who killed them is locked away ( for life, and may be executed) It is very, very sad. I think Scott had a fair trial, I think the verdict was just, and I do feel satisfaction and relief that Scott will likely never be free again to harm another, precious human being. Actually imagining him in that cell 24-7 brings me no joy, whatsoever. JMO

Great post..!!!

My investment is in justice for SP, Laci and Conner..

Justice for SP = Justice for Laci and Conner.

On a serious note, JMO you show the sadness most of us all feel that we're even here talking about this. Its a tragedy. It didn't need to happen -- he had other ways out that are far less painful than what he's caused everyone, including himself.

[ekg]

My opinion: the fetus was expelled a couple of days before the body was recovered. The basis of that is the testimony that he was only "in the water" for a short time, which I'm guessing was a couple of days.
http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/Pwitnesses/Petersonbrian.htm

since there was no fish activity, I can't agree that he was in there for a cpl of days....

a cpl hrs maybe....but not days...

Have you see any of PLANET EARTH that's been playing on Disc. Channel? I didn't think his body could have been there for a cpl days before I watch it.. now I'm sure of it... the fish or gulls would have eaten him... IMO..

[deputydi]

Common sense is something everyone thinks they have, yet many assessments do not lend themselves to a finding of proof beyond a reasonable doubt through common sense. For example, many people say it is common sense that women should have a right to abort their fetuses. But about an equal population in America, believe the life of a fetus should be sacred.

A 5-4 verdict by the Supreme Court might be common sense based to 5 Justices, I can assure you the other 4 Justices see just the opposite.

On the other hand, applied logic uses well defined processes and rules to assess the reliability of inferred conclusions.
I don't see your analogy as having anything to do with common sense. The example you use has more to do with a legal interpretation of the constitution. Some agree with that interpretation and some do not.

To me, common sense is knowing if you put your finger on a hot curling iron, it's going to hurt. Common sense is knowing that if I leave my car unlocked it may get stolen. Common sense is knowing that if I don't tie my shoes, I stand a good chance of tripping over the laces.

In this case, the common sense was taking all of Scott's lies and deceptions as a whole and knowing he was desperately trying to hide something. It was knowing that Scott was at the same marina where Laci and Conner's bodies washed ashore and realizing this had to be much more than just a coincidence.

The jury used their common sense and put it all together to conclude unanimously that Scott murdered his wife and unborn son.

[Anne2719]

since there was no fish activity, I can't agree that he was in there for a cpl of days....

a cpl hrs maybe....but not days...

Have you see any of PLANET EARTH that's been playing on Disc. Channel? I didn't think his body could have been there for a cpl days before I watch it.. now I'm sure of it... the fish or gulls would have eaten him... IMO..
I don't know how long that storm lasted -- I'm wondering how easy it would be for fish/gulls to feed on a body in motion through turbulent water.

[ekg]

I don't know how long that storm lasted -- I'm wondering how easy it would be for fish/gulls to feed on a body in motion through turbulent water.





we've fished in pretty choppy waters in the intercoastal here in fla.. and we've fished in the waves at the beach.. and it doesn't seem to affect whether they can eat or not..IMO if the water was too turbulent for fish to feed then there is no way the body would have lasted...

[Spencer]

Posting on a message board isn't furthering "the cause". May I ask what you are doing to free Scott? You can post as often as you choose and on as many boards as you choose, but that isn't going to get him released from SQ ~ I assume you are actively working to prove his innocence, right?

Nor is posting as often as one wants or on as many boards as one wants going to keep him on death row. It's the law as one side might interpret it, that put him on death row and it's the law that will ultimately free him in my opinion. I'm not a big poster but I understand why others who feel as I do, do. They know the facts of the trial as well as those who support the conviction do and deeply believe that Scott did not get a fair trial. I agree with that on all fronts. I also know they have the patience that I don't posess to continue the fight on his behalf on forums such as this. I applaud them and their efforts wholeheartedly.

As far as what I might do to help Scott, it isn't something that I would post here or anywhere else for that matter. But the fact is, many, many people work behind the scenes for Scott Peterson and many others just like him. I guess it wouldn't bother me so much on a personal level if the people who feel he is guilty would at least acknowledge what a mess the trial and investigation was, while still holding to their belief that he's guilty. But when I read that the majority believe this trial will not be successfully appealed, that it was all handled properly, it's then that I become deeply concerned that too many are willing to throw away Scott Peterson's rights and yet still want protection of their own rights. It's one for all and all for one on this score otherwise we ALL lose.

I am convinced that Scott Peterson will be a free man but only time will prove when true justice is served to ALL who suffered through this horrible tragedy....and in my humble opinion, that includes Scott Peterson.

[JustMyOpinion]

I guess it wouldn't bother me so much on a personal level if the people who feel he is guilty would at least acknowledge what a mess the trial and investigation was, while still holding to their belief that he's guilty. But when I read that the majority believe this trial will not be successfully appealed, that it was all handled properly, it's then that I become deeply concerned that too many are willing to throw away Scott Peterson's rights and yet still want protection of their own rights. It's one for all and all for one on this score otherwise we ALL lose.

.

I think the investigation was well-done and Scott received a fair trial, his rights were upheld & protected, IMO. You disagree with me about this, but please don't project that I am willing to throw anyone's rights away.

[Spencer]

I disagree with your premise that one's position on guilt or innocence determines which one party ( victim or defendant) one feels emotions for or about. I, too have sons & daughters. I have ( to the best of my ability) tried to put myself in the shoes of Laci's parents & Scott's parents and I've tried to imagine if one of my children was murdered by their spouse, or..if one of my children was accused of murdering their spouse, tried to imagine how that would feel. There are no adequate words to describe the many, deep emotions a parent surely must have in these situations, for me it would be agonizing.
Where I differ with you, is that I don't believe a "terrible thing happened" to Scott Peterson. Based on everything I've read and heard about this case, I believe Scott made his own choices, he's earned the consequences of those choices.
I don't choose to actively "support Scott" or "support Laci", because I never met either of them, I don't know their families.
The verdict in this case didn't cause me to celebrate. A woman and baby are dead, the man who killed them is locked away ( for life, and may be executed) It is very, very sad. I think Scott had a fair trial, I think the verdict was just, and I do feel satisfaction and relief that Scott will likely never be free again to harm another, precious human being. Actually imagining him in that cell 24-7 brings me no joy, whatsoever. JMO

Where we differ is that I don't believe Scott killed his wife and child. The court and jury deemed him to be the guilty party but I don't agree with it. Just looking at the number of people who have been wrongfully convicted and set free is evidence enough that mistakes are made and innocent people pay a terrible price for these errors. We can't continue in this country to simply throw away these people and the lives they had because we don't like them or a jury says they are guilty. If there is doubt....all of us, in my opinion, have a duty to seek and then find the truth so that justice is indeed served to all. The guilty thinking won't look any further as they believe they have already found the truth. The innocent thinking will continue on as we feel just as strongly that the truth has NOT been found.

I may not understand the guilty thinking people but then again, they obviously don't understand where I'm coming from either. Neither side will convince the other and I'm the last person on earth who would try to do that here. But....a woman and baby are dead. They didn't deserve to die and the person responsible should pay. What I care about and all I care about is that the RIGHT person be punished and in this case with this trial and this investigation, I don't for one second believe this was done so the fight for "justice for all" goes on...........................

[Spencer]

I think the investigation was well-done and Scott received a fair trial, his rights were upheld & protected, IMO. You disagree with me about this, but please don't project that I am willing to throw anyone's rights away.

I think I said the "majority". It wasn't intended as a personal comment to you and if it came across that way, then I apologize.

[JustMyOpinion]

Where we differ is that I don't believe Scott killed his wife and child. The court and jury deemed him to be the guilty party but I don't agree with it. Just looking at the number of people who have been wrongfully convicted and set free is evidence enough that mistakes are made and innocent people pay a terrible price for these errors. We can't continue in this country to simply throw away these people and the lives they had because we don't like them or a jury says they are guilty. If there is doubt....all of us, in my opinion, have a duty to seek and then find the truth so that justice is indeed served to all. The guilty thinking won't look any further as they believe they have already found the truth. The innocent thinking will continue on as we feel just as strongly that the truth has NOT been found.

I may not understand the guilty thinking people but then again, they obviously don't understand where I'm coming from either. Neither side will convince the other and I'm the last person on earth who would try to do that here. But....a woman and baby are dead. They didn't deserve to die and the person responsible should pay. What I care about and all I care about is that the RIGHT person be punished and in this case with this trial and this investigation, I don't for one second believe this was done so the fight for "justice for all" goes on...........................

I think I understand where you are coming from. ( although I don't label myself a "guilty-thinking person") I think Scott received a fair trial and the evidence proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I also think his parents' generosity purchased him a defense team that few defendants in this country are privileged enough to enjoy. It appears to me you believe Scott is factually innocent, and that this was a flawed investigation, unfair trial and unjust verdict. You want to see him win an appeal, and a retrial..and I assume you would like to see the real killers caught and convicted. Do I have that right?

[Otter]

There was an oped piece in the WSJ last week. I can't link to it because the WSJ does not allow linking (see Matt Drudge). Anyway, this "wrongfully convicted" thing is getting old.

That's harsh. Bash me, I deserve to be bashed since I appear to be advocating that innocent people should be jail. Not what I'm saying at all. And yes, some innocent people have been exonerated through DNA -- good!

SP has no DNA evidence -- therefore, no Innocence Project intervention. The SII's keep harping on to eyewitnesses. Honestly, unless I knew the person committing the crime, I'd be totally unreliable. As most eyewitnesses are:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-md.kane28apr28,0,7279030.column?coll=bal-local-columnists

"Seventy-seven percent of the 200 exonerations involved erroneous eyewitness identification," Ferrero said.

You read that correctly. Ferrero didn't say "7 percent." He said "77 percent." As in 154 people being wrongfully convicted because jurors gave far more weight to eyewitness identification than is warranted by the facts.

"The vagaries of eyewitness identification are well known," the Supreme Court held in United States v. Wade. "The annals of criminal law are rife with instances of mistaken identities."

Give me common sense any day. As has been astutely pointed out, the court expects it. No matter what certain posters think and hold on to. This jury got it right IMOO, and I have yet to read an argument to make me think otherwise. Convince me -- my mind has always been open. And please don't give me the same tired arguments. Be SP's defense attorney, be his appellate attorney -- give me a reason that this verdict should be overturned. TIA.

Jim Jones' odds notwithstanding. :rolleyes:

[Spencer]

I think I understand where you are coming from. ( although I don't label myself a "guilty-thinking person") I think Scott received a fair trial and the evidence proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I also think his parents' generosity purchased him a defense team that few defendants in this country are privileged enough to enjoy. It appears to me you believe Scott is factually innocent, and that this was a flawed investigation, unfair trial and unjust verdict. You want to see him win an appeal, and a retrial..and I assume you would like to see the real killers caught and convicted. Do I have that right?

Some people have a gift to say in a few words what it takes me a lot of words to say! Yes, that about sums it up with a tiny correction. The defense team in this case is NOT without criticism from where I sit. Mr. Geragos may have charged the fees but I don't believe that this came without great hardship to the Peterson finances at this stage of their lives. I too would have provided whatever I could if it had been one of my sons on trial. I also would have had enormous faith if the attorney I had hired had a "name" for himself and was constantly reassuring me that he would provide the truth to the world. You can't do that without calling witnesses! In hindsight, I think this lawyer was a terrible mistake.

When the time comes...I don't think a retrial will be necessary. And looking at the BIG picture here.... Who more than Scott Peterson can effectively pusue the cause of the wrongfully convicted once he is released? There could be no better spokesperson in my opinion.

[JustMyOpinion]

Some people have a gift to say in a few words what it takes me a lot of words to say! Yes, that about sums it up with a tiny correction. The defense team in this case is NOT without criticism from where I sit. Mr. Geragos may have charged the fees but I don't believe that this came without great hardship to the Peterson finances at this stage of their lives. I too would have provided whatever I could if it had been one of my sons on trial. I also would have had enormous faith if the attorney I had hired had a "name" for himself and was constantly reassuring me that he would provide the truth to the world. You can't do that without calling witnesses! In hindsight, I think this lawyer was a terrible mistake.

When the time comes...I don't think a retrial will be necessary. And looking at the BIG picture here.... Who more than Scott Peterson can effectively pusue the cause of the wrongfully convicted once he is released? There could be no better spokesperson in my opinion.

The Petersons chose to risk their own money, they chose Mr Geragos, and that Scott accepted their financial assistance resulting in their suffering hardship is one more example of how deficient he is in character & conscience, IMO. Geragos did call witnesses, he didn't elect to rest after the prosecution concluded their case-in-chief ( and IIRC, he brought 39 witnesses in the penalty phase).
I don't believe Scott will ever be free, again. If he wins an appeal which reverses the verdict, he'll be re-tried, and I believe the evidence will convince another jury he is guilty of committing these crimes. I think Scott is guilty as charged and a sociopath, so obviously I wouldn't elect him to speak on any issue, or represent any cause..JMO

[Otter]

Some people have a gift to say in a few words what it takes me a lot of words to say! Yes, that about sums it up with a tiny correction. The defense team in this case is NOT without criticism from where I sit. Mr. Geragos may have charged the fees but I don't believe that this came without great hardship to the Peterson finances at this stage of their lives. I too would have provided whatever I could if it had been one of my sons on trial. I also would have had enormous faith if the attorney I had hired had a "name" for himself and was constantly reassuring me that he would provide the truth to the world. You can't do that without calling witnesses! In hindsight, I think this lawyer was a terrible mistake.

When the time comes...I don't think a retrial will be necessary. And looking at the BIG picture here.... Who more than Scott Peterson can effectively pusue the cause of the wrongfully convicted once he is released? There could be no better spokesperson in my opinion.


I'll give you this Spencer, you're certainly sincere in you conviction towards his innocence.

May I ask you one question -- is there not ONE thing that makes your eyebrow twitch in regards to his behavior? I don't mean AF in the affair thing, but to put her into the mix after Laci "went missing" and so many other things that IMO can't be overlooked.

Thanks.

[frydaddy]

frydaddy said:
Interesting question...could be applied to a great many of the issues in the case. I often thought and do so now, that some people have an emotional investment in SP (God knows why) or they simply need validation from others regarding their supposed intellect or sleuthing abilities. IMO

I can only speak for myself but of course there is an emotional investment in this case. The only real difference between all of us is what side that investment is on. Mine is with Scott Peterson. I have grown kids, both sons and daughters and some life experience that shows terrible things can happen to good people. There is no question that Scott made a terrible mistake with his infidelity. But I don't think it takes needing "validation from others to bolster our intellect or sleuthing abilities" to support him. I feel that the evidence did not support a conviction of anything other than the affair and when one feels as I do that a terrible injustice has been done to this young man, it's only natural to try to do what you can to support him. At the same time, you don't invest this much of your life to this cause without becoming close to the person you are trying to defend.........hence the emotional attachment.
Those of you who feel he is guilty have this same attachment and emotional investment in Laci Peterson. It doesn't make one side right or wrong. In fact, the only difference I can see between the two sides is those that still support Scott after all of these years do so because of their sincere belief that he is in fact innocent of this crime of murder and want to see him exonerated. Those that support the other side have already achieved their goals....in that they believe the verdict was just, the murderer caught and that, in reality, should be the end of the story for those people. But it's not. So my conclusions are that everybody who posts anywhere has an emotional investment in this case and for Scott's side, I know I will not rest until he is free and the true killer(s) caught.

Actually, until the appeals are final and Scott is permanently locked up, no goals have been achieved. I can appreciate your post for what it says, but I disagree that the attachment to Laci and Scott are similar. Whatever the case, good luck in finding what you seek.

[Spencer]

I'll give you this Spencer, you're certainly sincere in you conviction towards his innocence.

May I ask you one question -- is there not ONE thing that makes your eyebrow twitch in regards to his behavior? I don't mean AF in the affair thing, but to put her into the mix after Laci "went missing" and so many other things that IMO can't be overlooked.

Thanks.

I can only answer this by my life experiences. Nobody makes it through life without screw ups or mistakes along the way. More often than not, we will also suffer tragedy as well. By not being perfect or knowing others who aren't, we know that real life and real deeds aren't always pretty and others are hurt by our actions. We certainly won't let it all hang out here for discussion but I doubt that any of us haven't messed up in our lives. What Scott did was wrong and then there is no justification for it. Not the affair, not the phone calls or any of the other tidbits that made their way into the trial....but that doesn't make up the whole man or his life before all of this.

I did look for something to convince me of his guilt. I have read the transcripts over and over and I have gone through everything. All of this time after the fact, I still believe that he is innocent of this crime. And this is not a part-time hobby for me. I truly believe that an innocent man was convicted for a crime that another did. There is no way that I could do what I do if I believed otherwise. I also believe that Scott's freedom will be secured with evidence that is indisputable.

Feeling as I do, I can't help but wonder what people will be saying on places such as this or on TV when that day arrives. Just imagine that this does happen.....how will people feel, what will they think, will they ever be able to look at a murder case or the death penalty in the same way? The impact would have huge consequences and not all of them good I might add. That's why I feel a balance has to be secured between real evidence and what is a theory on evidence.

[Wearing A Halo]

I like a debate.... I like a heated, yet civil one even more...lol If someone wants to talk about it in an agreeable way, even tho there's bound to be disagreement, I'm good with that... if they want to get 'school-yard' I'm good with that too.... HA!:D

There was way too much 'emotion' when we all talked about this the 1st time around... even tho we all may not have posted together, we all saw the same fights and insults... We all went to our separate corners and websites to post amongst our own 'kind' b/c of it..But nothing can be learned that way...

(that doesn't mean I won't go 'low-brow' even when unprovoked...lol.. but I try very hard not too..:tongue: )

Thank you for understanding the Todd-link problem. It's a shame all that great info is lost to us...




you will see that I can 'give' when it comes to the unfavorable stuff he did... I do not understand the way he acted. It's so counter to what I would expect of him(or anyone).. But at the same time, if he had been the 'grieving husband' I think I would have found that more sinister.. I can only tack what he did up to he thought his innocence would prevail. *shrug

and I'm with you on not being able to comprehend ppl who refuse to see things that are right there... it goes both ways tho.. G and NG alike... ;~)



yes, we both know enough that nothing short of confession will change our minds.... but there are those ppl out there and maybe on here that don't know so we're here to keep each side honest so to speak.

We must have posted in the same places b/c I remember a list like the one your talking about... well I should say it was the NG version of it...LOL..but yes, it did boggle the mind....

at one point I had my own list that I've forgotten now... it was like the 'President Lincoln/JFK coincidences' tho.... it was like

~The name Peterson.....Scott,Laci,ME and boat ower.
~The name Boyer.... Laci's friend, MPD officer
~Sharon lived on Walnut Grove rd. Lee (or jackie I don't remember anymore) grew up in the real Walnut Grove(little house on the prairie)
~Ava Frey lived in between Scott/Laci and Sharon/Ron
~Amber's LE friend worked at the same DOJ office that Brent worked at...

that's about all I can remember right now... but it was just odd coincidences like that.. it was kinda fun in a spooky way when I'd notice them....lol

This is the oddest coinidence of them all; the last street to cross just before the Ps enter SQ is named McKenzie St.

[One2Snoop]

Originally Posted by Spencer
snip I truly believe that an innocent man was convicted for a crime that another did.

If not Scott, :shrug: and not the burglars :no: then who?

IMOJMO

[One2Snoop]

This is the oddest coinidence of them all; the last street to cross just before the Ps enter SQ is named McKenzie St.

That is an odd coincidence. Thanks for sharing that little tidbit with us WAH. :patriot:

[Spencer]

Actually, until the appeals are final and Scott is permanently locked up, no goals have been achieved. I can appreciate your post for what it says, but I disagree that the attachment to Laci and Scott are similar. Whatever the case, good luck in finding what you seek.

I think the goals of some of those that think Scott is guilty have been achieved. Maybe (as one poster here I think has on their signature), the needle hasn't been put in his arm yet but most would agree that he's one step closer to it then he was 4 years ago.
By attachements I meant that most people didn't know Laci, she was a victim in this case and they bonded with her and her family and that suffering. I know I did. The same is true, I believe for the other side. We see Scott as another victim of the murderer who killed his wife and baby and we bond with him and his family and what they have endured. In that sense I think our attachements are the same but for obviously different reasons.
Thanks for the good luck.... I think in reality all of us have the same goal and that's simply the truth.

[frydaddy]

I like a debate.... I like a heated, yet civil one even more...lol If someone wants to talk about it in an agreeable way, even tho there's bound to be disagreement, I'm good with that... if they want to get 'school-yard' I'm good with that too.... HA!:D

There was way too much 'emotion' when we all talked about this the 1st time around... even tho we all may not have posted together, we all saw the same fights and insults... We all went to our separate corners and websites to post amongst our own 'kind' b/c of it..But nothing can be learned that way...

(that doesn't mean I won't go 'low-brow' even when unprovoked...lol.. but I try very hard not too..:tongue: )

Thank you for understanding the Todd-link problem. It's a shame all that great info is lost to us...




you will see that I can 'give' when it comes to the unfavorable stuff he did... I do not understand the way he acted. It's so counter to what I would expect of him(or anyone).. But at the same time, if he had been the 'grieving husband' I think I would have found that more sinister.. I can only tack what he did up to he thought his innocence would prevail. *shrug

and I'm with you on not being able to comprehend ppl who refuse to see things that are right there... it goes both ways tho.. G and NG alike... ;~)



yes, we both know enough that nothing short of confession will change our minds.... but there are those ppl out there and maybe on here that don't know so we're here to keep each side honest so to speak.

We must have posted in the same places b/c I remember a list like the one your talking about... well I should say it was the NG version of it...LOL..but yes, it did boggle the mind....

at one point I had my own list that I've forgotten now... it was like the 'President Lincoln/JFK coincidences' tho.... it was like

~The name Peterson.....Scott,Laci,ME and boat ower.
~The name Boyer.... Laci's friend, MPD officer
~Sharon lived on Walnut Grove rd. Lee (or jackie I don't remember anymore) grew up in the real Walnut Grove(little house on the prairie)
~Ava Frey lived in between Scott/Laci and Sharon/Ron
~Amber's LE friend worked at the same DOJ office that Brent worked at...

that's about all I can remember right now... but it was just odd coincidences like that.. it was kinda fun in a spooky way when I'd notice them....lol

Hey, thanks for taking the time to respond to the lengthy post of mine! LOL at the school yard, low brow stuff. Those were the days! I didn't post on the CTV ten mile thread much, but I read it and it was...interesting.

It always appeared to me that G's conceded more to the other side than NG's or I's did. Perhaps this is normal...I don't know. I always felt like those who took Scott's side felt a concession weakened their stance. I never minded conceding because I've yet to see a point made that I feel will change the outcome. Or because I know that we likely will never find out with certainty some of the issues we've discussed.

All in all, I think we are of similar enough thought processes to avoid any real skirmishes. I'll keep my rabbit's foot handy though, just in case! LOL

[frydaddy]

I don't see your analogy as having anything to do with common sense. The example you use has more to do with a legal interpretation of the constitution. Some agree with that interpretation and some do not.

To me, common sense is knowing if you put your finger on a hot curling iron, it's going to hurt. Common sense is knowing that if I leave my car unlocked it may get stolen. Common sense is knowing that if I don't tie my shoes, I stand a good chance of tripping over the laces.

In this case, the common sense was taking all of Scott's lies and deceptions as a whole and knowing he was desperately trying to hide something. It was knowing that Scott was at the same marina where Laci and Conner's bodies washed ashore and realizing this had to be much more than just a coincidence.

The jury used their common sense and put it all together to conclude unanimously that Scott murdered his wife and unborn son.

Good to cross paths with another old friend from back in the day! :seeya:

[Spencer]

Spencer, I admit, I'm shaking my head reading that you've devoured all the transcripts and info out there on this case and you can find NOTHING suspicious or leading to guilt. In all my years on earth (too many), I've never once come across someone with the personality traits and behaviors of ISP, not even those (inlcuding myself) who have made grave mistakes. He is an entity unto himself, IMO. Ignoring the elephant in the room, again, IMO leads me to suspect that one is more than a causal observer in this case.

No matter, I will respect your views as you obviously do the G's.

I will add, however, that IF "the day" were to ever come, and ISP was released, I personally wouldn't feel one molecule of guilt. I would simply feel a killer was set free and his folks had the $$ to make it happen.

Thankfully, I have no concern of that ever happening.

I wouldn't expect you to feel guilt as I presume that you had no direct involvement in his conviction.......correct?

I was speaking in terms of exoneration, he walking out free as the cell doors slammed shut on the person who truly was responsible for all of this heartache. No amount of money can buy that. It will be what it will be and it won't be bought. It's under those circumstances that I wondered how people would feel about what had happened these past four plus years.

I think a shock wave would ripple through this country and beyond and people would be stunned beyond belief. Scott is not guilty? How could this be? We knew he did it, it was proven by the DA, the jury convicted him and the judge upheld the death verdict! How could everybody have been so wrong? This is just a sample, a very small sample of what I see happening. Imagine the effect this would have on our judicial system. Would we ever be sure again that somebody was guilty, really guilty? Would real killers be set free when they shouldn't be? Would the death penalty be abolished? Who in God's name was responsible for this atrocity? The MPD? The DA? The jury? The public? All of us? The ramifications would be huge and while I can see a downside to it, I think more good would come from it in the long run.

I have no desire to see the guilty go free at all but with equal passion, I don't want to see the innocent be convicted either. I think if pressed, I would have to say the latter is worse than the former. We have to find a mutual meeting of the minds where our legal system is not "the best in the world" as is often said (afterall, compared to what?) but is the fairest to all of us equally. Vendettas and personal outrage or personal dislike for a defendant or his/her actions should play no role. There indeed has to be proof beyond ALL doubt in my opinion. I believe it's Great Britian that announces the arrest of a suspect and then there is not another word about it until the trial is over and done with. In my opinion, that would be a great first step.

I know many don't think Scott will ever be freed under the heading of real killer caught. But I do and as always, this is where most people differ. We can't change the way we feel, but we can try to change a system that, removing Scott from the picture, is not balanced, is not fair and all too often is now showing that it's far from perfect. Just ask the men who have spent the last 10,15 or 20 years of their life behind bars for a crime they didn't commit. Except for close family and friends, there wasn't much of a celebration upon their release but there sure was when they were convicted....I wonder where all of those people silently went as a man's life was taken from his family and then slowly wasted away to middle age and beyond..................................

[attorneywan2be]

I wouldn't expect you to feel guilt as I presume that you had no direct involvement in his conviction.......correct?

I was speaking in terms of exoneration, he walking out free as the cell doors slammed shut on the person who truly was responsible for all of this heartache. No amount of money can buy that. It will be what it will be and it won't be bought. It's under those circumstances that I wondered how people would feel about what had happened these past four plus years.

I think a shock wave would ripple through this country and beyond and people would be stunned beyond belief. Scott is not guilty? How could this be? We knew he did it, it was proven by the DA, the jury convicted him and the judge upheld the death verdict! How could everybody have been so wrong? This is just a sample, a very small sample of what I see happening. Imagine the effect this would have on our judicial system. Would we ever be sure again that somebody was guilty, really guilty? Would real killers be set free when they shouldn't be? Would the death penalty be abolished? Who in God's name was responsible for this atrocity? The MPD? The DA? The jury? The public? All of us? The ramifications would be huge and while I can see a downside to it, I think more good would come from it in the long run.

I have no desire to see the guilty go free at all but with equal passion, I don't want to see the innocent be convicted either. I think if pressed, I would have to say the latter is worse than the former. We have to find a mutual meeting of the minds where our legal system is not "the best in the world" as is often said (afterall, compared to what?) but is the fairest to all of us equally. Vendettas and personal outrage or personal dislike for a defendant or his/her actions should play no role. There indeed has to be proof beyond ALL doubt in my opinion. I believe it's Great Britian that announces the arrest of a suspect and then there is not another word about it until the trial is over and done with. In my opinion, that would be a great first step.

I know many don't think Scott will ever be freed under the heading of real killer caught. But I do and as always, this is where most people differ. We can't change the way we feel, but we can try to change a system that, removing Scott from the picture, is not balanced, is not fair and all too often is now showing that it's far from perfect. Just ask the men who have spent the last 10,15 or 20 years of their life behind bars for a crime they didn't commit. Except for close family and friends, there wasn't much of a celebration upon their release but there sure was when they were convicted....I wonder where all of those people silently went as a man's life was taken from his family and then slowly wasted away to middle age and beyond..................................


I totally agree with you Spencer..GREAT POST!

The only way for Scott to resume a normal life after he gets his freedom, is for him to be fully exonerated..

[JustMyOpinion]

I think the goals of some of those that think Scott is guilty have been achieved. Maybe (as one poster here I think has on their signature), the needle hasn't been put in his arm yet but most would agree that he's one step closer to it then he was 4 years ago.
By attachements I meant that most people didn't know Laci, she was a victim in this case and they bonded with her and her family and that suffering. I know I did. The same is true, I believe for the other side. We see Scott as another victim of the murderer who killed his wife and baby and we bond with him and his family and what they have endured. In that sense I think our attachements are the same but for obviously different reasons.
Thanks for the good luck.... I think in reality all of us have the same goal and that's simply the truth.

I don't think someone must "bond" with a victim or a perpetrator in order to form an opinion about evidence in a criminal case. JMO
From the evidence presented it is quite clear to me that Laci Peterson was a very, vulnerable victim. She had no way of knowing she was spending Xmas Eve in her own home with a husband who was prepared to enact his plan to kill her, IMO. I agree with Scott's probation report where it was noted that he is a very dangerous man. JMO

[JustMyOpinion]

I can only answer this by my life experiences. Nobody makes it through life without screw ups or mistakes along the way. More often than not, we will also suffer tragedy as well. By not being perfect or knowing others who aren't, we know that real life and real deeds aren't always pretty and others are hurt by our actions. We certainly won't let it all hang out here for discussion but I doubt that any of us haven't messed up in our lives. What Scott did was wrong and then there is no justification for it. Not the affair, not the phone calls or any of the other tidbits that made their way into the trial....but that doesn't make up the whole man or his life before all of this.

I did look for something to convince me of his guilt. I have read the transcripts over and over and I have gone through everything. All of this time after the fact, I still believe that he is innocent of this crime. And this is not a part-time hobby for me. I truly believe that an innocent man was convicted for a crime that another did. There is no way that I could do what I do if I believed otherwise. I also believe that Scott's freedom will be secured with evidence that is indisputable.

Feeling as I do, I can't help but wonder what people will be saying on places such as this or on TV when that day arrives. Just imagine that this does happen.....how will people feel, what will they think, will they ever be able to look at a murder case or the death penalty in the same way? The impact would have huge consequences and not all of them good I might add. That's why I feel a balance has to be secured between real evidence and what is a theory on evidence.

It appears to me you are bonded to Scott's family and their suffering and were able to reduce the evidence in your own mind to "tidbits"..IMO. As you claim this is not a part-time hobby for you & claim you believe another did this crime, who do you suspect? What evidence are you using as a basis for your theory? TIA

[ekg]

This is the oddest coinidence of them all; the last street to cross just before the Ps enter SQ is named McKenzie St.

you're kidding....:eek:

isn't it weird when you see all that stuff laid out? It's almost like it was some sort of 'cosmic plan' or something....

Thanks for that tidbit.... I'll be sure to add it to the 'weird-list'

[frydaddy]

I wouldn't expect you to feel guilt as I presume that you had no direct involvement in his conviction.......correct?

I was speaking in terms of exoneration, he walking out free as the cell doors slammed shut on the person who truly was responsible for all of this heartache. No amount of money can buy that. It will be what it will be and it won't be bought. It's under those circumstances that I wondered how people would feel about what had happened these past four plus years.

I think a shock wave would ripple through this country and beyond and people would be stunned beyond belief. Scott is not guilty? How could this be? We knew he did it, it was proven by the DA, the jury convicted him and the judge upheld the death verdict! How could everybody have been so wrong? This is just a sample, a very small sample of what I see happening. Imagine the effect this would have on our judicial system. Would we ever be sure again that somebody was guilty, really guilty? Would real killers be set free when they shouldn't be? Would the death penalty be abolished? Who in God's name was responsible for this atrocity? The MPD? The DA? The jury? The public? All of us? The ramifications would be huge and while I can see a downside to it, I think more good would come from it in the long run.

I have no desire to see the guilty go free at all but with equal passion, I don't want to see the innocent be convicted either. I think if pressed, I would have to say the latter is worse than the former. We have to find a mutual meeting of the minds where our legal system is not "the best in the world" as is often said (afterall, compared to what?) but is the fairest to all of us equally. Vendettas and personal outrage or personal dislike for a defendant or his/her actions should play no role. There indeed has to be proof beyond ALL doubt in my opinion. I believe it's Great Britian that announces the arrest of a suspect and then there is not another word about it until the trial is over and done with. In my opinion, that would be a great first step.

I know many don't think Scott will ever be freed under the heading of real killer caught. But I do and as always, this is where most people differ. We can't change the way we feel, but we can try to change a system that, removing Scott from the picture, is not balanced, is not fair and all too often is now showing that it's far from perfect. Just ask the men who have spent the last 10,15 or 20 years of their life behind bars for a crime they didn't commit. Except for close family and friends, there wasn't much of a celebration upon their release but there sure was when they were convicted....I wonder where all of those people silently went as a man's life was taken from his family and then slowly wasted away to middle age and beyond..................................

I've been pondering some of your posts and the more I think about it, the more I struggle to understand. I have stated since this trial ended that I comprehend NG's, based on their opinion of evidence and legal procedure. Of course I disagree, but I am no legal scholar. But I never got "innocent".

Where the confusion begins is what anyone saw in Scott that led them to believe he's innocent. The man's a proven serial liar...even when a lie wasn't necessary. So when he says he didn't do it, I fail to see how he can be afforded any credibility. How does someone who considers him innocent reconcile the volume of guilty looking behavior? He wouldn't take the polygraph, which is his right (yes, I know they aren't admissable), but he lied to folks regarding this multiple times. Why? Does an innocent person need to lie to gain support? He didn't testify...telling me that even his attorneys had cause for concern about his words and actions having an appearance of guilt. There are plenty of examples that have been laid at the feet of those who feel SP didn't do this and while I consider myself to be somewhat objective, I've yet to see a response that comes even close to reasonably explaining on the whole why Scott was such a peculiar subject. Do you have any thoughts on this?

By the way, again, I can appreciate anyone who sticks to their convictions. I don't know your background, but I was curious...if a retired, well experienced judge signed off on this trial (Delucchi) AND the appellate jurists agree and uphold this conviction, is it your belief that these legal experts are as wrong as those who already feel justice was served?

[ekg]

Hey, thanks for taking the time to respond to the lengthy post of mine! LOL at the school yard, low brow stuff. Those were the days! I didn't post on the CTV ten mile thread much, but I read it and it was...interesting.

It always appeared to me that G's conceded more to the other side than NG's or I's did. Perhaps this is normal...I don't know. I always felt like those who took Scott's side felt a concession weakened their stance. I never minded conceding because I've yet to see a point made that I feel will change the outcome. Or because I know that we likely will never find out with certainty some of the issues we've discussed.

All in all, I think we are of similar enough thought processes to avoid any real skirmishes. I'll keep my rabbit's foot handy though, just in case! LOL

HA.... I could barely leave the 10 mile thread b/c if I left too long I'd never catch up....lol

"It always appeared to me that G's conceded more to the other side than NG's or I's did"

it's funny you say that b/c I see it as totally opposite.....HAHA! I guess it depends on which side of the fence we're on..

Keep that rabbit's foot handy...b/c poop happens and we might just not have found the one area we won't concede to the other...:biggrin: But I think we will just wind up agreeing to disagree...and as long as we can all rememeber that just b/c it gets a little heated and a little childish it's a healthy debate and not personal, everything will be fine... I have a friend that I argue politics with, I will only argue with him b/c we can get into the mud with each other but 5 mins later go grab a beer and LOL about it....hopefully we can all have more of that on here instead of what we all had thru CTV....

:patriot:

[ekg]

If not Scott, :shrug: and not the burglars :no: then who?

IMOJMO

Perry monroe?

he's an option that was never looked at b/c of his ongoing case....


LKL http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/07/lkl.00.html

ROWLANDS: Right, 29-year-old Perry Monroe (ph) was arrested in Fresno. He's accused of killing a hotel porter in Boulder City, Nevada, right near Las Vegas. Apparently, he had a hacksaw in the room, and he dismembered this individual and the porter's torso was found in a body of water. This, of course, threw out red flags. Again, there was speculation that there could be a connection. Las Vegas PD did contact Modesto police, but they have since said that they believe it's absurd that there is any connection between these two cases.

However, the folks on the defense side and even the prosecution side may be looking into this. They're not commenting because of the gag order. There are some things that are unique. This individual, Perry Monroe, is from the bay area. He grew up in Alameda, which is actually an island in the San Francisco Bay, so he would have knowledge of where Laci's body and Evelyn Hernandez's body were both found. He also was in Davis for a while, where those other bones were found. So there's a lot of speculation around it. What happens from here, we'll have to wait and see, though.

to have 2 pregnant women of similar build both be found in the same condition in the same area... and then for a serial killer to be found in fresno with a torso, who lived in the area the pregnant women showed up, and possibly was even in the area's both went missing from..... is another coincidence in this case that was overlooked and one I'd love to hear more about...

There is also and very weird connection to one of Monroe's victims (Ladonna Milam) and Steven Todd(the medina burglar) IIRC.... I was too involved in other stuff during the trial to get into Monroe and Ladonna, but I do believe there was some connection to Todd.. or the gang Todd was in?? can anyone help me on that?


either way.... Monore liked to cut the heads and forearms off his victims and throw the torso in water... and he was found in Frenso.... he's worth looking at in both the LP and EH case...

[Miss Bootsie]

Perry monroe?

he's an option that was never looked at b/c of his ongoing case....

Monore liked to cut the heads and forearms off his victims and throw the torso in water... and he was found in Frenso.... he's worth looking at in both the LP and EH case...


Perhaps you have forgotten that Laci's head and limbs were not cut. :confused:

[enlightenme]

Perry monroe?

he's an option that was never looked at b/c of his ongoing case....


LKL http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/07/lkl.00.html



to have 2 pregnant women of similar build both be found in the same condition in the same area... and then for a serial killer to be found in fresno with a torso, who lived in the area the pregnant women showed up, and possibly was even in the area's both went missing from..... is another coincidence in this case that was overlooked and one I'd love to hear more about...

There is also and very weird connection to one of Monroe's victims (Ladonna Milam) and Steven Todd(the medina burglar) IIRC.... I was too involved in other stuff during the trial to get into Monroe and Ladonna, but I do believe there was some connection to Todd.. or the gang Todd was in?? can anyone help me on that?


either way.... Monore liked to cut the heads and forearms off his victims and throw the torso in water... and he was found in Frenso.... he's worth looking at in both the LP and EH case...


Perhaps if we had all 40,000 plus pages of LE reports on the Peterson case, we would find out they did check him out and he had solid alibis for both murders or wasn't even in the area.

[thinkaboutit]

Perhaps if we had all 40,000 plus pages of LE reports on the Peterson case, we would find out they did check him out and he had solid alibis for both murders or wasn't even in the area.

Maybe - but not likely, considering what we DO know about this investigation. Examples, the dismissal of the Croton watch pawned by DR as having belonged to Laci - without even looking at the watch; a witness who persistently called the Laci tipline to say that he had seen her - was not interviewed until after Scott Peterson was arrested and the trial had begun; another witness who claimed to have seen Laci was told to prove he had been where he said he had been; the fact that Aponte called the MPD (twice) with information that an inmate was discussing Laci Peterson and Todd - and Grogan - the lead detective in the case - claims to have no knowledge of it; etc.

[frydaddy]

HA.... I could barely leave the 10 mile thread b/c if I left too long I'd never catch up....lol

"It always appeared to me that G's conceded more to the other side than NG's or I's did"

it's funny you say that b/c I see it as totally opposite.....HAHA! I guess it depends on which side of the fence we're on..

Keep that rabbit's foot handy...b/c poop happens and we might just not have found the one area we won't concede to the other...:biggrin: But I think we will just wind up agreeing to disagree...and as long as we can all rememeber that just b/c it gets a little heated and a little childish it's a healthy debate and not personal, everything will be fine... I have a friend that I argue politics with, I will only argue with him b/c we can get into the mud with each other but 5 mins later go grab a beer and LOL about it....hopefully we can all have more of that on here instead of what we all had thru CTV....

:patriot:

LOL - Used to be a time when I followed my grandfathers advice and never discuss race, religion, or politics. Then I decided to give politics a try over at CTV, but became disgusted with it. I agree that sometimes it's best to only talk about certain issues with people you know well enough to know it's not personal.

I'll give you one example of the concession issue, from very recently in this thread.

I conceded that NG's and I's have found what they believe to be proof that Diane Jackson saw burglars on 12/24 in front of the Medina home. They attach great value to this and I comprehend their reasoning. I think it is an issue blown way out of proportion, but I could see the logic in what they believe. The pertinent point on this issue is not to admit to me or this board that there are huge question marks regarding this information. I'm not the one who needs convincing. It's an issue of them not placing too much value on it for the reason we give...not getting their hopes up. If they cannot adequately answer the questions or explain the inconsistency to commoners like myself, how can it be explained to appellate experts to cause them to place any weight on it?

I asked about the inconsistency of subsequent reports from both interviews and media excerpts about the burglary. Others asked which witness actually offered the 26th (defense attorneys stated 26th). I've previously questioned if "that's what it says" is the ringing endorsement to prove that burglars are valid other suspects. I've questioned why the report and the person who took it were not presented. I brought up how Todd and Pearce were both polygraphed and passed. There were other points made. Now, what response did that elicit and why? Repetitive statements regarding only the part that is favorable to SP. Questions of Grogan's integrity or ability (which is rare, because Grogan is the one cop I rarely see taking any heat). Discussions of hypnosis being crooked, even though the hypnotist wasn't properly licensed by the state. Did that make the hypnosis less valid...because it wasn't legally sanctioned? In court yes, in life, not to me. Bottom line, there seems to be a fear, by some, in conceding that there are, in the least, question marks regarding Jackson and her burglar story. To respond to those questions has the potential of invalidating what some believe to be a major plus for Peterson. So it seems they ignore it. This is just an example of many things I've seen.

Okay, I'll stop the rambling for now. Take care!

[thinkaboutit]

Maybe - but not likely, considering what we DO know about this investigation. Examples, the dismissal of the Croton watch pawned by DR as having belonged to Laci - without even looking at the watch; a witness who persistently called the Laci tipline to say that he had seen her - was not interviewed until after Scott Peterson was arrested and the trial had begun; another witness who claimed to have seen Laci was told to prove he had been where he said he had been; the fact that Aponte called the MPD (twice) with information that an inmate was discussing Laci Peterson and Todd - and Grogan - the lead detective in the case - claims to have no knowledge of it; etc.

Sorry - I forgot to say - In my opinion.

[JustMyOpinion]

[QUOTE=frydaddy;8850700]I've been pondering some of your posts and the more I think about it, the more I struggle to understand. I have stated since this trial ended that I comprehend NG's, based on their opinion of evidence and legal procedure. Of course I disagree, but I am no legal scholar. But I never got "innocent".

Where the confusion begins is what anyone saw in Scott that led them to believe he's innocent. The man's a proven serial liar...even when a lie wasn't necessary. So when he says he didn't do it, I fail to see how he can be afforded any credibility. How does someone who considers him innocent reconcile the volume of guilty looking behavior? He wouldn't take the polygraph, which is his right (yes, I know they aren't admissable), but he lied to folks regarding this multiple times. Why? Does an innocent person need to lie to gain support? He didn't testify...telling me that even his attorneys had cause for concern about his words and actions having an appearance of guilt. There are plenty of examples that have been laid at the feet of those who feel SP didn't do this and while I consider myself to be somewhat objective, I've yet to see a response that comes even close to reasonably explaining on the whole why Scott was such a peculiar subject. Do you have any thoughts on this?

QUOTE]

I agree with you on this. Turvey cites four common triggers for domestic homicide ( pregnancy, affair, separation/divorce, child custody battle) two of the four were present in the Peterson marriage. And as you point out, Scott was easily proven to be a serial liar. I'm not sure what supports this belief that he's an exception to the rule, so much so that the actual evidence brought in this case can then be minimized in someone's mind. JMO

[JustMyOpinion]

Maybe - but not likely, considering what we DO know about this investigation. Examples, the dismissal of the Croton watch pawned by DR as having belonged to Laci - without even looking at the watch; a witness who persistently called the Laci tipline to say that he had seen her - was not interviewed until after Scott Peterson was arrested and the trial had begun; another witness who claimed to have seen Laci was told to prove he had been where he said he had been; the fact that Aponte called the MPD (twice) with information that an inmate was discussing Laci Peterson and Todd - and Grogan - the lead detective in the case - claims to have no knowledge of it; etc.

?? The pawn ticket was not brought into evidence & DN wasn't brought to testify.. how can it not be dismissed as evidence in this case? How do you know police never looked at the watch, where do you get this information?
Can you provide more information about this person who repeatedly called the tipline who you believe should have been interviewed sooner? TIA
Which witness was told to prove he was where he claimed, do you have more information on this? TIA
Are you assuming that because Grogan had no knowledge about this "Aponte" tip, that nobody in MPD followed up on it in any way?

[thinkaboutit]

LOL - Used to be a time when I followed my grandfathers advice and never discuss race, religion, or politics. Then I decided to give politics a try over at CTV, but became disgusted with it. I agree that sometimes it's best to only talk about certain issues with people you know well enough to know it's not personal.

I'll give you one example of the concession issue, from very recently in this thread.

I conceded that NG's and I's have found what they believe to be proof that Diane Jackson saw burglars on 12/24 in front of the Medina home. They attach great value to this and I comprehend their reasoning. I think it is an issue blown way out of proportion, but I could see the logic in what they believe. The pertinent point on this issue is not to admit to me or this board that there are huge question marks regarding this information. I'm not the one who needs convincing. It's an issue of them not placing too much value on it for the reason we give...not getting their hopes up. If they cannot adequately answer the questions or explain the inconsistency to commoners like myself, how can it be explained to appellate experts to cause them to place any weight on it?

I asked about the inconsistency of subsequent reports from both interviews and media excerpts about the burglary. Others asked which witness actually offered the 26th (defense attorneys stated 26th). I've previously questioned if "that's what it says" is the ringing endorsement to prove that burglars are valid other suspects. I've questioned why the report and the person who took it were not presented. I brought up how Todd and Pearce were both polygraphed and passed. There were other points made. Now, what response did that elicit and why? Repetitive statements regarding only the part that is favorable to SP. Questions of Grogan's integrity or ability (which is rare, because Grogan is the one cop I rarely see taking any heat). Discussions of hypnosis being crooked, even though the hypnotist wasn't properly licensed by the state. Did that make the hypnosis less valid...because it wasn't legally sanctioned? In court yes, in life, not to me. Bottom line, there seems to be a fear, by some, in conceding that there are, in the least, question marks regarding Jackson and her burglar story. To respond to those questions has the potential of invalidating what some believe to be a major plus for Peterson. So it seems they ignore it. This is just an example of many things I've seen.

Okay, I'll stop the rambling for now. Take care!

I concede that it is questionnable whether Jackson called in the tip on the 26th before the Medina's came home or after. Being that this was merely a discussion between two defense attorneys - and Harris says - looks like - I would say that I can definitely see why you question this. I do too. The fact that no one disputed this fact in court - is a moot point, imo - because it may be that the prosecution didn't see any point in arguing whether it was the 26th or the 27th. If Harris had said 25th or the 24th - it most likely would have set off alarm bells in their head and they would have jumped on it.

Therefore - since I question whether she called this in before or after possibly hearing about the burglary (possibly from neighbors or the Medina's themselves since she lived around the corner) - and possibly that a safe was missing - I must question whether she actually saw the safe.

But this actually falls in line with my theory - that the three men seen in front of the Medina home were the ones that initially robbed the Medina home - and the safe wasn't actually taken from the Medina home until Todd and Pearce came to get it on the 26th. I honestly feel that Pearce knows nothing and had nothing to do with Laci's disappearance. He was completely forthcoming and cooperative from the start - and nothing he has said I have ever been able to disprove. Todd is a completely different story - however.

I think the claim that the hypnosis was crooked is based on the fact that the hypnotist wasn't properly licensed. IIRC - there was an article (sorry - I don't have time to look for it right now) that law enforcement know the importance of the hypnotist being properly licensed - and they know that if you don't use a hypnotist that is properly licensed - you won't be able to use that witness in court. So I believe the argument is - they purposely used a hypnotist that wasn't properly licensed - so their testimony would not be admissable. I'm not sure that I totally agree with that argument - I think this could simply be an example of what I consider the poor (to put it mildly) investigative skills of the MPD.

As far as polygraph's - I have no faith in them - I put no value on the results of them. People have lied and passed polygraphs. People have told the truth and failed them.

[JustMyOpinion]

I think the claim that the hypnosis was crooked is based on the fact that the hypnotist wasn't properly licensed. IIRC - there was an article (sorry - I don't have time to look for it right now) that law enforcement know the importance of the hypnotist being properly licensed - and they know that if you don't use a hypnotist that is properly licensed - you won't be able to use that witness in court. So I believe the argument is - they purposely used a hypnotist that wasn't properly licensed - so their testimony would not be admissable. I'm not sure that I totally agree with that argument - I think this could simply be an example of what I consider the poor (to put it mildly) investigative skills of the MPD.

.

I doubt MPD purposefully used a hypnotist that would render Dempewolf & Jackson's potential testimony inadmissable. I think they were trying to pursue every possible detail that could inform their on-going investigation into what happened to Laci, JMO I also think the State wanted Dempewolf's testimony ( didn't they go ahead an call her husband as a witness)? so I doubt the police knowingly rendered it inadmissable, JMO

[thinkaboutit]

?? The pawn ticket was not brought into evidence & DN wasn't brought to testify.. how can it not be dismissed as evidence in this case? How do you know police never looked at the watch, where do you get this information?
Can you provide more information about this person who repeatedly called the tipline who you believe should have been interviewed sooner? TIA
Which witness was told to prove he was where he claimed, do you have more information on this? TIA
Are you assuming that because Grogan had no knowledge about this "Aponte" tip, that nobody in MPD followed up on it in any way?

JMO – if you don’t mind – I’m going to address your questions one at a time – since we’re limited to how many characters we can have in a post – and due to time – I don’t know that I’ll be able to get to all of them right now – but I promise I will……


Grogan’s testimony:
FLADAGER: On March 6th did you do additional follow-up investigation relating to the jewelry?
GROGAN: Yes.
FLADAGER: And can you tell us what that was that you did.
GROGAN: Well, I spoke with a CSO, Community Service Officer, that worked in our pawn detail and I provided with her with the information about the Croton watch and asked if she could run that through her system to see if anyone had pawned a watch like that, and I think I got some results at that point.
JUDGE: What were the results?
GROGAN: She told me that she did find one, one pawned, one pawn receipt for a Croton watch, but that the receipt didn't make any mention of diamonds in it and it said the watch was scratched, and it didn't appear consistent with what we were looking for.
FLADAGER: And for purposes of pawn shop receipts with valuable jewels, like diamonds, need be noted?
GROGAN: That was my understanding from her, yes.
FLADAGER: As part of your follow-up on jewelry on this particular day did you watch a videotape that we talked about previously that was recovered after the burglary by Kim McGregor?
GROGAN: Yes, I did.
FLADAGER: And what is it that you discovered when you watched that video?
GROGAN: Well, I watched it and it contains several, several different small clips in it throughout the video, including things like traffic patterns that appear in the neighborhood close by to where they reside. There's some driving in vehicles on Encina Avenue. There are some images of the defendant's truck with the flatbed trailer attached to it, some job site footage, it appears, and some, there's some other, like a, there appears to be a fishing trip that's videotaped. Additionally, there's, there's several photographs, there's several small segments at the end that show items that appear to be on E-Bay and appeared that the photos for E-Bay matched the videotape.
FLADAGER: And one of these items is the Croton watch?
GROGAN: Yes, one of the items is, yes.
FLADAGER: With diamonds around the face?
GROGAN: Yes.
FLADAGER: And based on you analysis of that videotape and watching it does it appear that's it's been videotaped for several minutes?
GROGAN: Yes.
FLADAGER: At different times?
GROGAN: Yes.
FLADAGER: Does the time ever change on the watch?
GROGAN: No.
FLADAGER: What conclusion did you draw from that?
GROGAN: That the watch was probably not functional; that the battery was dead, and there are several other watches that were also videotaped on that and many of them appeared to be working.



That’s it – that was the extent of Grogan’s investigation of the Croton watch. He came to the conclusion that the watch was probably not functional – the battery was dead - there were others that appeared to be working – therefore I assume we are to infer that Laci would not have been wearing it. Oh - he checked with the jewelry stores to see if Laci had brought the watch in for repairs:

FLADAGER: Approximately page 431. And why did you go to them and make an inquiry about the Croton watch?
GROGAN: I asked them about a number of items of jewelry, and interviewed both of them. And wanted to see if they, specifically if they had, if she had brought in the Croton watch, or the Geneve, I'm not certain of the pronunciation of it, watch to that location to have it repaired and cleaned.
FLADAGER: And did you find out whether or not she brought in the Geneve watch?
GROGAN: She had.
FLADAGER: And had that been repaired and fixed?
GROGAN: Yes.
FLADAGER: How about the Croton?
GROGAN: It was not brought in.

Why this is significant – I have no idea – because I don’t know about anyone else – but I don’t bring my watches in to the jewelers to have the battery replaced – I buy a battery from Radio Shack – pop off the back – and replace the battery.

This was the extent of his research into the Croton watch – at least according to his testimony. If he went to the pawn shop he never said he did – and he says in his testimony that it didn’t appear to be consistent with what they were looking for. I assume that’s for the reasons he mentioned – it had scratches (which would be consistent with an abduction) and the pawn slip didn’t specify that it had diamonds. But as we’ve discussed somewhere on the forum – the pawn slip did say With/G (some of us believe AW when she says she called THE pawn shop and they said it meant with Gems).

Also – note – he says in his testimony they searched the pawn slips and only ONE Croton watch came up – this was on March 6th – so assuming that only one Croton watch was pawned from December 24th until March 6 – and this one was pawned one week after Laci disappeared. That causes me to go…..hmmmmm………

As far as DR not testifying - you can't MAKE someone cooperate - you can't MAKE someone tell the truth. So her lack of testimony means nothing to me.

[thinkaboutit]

I doubt MPD purposefully used a hypnotist that would render Dempewolf & Jackson's potential testimony inadmissable. I think they were trying to pursue every possible detail that could inform their on-going investigation into what happened to Laci, JMO I also think the State wanted Dempewolf's testimony ( didn't they go ahead an call her husband as a witness)? so I doubt the police knowingly rendered it inadmissable, JMO


So you agree that it's possible this was simply a mistake - and a pretty big one at that - on their part?

[JustMyOpinion]

JMO – if you don’t mind – I’m going to address your questions one at a time – since we’re limited to how many characters we can have in a post – and due to time – I don’t know that I’ll be able to get to all of them right now – but I promise I will……




That’s it – that was the extent of Grogan’s investigation of the Croton watch. He came to the conclusion that the watch was probably not functional – the battery was dead - there were others that appeared to be working – therefore I assume we are to infer that Laci would not have been wearing it. Oh - he checked with the jewelry stores to see if Laci had brought the watch in for repairs:

Why this is significant – I have no idea – because I don’t know about anyone else – but I don’t bring my watches in to the jewelers to have the battery replaced – I buy a battery from Radio Shack – pop off the back – and replace the battery.

This was the extent of his research into the Croton watch – at least according to his testimony. If he went to the pawn shop he never said he did – and he says in his testimony that it didn’t appear to be consistent with what they were looking for. I assume that’s for the reasons he mentioned – it had scratches (which would be consistent with an abduction) and the pawn slip didn’t specify that it had diamonds. But as we’ve discussed somewhere on the forum – the pawn slip did say With/G (some of us believe AW when she says she called THE pawn shop and they said it meant with Gems).

Also – note – he says in his testimony they searched the pawn slips and only ONE Croton watch came up – this was on March 6th – so assuming that only one Croton watch was pawned from December 24th until March 6 – and this one was pawned one week after Laci disappeared. That causes me to go…..hmmmmm………

As far as DR not testifying - you can't MAKE someone cooperate - you can't MAKE someone tell the truth. So her lack of testimony means nothing to me.

I don't know how you can conclude based on Grogan's testimony that nobody from MPD went to the pawn shop and viewed the Croton watch, but that's JMO.
Geragos didn't bring the receipt into evidence, ( he waved it around)was the jury just supposed to accept Geragos's implication that the watch could have been Laci's, IYO?
Was Deanna Renfro on the Defense witness list, to your knowledge? Do you have any evidence the Defense investigators ever spoke to her?
Reading the description of the Croton watch on the pawn ticket, and the description of Laci's watch, I don't think they are the same at all..JMO

[JustMyOpinion]

So you agree that it's possible this was simply a mistake - and a pretty big one at that - on their part?

Yes it was a mistake, IMO. I imagine MPD thought it was a big one, too.. ( because I do think the State wanted to call Dempewolf) IMO

[attorneywan2be]

?? The pawn ticket was not brought into evidence

Snip


The pawn ticket is the defense's exhibit N

[JustMyOpinion]

The pawn ticket is the defense's exhibit N

Thanks for this information. I was under the impression he showed it to the witness, waved it around. Do you know if he displayed the receipt on a projector when he was cross-examining the witness from a different pawn shop? Why do you think he didn't call the owner of the pawn shop where this receipt was issued? ( or call DR..) ?

[thinkaboutit]

I don't know how you can conclude based on Grogan's testimony that nobody from MPD went to the pawn shop and viewed the Croton watch, but that's JMO.
Geragos didn't bring the receipt into evidence, ( he waved it around)was the jury just supposed to accept Geragos's implication that the watch could have been Laci's, IYO?
Was Deanna Renfro on the Defense witness list, to your knowledge? Do you have any evidence the Defense investigators ever spoke to her?
Reading the description of the Croton watch on the pawn ticket, and the description of Laci's watch, I don't think they are the same at all..JMO

IMO it's unreasonable to suggest that it's possible Grogan testified to all this other investigation of the Croton watch - but he went to the pawn shop and didn't testify to it. The only way someone would have gone to the pawn shop to look at it was if he sent them to do it - he didn't testify to that either.

Yes - the pawn slip was entered as evidence - Defense Exhibit N

Again - you're asking me if Deanna Renfro was on the defense list - I said in my post - the fact that she wasn't - means nothing to me - I have no idea if the investigators talked to her. I have no idea if they tried and couldn't find her - I'm sure they don't have the power to find someone like LE does. I have no idea if they found her and she wouldn't cooperate with them. I have no idea if she slammed the door in their face. If she did - what are they going to do about it? Subpoena her and listen to her lie on the stand? You don't put a witness on the stand when you don't know what the answers to your questions are going to be. I'm not a lawyer - but I know that.

I don't know why what the jury thought about this has anything to do with what we are discussing. No - of course the jury wasn't going to put any weight into this pawn slip - since Geragos didn't imo, pursue it. We were talking about the investigation the MPD did. Not the investigation that the defense did (which by the way - I don't think they are required to do the investigating). Grogan took the time to check the jewelry stores to see if Laci had ever had the watch fixed - why wouldn't he make a quick trip to the pawn shop to see if the watch was still there? If it wasn't - the pawn shop would have had record of who picked it up - or who it was sold to. They could have found that watch if they had wanted to. And if they had - they would have testified to it - guaranteed - imo.

Could you be more specific - what about the description of the Croton watch on the pawn slip tells you it's not Laci's?

[JustMyOpinion]

IMO it's unreasonable to suggest that it's possible Grogan testified to all this other investigation of the Croton watch - but he went to the pawn shop and didn't testify to it. The only way someone would have gone to the pawn shop to look at it was if he sent them to do it - he didn't testify to that either.

Yes - the pawn slip was entered as evidence - Defense Exhibit N

Again - you're asking me if Deanna Renfro was on the defense list - I said in my post - the fact that she wasn't - means nothing to me - I have no idea if the investigators talked to her. I have no idea if they tried and couldn't find her - I'm sure they don't have the power to find someone like LE does. I have no idea if they found her and she wouldn't cooperate with them. I have no idea if she slammed the door in their face. If she did - what are they going to do about it? Subpoena her and listen to her lie on the stand? You don't put a witness on the stand when you don't know what the answers to your questions are going to be. I'm not a lawyer - but I know that.

I don't know why what the jury thought about this has anything to do with what we are discussing. No - of course the jury wasn't going to put any weight into this pawn slip - since Geragos didn't imo, pursue it. We were talking about the investigation the MPD did. Not the investigation that the defense did (which by the way - I don't think they are required to do the investigating). Grogan took the time to check the jewelry stores to see if Laci had ever had the watch fixed - why wouldn't he make a quick trip to the pawn shop to see if the watch was still there? If it wasn't - the pawn shop would have had record of who picked it up - or who it was sold to. They could have found that watch if they had wanted to. And if they had - they would have testified to it - guaranteed - imo.

Could you be more specific - what about the description of the Croton watch on the pawn slip tells you it's not Laci's?

Laci's watch was diamond encrusted, this is not noted in the description of the Croton watch pawned by Renfro. Had MG called the owner of the actual pawn shop and asked HIM/HER the questions he asked the State's witness, I think it would have been made clearer that this watch didn't match the description of Laci's watch. JMO

[attorneywan2be]

Thanks for this information. I was under the impression he showed it to the witness, waved it around. Do you know if he displayed the receipt on a projector when he was cross-examining the witness from a different pawn shop? Why do you think he didn't call the owner of the pawn shop where this receipt was issued? ( or call DR..) ?


I didn't read Dalton's book..but I read a post a while ago on another message board that Dalton stated in his book that the owner of the shop was uncooperative and didn't want to deal with the defense..so my guess is that they probably decided that it would be useless to compel him to testify...that is just my opinion..

[JustMyOpinion]

I didn't read Dalton's book..but I read a post a while ago on another message board that Dalton stated in his book that the owner of the shop was uncooperative and didn't want to deal with the defense..so my guess is that they probably decided that it would be useless to compel him to testify...that is just my opinion..

Okay. If Defense believed this watch was truly exculpatory evidence, and the shop owner would verify that it was diamond encrusted, I think the defense would have made certain the shop owner testified, but this is just my opinion.

[thinkaboutit]

?? The pawn ticket was not brought into evidence & DN wasn't brought to testify.. how can it not be dismissed as evidence in this case? How do you know police never looked at the watch, where do you get this information?
Can you provide more information about this person who repeatedly called the tipline who you believe should have been interviewed sooner? TIA
Which witness was told to prove he was where he claimed, do you have more information on this? TIA
Are you assuming that because Grogan had no knowledge about this "Aponte" tip, that nobody in MPD followed up on it in any way?

Actually – I found another witness that wasn’t interviewed until July of 2004 which also would have been after the trial started:

GERAGOS: Now, specifically the next within a day or two, you then get a tip from a Homer Maldonado; is that correct? That's on January 1st? I'm looking at 14865.
GROGAN: Okay.
GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, he specifically saw I'm going to ask you to step down again just to make a little dot on here. He and his wife, they phone in. Get their phone number. They say between 9:45 and 10:00 o'clock he and his wife got gas on Miller Avenue, correct?
GROGAN: Correct.
GERAGOS: Okay. And Miller Avenue is right here; is that right?
GROGAN: That’s correct.
GERAGOS: Okay. Gas station is where right where my pen is?
GROGAN: No.
GERAGOS: Back?
GROGAN: It is at about Camelia, right about there.
GERAGOS: Right there. Okay so he is at the gas station on Camelia right here; is that fair?
GROGAN: Yes.
JUDGE: Why don't you mark that M-1 for Maldonado.
GERAGOS: And this right here is Covena, correct?
GROGAN: Yes.
GERAGOS: Okay. Now, he says in his tip that they got gas right there, and that he said there was a tan van at the gas station, correct? The van had one occupant in it. The van was tan with yellow somewhere around it. He said he noticed a pregnant woman walking her dog near the corner of Miller and La Loma, right?
GROGAN: Yes.

>>>>>>>>>>>
GERAGOS: Okay. And, in addition to that, the van that Homer Maldonado had described at the USA Mini Mart was an older, dull, brownish-yellow van.
That's what he described it as, is it not, when he was interviewed by, he was finally interviewed in July of this year, correct? By I'm looking at 41913.
GROGAN: I'm sorry. Yes, that's what he said in that interview.
GERAGOS: Okay. And that interview was with one of the DA investigators that had gone out. That was, as far as you know, the first time that Mr. Maldonado was interviewed by somebody from either Modesto, or by the somebody representing the prosecution?
GROGAN: Yes.

[attorneywan2be]

Okay. If Defense believed this watch was truly exculpatory evidence, and the shop owner would verify that it was diamond encrusted, I think the defense would have made certain the shop owner testified, but this is just my opinion.


I see your point, and IMO, MG should have done a lot of things that he didn't do..that's just one of them, having said that, it's possible they realized that if they called him to the witness stand to ask him if the watch had diamonds or if the watch was like Laci's watch in the Ebay picture, as uncooperative as he was with them (as stated in that post) he can always say "I don't recall"..

[JustMyOpinion]

I see your point, and IMO, MG should have done a lot of things that he didn't do..that's just one of them, having said that, it's possible they realized that if they called him to the witness stand to ask him if the watch had diamonds or if the watch was like Laci's watch in the Ebay picture, as uncooperative as he was with them (as stated in that post) he can always say "I don't recall"..

I don't believe Geragos would withhold "exculpatory evidence" from a jury. The watch wasn't, IMO.

[thinkaboutit]

The other witness was Harshman. He called the Laci tipline twice himself – then a friend of his – a New York City police detective called and told them they needed to talk to Harshman. He also made a trip to the command center. He was finally interviewed in May 2004:


GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, one of the other witnesses that you contacted at some point, somebody by the name of Tom Harshman; is that correct?
GROGAN: Yes.
GERAGOS: You contacted Tom Harshman when?
GROGAN: I think I have got that listed.
GERAGOS: I show 4527. Looks like Tuesday, May 18th, 2004.
FLADAGER: Given the date of it, I would object. It's not related to the scope of this detective's investigation at that time.
GERAGOS: Clearly is, because Mr. Harshman phoned in on December,
JUDGE: I can't hear you.
GERAGOS: Mr. Harshman phoned in on December 28th.
JUDGE: Did he talk to Grogan?
GERAGOS: He talked to Detective Grogan on May 18th of this year.
JUDGE: All right. Overruled.
GERAGOS: Is that correct? He phoned in to the police on May or, on December 28th; isn't that correct?
GROGAN: Yes.
GERAGOS: Okay. Now, when he phoned in on December 28th, the message said, I'm at 14791. He gave his address and phone number, right?
GROGAN: Yes.
GERAGOS: And he said he was driving on Scenic just east of Coffee, he saw a woman being forced into a van, correct?
GROGAN: Yes.
GERAGOS: A van was an older white van with three windows and a tan stripe on the side, approximately a foot wide, right?
GROGAN: Yes.
GERAGOS: He described the woman, the victim as dark hair, red shirt, black pants, and a white, with suspect, white male, forties, ball cap?
GROGAN: Yes.
GERAGOS: Okay. Now, that call came in at 6:
GROGAN: That’s at least what was, actually this looks like calls that were referred to a detective; is that right?
GROGAN: I think on the 28th the way the system worked is, we had a detective on 24-hours-a-day. And they were present to take the calls and type the information.
GERAGOS: Okay. Now, specifically there was, on February 14th of 03 there was a New York detective who called in and said that a woman fitting the description of Laci and a van had seen her being forced into a van; is that correct?
GROGAN: That he was passing on that information, yes.
GERAGOS: Okay.
GROGAN: Second or third hand.
GERAGOS: New York City police detective who was saying, look, we have got a witness. I have talked to this woman. She hasn't been contacted. Basically it's Tom and Elizabeth Harshman, right?
GROGAN: Correct.
GERAGOS: And they have witnessed the incident, and don't know if they have called Modesto PD yet or not, correct?
GROGAN: Correct.
GERAGOS: Okay.
JUDGE: Does he say what time of the day that was?
GERAGOS: This was at 10:08?
GROGAN: That would be 10:08 a.m.
GERAGOS: So, at this point, Mr. Harshman has called on the 28th at 6:50 said he saw a woman being forced into a van, gave a description of the van. Then approximately two months later a New York City police detective says, I have talked to, presumably, Harshman's wife who may have witnessed the incident, correct?
GROGAN: Yes. He got the information from a friend of Miss Harshman's, Mr. Harshman's wife, I believe.
GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically you contacted him on May 18th, 2004, correct?
GROGAN: Yes.
GERAGOS: And he, when you contacted him, he told you that the same day he called into the police department. You put it down at 12:28, right?
GROGAN: Yes, based on that tip.
GERAGOS: I don't think you ever saw this. I'm just going to show this to you. When I went through the tip lines, at 14789, it looks like somebody called in, but the name that was written down was Thomas Harsh. Do you see that?
GROGAN: I see it.
GERAGOS: Okay. You hadn't seen that before right now, had you?
GROGAN: No.
GERAGOS: Okay. It says, reporting that three or four days ago he saw a pregnant lady being pushed into a van. Caller given to Detective Holmes. You were not aware that Harsh had indicated that it was three or four days prior to the 28th when he had actually phoned in; isn't that correct?
GROGAN: No, I don't think so.
GERAGOS: Okay. This is the first time that you have seen that, because when the caller, whoever took down the information, they just wrote Harsh as opposed to Harshman, correct?
GROGAN: Correct.

>>>>>>>>

GERAGOS: Okay. Then at that point you go out and you interview him, and that was sometime, well, you tell me. Is that May 18th of this year?

GROGAN: Yes. I did a tape recorded interview with him by phone when he, when he responded to one of my messages.

GERAGOS: Okay.

GROGAN: He called me back here.

GERAGOS: Okay. Do, the, when, when you say "here," when you were here in the middle of this trial?

GROGAN: Yes, it was in, well, in May.

GERAGOS: Okay. Have you ever seen him in person or talked to him in person?

GROGAN: No.

GERAGOS: Okay. And so then you have a interview with him and he gives you the, basically what we had gone through just now in terms of his statement of what he saw, the time and everything else, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And the interview with him in, takes place, you transcribe it and then provide it over so we have it and the prosecution has it at that point; is that correct?

GROGAN: Yes. There was an audiotape of that, of that interview that was provided to everyone.




GERAGOS: Okay. Now, I believe there was also some, he had said that he had gone to the command center also; is that correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Sometime during this trial there was some notes that were produced, which were not in discovery, from Sergeant Cloward, and it turned out in those notes that Sergeant Cloward had, in fact, had some kind of encounter with Mr. Harshman at the command post, that he showed up there as well, correct?

GROGAN: Someone at the command post did, yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And that was not in the discovery, the "discovery" meaning any of these first 40,000 pages? That was something that was produced during the trial?

GROGAN: Correct.



GERAGOS: Okay. Harshman was not somebody that I pointed you out to or the defense pointed you out to; that was something that you had discovered while you were going through and trying to plot this out and look through the tips for, to prepare the exhibits for trial, correct?

GROGAN: That’s correct. I think Detective, or Investigator Bertalotto found this originally, and I followed up on it.

GERAGOS: Okay. And that was in preparation for the trial, obviously?

GROGAN: Yes.

[JustMyOpinion]

The other witness was Harshman. He called the Laci tipline twice himself – then a friend of his – a New York City police detective called and told them they needed to talk to Harshman. He also made a trip to the command center. He was finally interviewed in May 2004:

Thanks for providing Grogan's testimony. Grogan interviewed Harshman in May 2004. Does this imply to you that nobody else from MPD spoke with Harshman before then? Geragos says: Caller ( "Tom Harsh") given to Det. Holmes. Did Geragos question Det Holmes about "Tom Harsh"..?

[attorneywan2be]

I'm not sure if this was posted before..Tony Freitas was contacted on July 29, 2004


Mark Geragos: Okay. How about Tony Freitas, a gentleman who works as a driver for Orowheat who had been driving in the neighborhood that day?
Craig Grogan: Mr. Freitas called in on December 30th of 2002 to the police tip line.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Were you able to verify his work schedule of work hours in any way that day, for where he was on the 24th? Well, if he called in on the tip line, can I ask you when was the next time that somebody from law enforcement contacted him?
Craig Grogan: He was contacted on July 29th of 2004.
Mark Geragos: 2004?
Craig Grogan: Yes, by a DA investigator.

[JustMyOpinion]

I'm not sure if this was posted before..Tony Freitas was contacted on July 29, 2004

IMO, Unless Geragos called the person working the tip-line who spoke with Tony Freitas, and had them testify as to the precise content of the tip, you cannot make a proper assessment as to why nobody followed up until July 29, 2004. IMO.
The MPD received over 9,000 tips, and a percentage of those were deemed credible, IIRC. Are you saying LE doesn't have the expertise to determine the credibility of tip and follow-up those that are worthwhile? Do you think they should have chased down 9,000 plus tips, irrespective of credibility?

[attorneywan2be]

IMO, Unless Geragos called the person working the tip-line who spoke with Tony Freitas, and had them testify as to the precise content of the tip, you cannot make a proper assessment as to why nobody followed up until July 29, 2004. IMO.
The MPD received over 9,000 tips, and a percentage of those were deemed credible, IIRC. Are you saying LE doesn't have the expertise to determine the credibility of tip and follow-up those that are worthwhile? Do you think they should have chased down 9,000 plus tips, irrespective of credibility?

In virtually all the search warrants they stated that there was no verifiable sightings of Laci..yet, they didn't investigate some of those sightings..the question is: how did they determine that there was no verifiable sightings of Laci??


Mark Geragos: So Mr. Freitas called in, was he one of the dots on the board that you showed, that we marked as an exhibit and showed to the jury?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And he called in and he said that he saw Laci Peterson walking a Golden Retriever, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: He called in the tip line, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And no, you now know that he was working for Orowheat at the time, correct? As a driver?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And is it a fair statement that nobody contacted him from law enforcement between December, last week of December when he called in until approximately six weeks ago, during this trial?
Craig Grogan: That's correct. I, we have the initial tip on December 30th. We have discovery from your office that we received sometime around the preliminary hearing, and then we re-contacted him July 29th of this year.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Was there anything initially in that tip that, I know you weren't, you stated before you weren't the person who was actually sifting through these things; is that correct?
Craig Grogan: That’s correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And you had somebody who was at least sifting through or going through these things, right? Filtering them?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Is it a fair statement that, if you had known about Mr. Freitas back in December, that you would have taken some action to have contacted him and to have interviewed him or have somebody from law enforcement interview him?
Craig Grogan: Well, I can't say that the sightings were automatically a priority for us at that time in the investigation, but the intention always was to try to contact any of those folks around there, yes.
Mark Geragos: Now, when you say that you can't say that the sightings were, what was the term you used?
Craig Grogan: A priority.
Mark Geragos: A priority. And you did apply for search warrants repeatedly in this case, correct?
Craig Grogan: Correct.
Mark Geragos: In every single one of those search warrant affidavits, which are declared under penalty of perjury, there was a section that says there are no verifiable sightings of her on December 24th, correct?
Craig Grogan: Something to that effect.
Mark Geragos: Okay. That it's a, I don't want to call it boilerplate, but it's a, it's a kind of a cut and paste on your word processor that goes from search warrant to search warrant to let the judge know, you're supposed to give the judge all the pertinent information in an affidavit for a search warrant, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And one of the things that's contained throughout virtually all of the search warrants is that there's no verifiable sightings of Laci Peterson, correct?
Craig Grogan: That’s correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. But it is also a fair statement that that was, sightings of Laci Peterson were not a priority at that point early in the investigation, correct?
Craig Grogan: In the first few days the, the people that called in initially, most of those I think had been contacted or were contacted at the time, and then as more and more sightings continued to pour in, we used less resources to try to deal with all of that.

[JustMyOpinion]

In virtually all the search warrants they stated that there was no verifiable sightings of Laci..yet, they didn't investigate some of those sightings..the question is: how did they determine that there was no verifiable sightings of Laci??


.


You ignored my question, and posed a question back.
In answer to your question to me: It's reported there were over 10,000 tips
It's reported there were a total of 193 Laci sightings after she vanished.
It's reported she was supposedly seen in 26 States.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20041112-1443-ca-lacipeterson.html
In my opinion, law enforcement has the expertise to determine the credibility of a tip and then follow through on those they deem credible. I am guessing they didn't follow through on some of these sightings because they weren't deemed credible, but without reading the actual tip reports and questioning the officers that took each tip, I cannot be more specific..I don't have enough information. JMO

[Otter]

I'm curious, I can't find where Mr. Freitas said he saw "Laci". I'm not all that good in finding things, although I do try.

Now, Harshman said he saw "Laci" on Scenic Avenue near Claus Road. I checked Mapquest, and this is 3.49 miles from 523 Covena. That's awfully far in her condition IMO.

523 Covena Ave
Modesto, CA 95354-1527, US
Revise | New Directions


Scenic Dr & Claus Rd
Modesto, CA 95350, US
Revise | New Directions

Total Est. Time: 9 minutes
Total Est. Distance: 3.49 miles

Did he say what time he saw "Laci"?

[One2Snoop]

GERAGOS: He described the woman, the victim as dark hair, red shirt, black pants, and a white, with suspect,

Scott claimed Laci was wearing black pants and a white shirt - perhaps the reason this tip was discounted was because of the red shirt? :shrug:

[One2Snoop]

I'm curious, I can't find where Mr. Freitas said he saw "Laci". I'm not all that good in finding things, although I do try.

Now, Harshman said he saw "Laci" on Scenic Avenue near Claus Road. I checked Mapquest, and this is 3.49 miles from 523 Covena. That's awfully far in her condition IMO.
523 Covena Ave
Modesto, CA 95354-1527, US
Revise | New Directions


Scenic Dr & Claus Rd
Modesto, CA 95350, US
Revise | New Directions

Total Est. Time: 9 minutes
Total Est. Distance: 3.49 miles

Did he say what time he saw "Laci"?

Good point otter. I used to run/walk 4-5 miles everyday. I could barely walk a mile when I was that pregnant.

[attorneywan2be]

Mark Geragos: And that was July 29th, during this trial, the DA investigator went out there and he met with Tony Freitas, who said that he was a truck driver for Orowheat, right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And he said that his route takes him in the mornings from Perko's restaurant on Yosemite, can you show the jury where that would be? If you're going from Perko's on Yosemite to Denny's Restaurant on Downey and McHenry?
Craig Grogan: Perko's on Yosemite?
Mark Geragos: Perko's on Yosemite to Denny's on Downey and McHenry?
Craig Grogan: Okay.
Mark Geragos: He's driving toward town on La Loma? On La Loma?
Craig Grogan: This is El Vista Avenue. Slightly east of that, between there and Riverside, would be the, the restaurant, first restaurant you mentioned, I believe.
Mark Geragos: Okay.
Craig Grogan: Perko's.
Mark Geragos: Now, if you were to take that and go towards the park located on La Loma and Santa Barbara
Craig Grogan: That would be he traveled down Yosemite, this is La Loma Avenue, and it comes across this way, and that's where it intersects the park.
Mark Geragos: Did you put a dot there for that particular sighting?
Craig Grogan: I'm sure I did.
Mark Geragos: Looks like number 10?
Craig Grogan: Number 10's right there.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, that, when he called in, his description was jacket and pants of an unknown color, because he wasn't asked for that description, right? Nobody asked him for a description; is that right?
Craig Grogan: I don't know. Let me look here.
Mark Geragos: According to your, you've got this legend that you use.
That's the information that's on there. Is that accurate?
Craig Grogan: It should be, yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And it states on there that the jacket and the pants were an unknown color, and he was not asked either of them, correct?
Craig Grogan: Correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And he says that as he approached there's a small triangular, triangle of a grassy park located at La Loma and Santa Barbara, right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And he saw a woman walking her dog, right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And she was wearing light-colored pants, a dark-colored jacket or pullover sweater, correct?
Craig Grogan: Correct.
Mark Geragos: And he could not see a blouse or the type of shoes that she was wearing. He said the dog was reddish brown in color and the dog appeared to be pulling the woman; is that right?
Craig Grogan: That’s what he said.
Mark Geragos: Okay. He also said that he looked to his right and noticed two dirty-looking males in the park; is that right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. One sitting on a bus bench, the other squatting next to the bench; is that right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And that both were dirty and their clothing ragged and they did not appear to fit in the neighborhood; is that right?
Craig Grogan: Correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, Tony said that he spoke to a female at the police department, right? Last sentence, or next to the last sentence on the next page.
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And the female told him that a detective would call at a later date; and a detective never called him, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.

[thinkaboutit]

I'm curious, I can't find where Mr. Freitas said he saw "Laci". I'm not all that good in finding things, although I do try.

Now, Harshman said he saw "Laci" on Scenic Avenue near Claus Road. I checked Mapquest, and this is 3.49 miles from 523 Covena. That's awfully far in her condition IMO.

523 Covena Ave
Modesto, CA 95354-1527, US
Revise | New Directions


Scenic Dr & Claus Rd
Modesto, CA 95350, US
Revise | New Directions

Total Est. Time: 9 minutes
Total Est. Distance: 3.49 miles

Did he say what time he saw "Laci"?

I THINK he said in his interview with Grogan in 2004 that he saw her between 2:00 and 4:00 - squating by a fence with two men standing over her then being forced into a van.

I'm not saying that this was Laci - but I think it's terrible that Tom Harshman had to call the tipline twice AND go to the command center AND have a NY police detective friend call in February 2003 to tell the MPD that his friend thinks he saw Laci and NO ONE had called him back. 2 months later - and no one had contacted this man - even though he made at least 3 attempts that we know of to contact them regarding what he saw.

In response to JMO's question of did Detective Holmes talk to him - this is what Grogan said:

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, that call came in at 6: That’s at least what was, actually this looks like calls that were referred to a detective; is that right?

GROGAN: I think on the 28th the way the system worked is, we had a detective on 24-hours-a-day. And they were present to take the calls and type the information.



and

GERAGOS: Okay. It says, reporting that three or four days ago he saw a pregnant lady being pushed into a van. Caller given to Detective Holmes. You were not aware that Harsh had indicated that it was three or four days prior to the 28th when he had actually phoned in; isn't that correct?

GROGAN: No, I don't think so.

GERAGOS: Okay. This is the first time that you have seen that, because when the caller, whoever took down the information, they just wrote Harsh as opposed to Harshman, correct?

GROGAN: Correct.



So the call on the 28th of December was given to Detective Holmes. But Harshman's NY detective friend called in February 2003 and said the Harshmans had not been contacted - so I am assuming that Det. Holmes took down the information but no one actually interviewed Harshman until 2004.

Harshman made no mention of a dog - so the time should not have eliminated this sighting - who's to say Laci wasn't abducted earlier - but seen later in the afternoon with her abductors? I think he should have at least been talked to.

You have to wonder why Grogan would have bothered talking to Harshman after the trial started??

[thinkaboutit]

Scott claimed Laci was wearing black pants and a white shirt - perhaps the reason this tip was discounted was because of the red shirt? :shrug:

May be - but is that a valid reason for discounting this tip? How did MPD know on the 28th of December that Laci hadn't changed into a red shirt before she left - or put on a red jacket of some sort?

[JustMyOpinion]

Good point otter. I used to run/walk 4-5 miles everyday. I could barely walk a mile when I was that pregnant.

Also, the description of clothing doesn't match "white shirt/black pants" that Scott claimed she was wearing that morning.

[attorneywan2be]

Good point otter. I used to run/walk 4-5 miles everyday. I could barely walk a mile when I was that pregnant.

Hashman, a former police officer, did not report seeing Laci walking her dog, according to the report he saw her with 2 guys, one guy was holding her as she was squatting with her back against a chainlink fence, he described that she might have been urinating..and he said that she looked scared, then she was pushed into the van...one could infer that this incident could have occurred after she was already kidnapped..!

[JustMyOpinion]

So the call on the 28th of December was given to Detective Holmes. But Harshman's NY detective friend called in February 2003 and said the Harshmans had not been contacted - so I am assuming that Det. Holmes took down the information but no one actually interviewed Harshman until 2004.

Harshman made no mention of a dog - so the time should not have eliminated this sighting - who's to say Laci wasn't abducted earlier - but seen later in the afternoon with her abductors? I think he should have at least been talked to.

You have to wonder why Grogan would have bothered talking to Harshman after the trial started??


Have you read the actual tip sheet or talked to Holmes about what information he obtained over the phone so you can better assess why nobody may have interviewed Harshman until 2004? ( Harshman didn't testify, the NY Det didn't testify, so you're drawing conclusions from hearsay IMO)
As for why Grogan talked to Harshman after trial began, IMO MPD was well-aware Geragos had adopted a defense strategy of impugning the investigation, they were likely covering all of their bases, IMO.

[JustMyOpinion]

Hashman, a former police officer, did not report seeing Laci walking her dog, according to the report he saw her with 2 guys, one guy was holding her as she was squatting with her back against a chainlink fence, he described that she might have been urinating..and he said that she looked scared, then she was pushed into the van...one could infer that this incident could have occurred after she was already kidnapped..!

Well no, I couldn't begin to infer this, because Harshman didn't testify!

[Brainstorm]

sorry for interrupting guys, but I just wanted to say,that even as we "speak"
there is an E True Hollywood Story on Laci Peterson. on E channel, of course,from 3-5 Eastern time..............I've seen it before,and when that happened, I was deeply concerned, and it captured my heart, Lacis story, then I kept up, as his lawyers tried to GET HIM OFF !!!!!!!!!! IMO........ and I sure sent some poisin thoughts toward california way,during that time, and as mean and strong as I want to be, I cried tears of joy, when the sob got his verdict.
afterwards, I decided that the coward,(I wish I could think up a word that describes how I really feel, but it will be a NEW word, because there just arent any BAD enough) made me so sick, that I needed to rid myself of his image. I think of Laci and Conner often,and Sharon...and having girls close in age ,my heart was broken for her.
but scott? OMG may he ROT BEFORE HE GETS TO HELL AND maybe even wishes for the Fires of hell,(compared to what his life is like, I hope)but he should be reminded, HELL IS FOREVER.
I do wish you all well here, on this thread, I do know your forum leader, O2,and shes a top-notch poster, IMO (I dont do the reputation thing, I say what I think in public) or (under my breath)lol
jmho

[Wudge]

sorry for interrupting guys, but I just wanted to say,that even as we "speak"
there is an E True Hollywood Story on Laci Peterson. on E channel, of course,from 3-5 Eastern time..............I've seen it before,and when that happened, I was deeply concerned, and it captured my heart, Lacis story, then I kept up, as his lawyers tried to GET HIM OFF !!!!!!!!!! IMO........ and I sure sent some poisin thoughts toward california way,during that time, and as mean and strong as I want to be, I cried tears of joy, when the sob got his verdict.
afterwards, I decided that the coward,(I wish I could think up a word that describes how I really feel, but it will be a NEW word, because there just arent any BAD enough) made me so sick, that I needed to rid myself of his image. I think of Laci and Conner often,and Sharon...and having girls close in age ,my heart was broken for her.
but scott? OMG may he ROT BEFORE HE GETS TO HELL AND maybe even wishes for the Fires of hell,(compared to what his life is like, I hope)but he should be reminded, HELL IS FOREVER.
I do wish you all well here, on this thread, I do know your forum leader, O2,and shes a top-notch poster, IMO (I dont do the reputation thing, I say what I think in public) or (under my breath)lol
jmho


If the jury had a valid inculpatory evidence source upon which they based their finding of premediatation, deliberation, intent and malice aforethought, then you could exhale. Unfortunately, all the sources of valid inculpatory evidence were dry. It's going to be a good while between breaths.

[frydaddy]

I concede that it is questionnable whether Jackson called in the tip on the 26th before the Medina's came home or after. Being that this was merely a discussion between two defense attorneys - and Harris says - looks like - I would say that I can definitely see why you question this. I do too. The fact that no one disputed this fact in court - is a moot point, imo - because it may be that the prosecution didn't see any point in arguing whether it was the 26th or the 27th. If Harris had said 25th or the 24th - it most likely would have set off alarm bells in their head and they would have jumped on it.

Therefore - since I question whether she called this in before or after possibly hearing about the burglary (possibly from neighbors or the Medina's themselves since she lived around the corner) - and possibly that a safe was missing - I must question whether she actually saw the safe.

But this actually falls in line with my theory - that the three men seen in front of the Medina home were the ones that initially robbed the Medina home - and the safe wasn't actually taken from the Medina home until Todd and Pearce came to get it on the 26th. I honestly feel that Pearce knows nothing and had nothing to do with Laci's disappearance. He was completely forthcoming and cooperative from the start - and nothing he has said I have ever been able to disprove. Todd is a completely different story - however.

I think the claim that the hypnosis was crooked is based on the fact that the hypnotist wasn't properly licensed. IIRC - there was an article (sorry - I don't have time to look for it right now) that law enforcement know the importance of the hypnotist being properly licensed - and they know that if you don't use a hypnotist that is properly licensed - you won't be able to use that witness in court. So I believe the argument is - they purposely used a hypnotist that wasn't properly licensed - so their testimony would not be admissable. I'm not sure that I totally agree with that argument - I think this could simply be an example of what I consider the poor (to put it mildly) investigative skills of the MPD.

As far as polygraph's - I have no faith in them - I put no value on the results of them. People have lied and passed polygraphs. People have told the truth and failed them.

It is my opinion that nothing happened with regards to the theft of the Medina house on the 24th. First, due to the 10:18 finding of the dog (I believe the KS timeline) and the 10:30ish leave time by the Medina's. I also would contend that burglars wouldn't have parked a van in front of a house they were robbing and stop to look at a passer-by to give her a look, so that she could potentially identify them, IMO. Her description of them does not fit, the van color changed, and if she felt that strongly about something out of sorts, why did she wait two plus days to call LE? Now, I can't say with certainty what she did see or when or even if she saw something. I find it extremely ironic and curious that her tip was called in within two minutes of the Medina's arriving home. IF their phone call to their son was made after they arrived home...perhaps to tell him that they were robbed, then I think it is possible that they arrived home a bit sooner and perhaps Jackson heard about it. This is obviously speculation on my part, but it seems more logical by what we know. To me anyway!

One thing on the hypnosis. If it was done in an effort to try a gather information on a potential suspect, which I believe it was, then I struggle to think it was anything malicious by LE. The case wasn't even ruled a homicide until March, Scott hadn't been arrested yet obviously, and they were leaps and bounds from worrying about a trial. Given Diane Jackson's subsequent interview and media reports lacking "safe" and the fact her story was sketchy and the delayed reporting questionable, I don't know that one can conclude she would have been a reliable defense witness had she been hypnotized by a state licensed physician or not ever hypnotized in the first place. I do concede that LE should have known the rules on a "just in case" basis, but human error does not always have to be assumed as malicious or purposeful, especially in light of the desire to find a pregnant Laci.

Polygraphs have always been a can of worms. I see plenty about them in movies and TV shows. And I think there is a great chance that they can register false positives on innocent people if they are nervous or overthink the question. But to trick the machine, in my view, requires someone who can control their entire being to trick it and I personally don't see lifelong nitwit petty criminals having those types of skills. If either do, it's amazing that they can trick the machine, but are too dumb to hold the loot they stole in a place other than in their home.

Just some thoughts for you to ponder...not meant for you to accept or agree with, just how I see it. :)

[One2Snoop]

sorry for interrupting guys, but I just wanted to say,that even as we "speak"
there is an E True Hollywood Story on Laci Peterson. on E channel, of course,from 3-5 Eastern time..............I've seen it before,and when that happened, I was deeply concerned, and it captured my heart, Lacis story, then I kept up, as his lawyers tried to GET HIM OFF !!!!!!!!!! IMO........ and I sure sent some poisin thoughts toward california way,during that time, and as mean and strong as I want to be, I cried tears of joy, when the sob got his verdict.
afterwards, I decided that the coward,(I wish I could think up a word that describes how I really feel, but it will be a NEW word, because there just arent any BAD enough) made me so sick, that I needed to rid myself of his image. I think of Laci and Conner often,and Sharon...and having girls close in age ,my heart was broken for her.
but scott? OMG may he ROT BEFORE HE GETS TO HELL AND maybe even wishes for the Fires of hell,(compared to what his life is like, I hope)but he should be reminded, HELL IS FOREVER.
I do wish you all well here, on this thread, I do know your forum leader, O2,and shes a top-notch poster, IMO (I dont do the reputation thing, I say what I think in public) or (under my breath)lol
jmho

LOL Brainstorm - I know what you mean. Thanks for your input. :rose:

[frydaddy]

Mark Geragos: And that was July 29th, during this trial, the DA investigator went out there and he met with Tony Freitas, who said that he was a truck driver for Orowheat, right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And he said that his route takes him in the mornings from Perko's restaurant on Yosemite, can you show the jury where that would be? If you're going from Perko's on Yosemite to Denny's Restaurant on Downey and McHenry?
Craig Grogan: Perko's on Yosemite?
Mark Geragos: Perko's on Yosemite to Denny's on Downey and McHenry?
Craig Grogan: Okay.
Mark Geragos: He's driving toward town on La Loma? On La Loma?
Craig Grogan: This is El Vista Avenue. Slightly east of that, between there and Riverside, would be the, the restaurant, first restaurant you mentioned, I believe.
Mark Geragos: Okay.
Craig Grogan: Perko's.
Mark Geragos: Now, if you were to take that and go towards the park located on La Loma and Santa Barbara
Craig Grogan: That would be he traveled down Yosemite, this is La Loma Avenue, and it comes across this way, and that's where it intersects the park.
Mark Geragos: Did you put a dot there for that particular sighting?
Craig Grogan: I'm sure I did.
Mark Geragos: Looks like number 10?
Craig Grogan: Number 10's right there.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, that, when he called in, his description was jacket and pants of an unknown color, because he wasn't asked for that description, right? Nobody asked him for a description; is that right?
Craig Grogan: I don't know. Let me look here.
Mark Geragos: According to your, you've got this legend that you use.
That's the information that's on there. Is that accurate?
Craig Grogan: It should be, yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And it states on there that the jacket and the pants were an unknown color, and he was not asked either of them, correct?
Craig Grogan: Correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And he says that as he approached there's a small triangular, triangle of a grassy park located at La Loma and Santa Barbara, right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And he saw a woman walking her dog, right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And she was wearing light-colored pants, a dark-colored jacket or pullover sweater, correct?
Craig Grogan: Correct.
Mark Geragos: And he could not see a blouse or the type of shoes that she was wearing. He said the dog was reddish brown in color and the dog appeared to be pulling the woman; is that right?
Craig Grogan: That’s what he said.
Mark Geragos: Okay. He also said that he looked to his right and noticed two dirty-looking males in the park; is that right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. One sitting on a bus bench, the other squatting next to the bench; is that right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And that both were dirty and their clothing ragged and they did not appear to fit in the neighborhood; is that right?
Craig Grogan: Correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, Tony said that he spoke to a female at the police department, right? Last sentence, or next to the last sentence on the next page.
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And the female told him that a detective would call at a later date; and a detective never called him, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.

I always found it odd that so many people "saw Laci", when there were obviously other pregnant women out walking dogs that day. Not to mention, not one of them spoke to her. And, not a one was called to the stand.

[attorneywan2be]

I always found it odd that so many people "saw Laci", when there were obviously other pregnant women out walking dogs that day. Not to mention, not one of them spoke to her. And, not a one was called to the stand.

And I always found it odd that no one came forward to identify herself as the woman that was walking that day..the prosecution didn't produce that woman that supposedly was mistaken for Laci by several people..why didn't they? IMO, because they could not find her..simply because it was Laci that was indeed walking McKenzie...Don't forget, that several witnesses stated that the woman was walking a golden retriever...which also fits the description of McKenzie..!

[frydaddy]

And I always found it odd that no one came forward to identify herself as the woman that was walking that day..the prosecution didn't produce that woman that supposedly was mistaken for Laci by several people..why didn't they? IMO, because they could not find her..simply because it was Laci that was indeed walking McKenzie...Don't forget, that several witnesses stated that the woman was walking a golden retriever...which also fits the description of McKenzie..!

It's not the prosecutions job to prove that witnesses were mistaken, especially if none testify for the defense. Nor is it the prosecutions job to present a pregnant woman, or women, with goldens who may have been walking that day. What would they testify to exactly? That they were spotted from a distance by strangers who mistook her for Laci? How would they know that?

[ekg]

Perhaps if we had all 40,000 plus pages of LE reports on the Peterson case, we would find out they did check him out and he had solid alibis for both murders or wasn't even in the area.


this might shed some light on Perry Monroe and the link has 2 pretty intriguing maps..

"Do you believe in coincidences? Because it is a pretty big coincidence that three women have been killed in similar ways. The bodies of two of the women were found less than 10 miles from the home of the man who had the hands of the 3rd woman in his car
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=33746
"



and here's some other intresting things

Rayelan...this was posted on a Laci Peterson message board at court-tv,
more than I knew! Please don't use my name or email.

Perry Monroe: Serial Killer extraordinaire?

Ladonna Milam's body was found in parts in a Boulder City pond on Monday.
Perry Monroe was found sleeping in his car in Fresno, California on Monday
night. Police found more body parts in his car. His home: Alameda, CA.

Evelyn Hernandez' partial remains were discovered in San Francisco Bay in
July, 2002, and police concluded that she, her son and her unborn child all
were killed. Evelyn was 8 months pregnant when she was kidnapped. Her home:
San Francisco, CA.

Rebekah Rachel Miller disappeared October 15, 2002, around 3:00 a.m. from
Modesto, CA, twelve blocks from the Peterson home. She has not been found.
Her wallet and back pack with other personal items were found where she was
last seen.

21-year-old pregnant Alice Sin, of Pinole, CA, west of Sacramento, was
reported missing on Nov. 21. Her body was found in January 2000 in the
Nevada desert.

Angelina Joy Evans, of Sacramento, CA, was last seen at approximately
12:30am 05/21/01, getting into a truck on Fruitridge Rd., and Stockton
Blvd., in Sacramento. She has never been found. She was 8 months pregnant.

In October 1999. pregnant Michelle Chan of Fremont, CA, disappeared. "We've
never been able to come up with anything on her," said Julie Terry of the
Fremont Police Department's missing-persons unit.

In December, 2002, 7 1/2 months pregnant Laci Peterson disappeared. Her
partial remains and the body of her baby washed up on the shoreline of
Richmond bay, CA.

Five of these women were pregnant, and six lived within the area Perry
Monroe frequented, short driving distances from Perry's home town. The
seventh lived in Boulder City, NV.

Perry Monroe, 29 year old from Alameda, CA, murders a stranger in Boulder
City, NV, dismembers her, keeps the body parts for some satanic ritual or
sexual perversion or just as memos, and dumps her body in a pond in Boulder
City.

Heads back home toward Alameda, in the middle of the area of all these
missing women, most pregnant. Is arrested in Fresno, the hands of the
dismembered woman in his trunk.

It is known that Laci Peterson, Evelyn Hernandez, and Angelina Joy wore
tattoos on their ankles. All were also pregnant.

Serial killer?

Or pure co-incidence?
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=33788


and here is some pretty good info.. I guess it's san diego message board...

http://forum.signonsandiego.com/archive/index.php/t-14508.html

you can't deny it's interesting.....:shrug:

[Wudge]

And I always found it odd that no one came forward to identify herself as the woman that was walking that day..the prosecution didn't produce that woman that supposedly was mistaken for Laci by several people..why didn't they? IMO, because they could not find her..simply because it was Laci that was indeed walking McKenzie...Don't forget, that several witnesses stated that the woman was walking a golden retriever...which also fits the description of McKenzie..!

LE put a good number of pregnant women on the witness stand. Unfortunately, none of them matched Laci and McKenzie. LE could not find their Cinderella. Nor, could LE find the three men and the van that Diane Jackson saw at 11:40AM on 12/24.

Laci = Cinderella closes one equation. Todd and Pierce and a third burglar to plant Laci's body in the Hoffman Marsh = 3 men. Another closed equation.

[Wudge]

this might shed some light on Perry Monroe and the link has 2 pretty intriguing maps..

""



and here's some other intresting things




and here is some pretty good info.. I guess it's san diego message board...

http://forum.signonsandiego.com/archive/index.php/t-14508.html

you can't deny it's interesting.....:shrug:


Perry Monroe was a lifeguard in Alemeda. Alemeda is an island in the bay. He lived between the location of Evelyn Hernandez's body and Laci's body.

[Miss Bootsie]

Laci = Cinderella closes one equation. Todd and Pierce and a third burglar to plant Laci's body in the Hoffman Marsh = 3 men. Another closed equation.

Dr. Peterson's testimony does not support your opinion that Laci's body was planted in the Hoffman Marsh.

[ekg]

LOL - Used to be a time when I followed my grandfathers advice and never discuss race, religion, or politics. Then I decided to give politics a try over at CTV, but became disgusted with it. I agree that sometimes it's best to only talk about certain issues with people you know well enough to know it's not personal.

I'll give you one example of the concession issue, from very recently in this thread.

I conceded that NG's and I's have found what they believe to be proof that Diane Jackson saw burglars on 12/24 in front of the Medina home. They attach great value to this and I comprehend their reasoning. I think it is an issue blown way out of proportion, but I could see the logic in what they believe. The pertinent point on this issue is not to admit to me or this board that there are huge question marks regarding this information. I'm not the one who needs convincing. It's an issue of them not placing too much value on it for the reason we give...not getting their hopes up. If they cannot adequately answer the questions or explain the inconsistency to commoners like myself, how can it be explained to appellate experts to cause them to place any weight on it?

I asked about the inconsistency of subsequent reports from both interviews and media excerpts about the burglary. Others asked which witness actually offered the 26th (defense attorneys stated 26th). I've previously questioned if "that's what it says" is the ringing endorsement to prove that burglars are valid other suspects. I've questioned why the report and the person who took it were not presented. I brought up how Todd and Pearce were both polygraphed and passed. There were other points made. Now, what response did that elicit and why? Repetitive statements regarding only the part that is favorable to SP. Questions of Grogan's integrity or ability (which is rare, because Grogan is the one cop I rarely see taking any heat). Discussions of hypnosis being crooked, even though the hypnotist wasn't properly licensed by the state. Did that make the hypnosis less valid...because it wasn't legally sanctioned? In court yes, in life, not to me. Bottom line, there seems to be a fear, by some, in conceding that there are, in the least, question marks regarding Jackson and her burglar story. To respond to those questions has the potential of invalidating what some believe to be a major plus for Peterson. So it seems they ignore it. This is just an example of many things I've seen.

Okay, I'll stop the rambling for now. Take care!

I think some thing are a 'legal' issue or a common sense issue... I read some of that argument... and it seemed one side was trying to say that since a bates number was given and agreed on 'legally' as in, in court has to believed one way..no matter what common sense or others tells us....LOL I could be totally wrong tho b/c I got lost in that argument....:tongue:

but one I remember was about the G's refusing to concede that Wall the comp. expert said he could tell who was online that morning, but wasn' asked to so he didn't.... the G's argued that it wasn't even possible and since MG didn't hire his own comp expert it wasn't Laci anyway...

That argument is totally opposite of what was testified to, and inferences that shouldn't have been made were and brought into the arguement when they shouldn't have....

Wall said he could.... he said it plainly...he also said he wasn't asked by the DA to.... you can't argue it and have to concede...LOL.....But if it had been Laci online that morning.... it really helps Scott b/c it only gives him >90 mins to kill her and clean up and then he has to load her body in the middle of the morning..But the G's wouldn't agree on the Wall testimony b/c since MG didn't put up his own witness...and they didn't believe the DA's expert....LOL

both sides have the hard heads on issues that either can't be argued or make no difference anyway..:)

Have good one frydaddy:seeya:

[One2Snoop]

snip

but one I remember was about the G's refusing to concede that Wall the comp. expert said he could tell who was online that morning, but wasn' asked to so he didn't.... the G's argued that it wasn't even possible and since MG didn't hire his own comp expert it wasn't Laci anyway...

That argument is totally opposite of what was testified to, and inferences that shouldn't have been made were and brought into the arguement when they shouldn't have....

Wall said he could.... he said it plainly...he also said he wasn't asked by the DA to.... you can't argue it and have to concede...LOL.....But if it had been Laci online that morning.... it really helps Scott b/c it only gives him >90 mins to kill her and clean up and then he has to load her body in the middle of the morning..But the G's wouldn't agree on the Wall testimony b/c since MG didn't put up his own witness...and they didn't believe the DA's expert....LOL

both sides have the hard heads on issues that either can't be argued or make no difference anyway..:)

Have good one frydaddy:seeya:

Please tell in your opinion how Wall could actually see Laci sitting in front of the computer monitor with her fingers touching the keyboard? He can't unless he's psychic (which I don't believe in) or he was actually present in the house which I doubt. JMO.

[thinkaboutit]

It is my opinion that nothing happened with regards to the theft of the Medina house on the 24th. First, due to the 10:18 finding of the dog (I believe the KS timeline) and the 10:30ish leave time by the Medina's. I also would contend that burglars wouldn't have parked a van in front of a house they were robbing and stop to look at a passer-by to give her a look, so that she could potentially identify them, IMO. Her description of them does not fit, the van color changed, and if she felt that strongly about something out of sorts, why did she wait two plus days to call LE? Now, I can't say with certainty what she did see or when or even if she saw something. I find it extremely ironic and curious that her tip was called in within two minutes of the Medina's arriving home. IF their phone call to their son was made after they arrived home...perhaps to tell him that they were robbed, then I think it is possible that they arrived home a bit sooner and perhaps Jackson heard about it. This is obviously speculation on my part, but it seems more logical by what we know. To me anyway!

.........snipped


I agree Jackson's description fits neither Todd nor Pearce - which is why I don't think any of the three that Jackson saw were Pearce - and at least two of them weren't Todd.

I don't think Karen Servas is a reliable witness when it comes to time - for reasons that I posted on another thread.

The fact of the matter is still that Jackson was insistant that she saw someone in front of the Medina home - parked and standing outside the van. Someone was there. Have you ever seen something that didn't look quite right - but didn't act on it? I think it's possible these men looked a little suspicious - but Jackson only realized what she had seen after she found out there had been a burglary - or after she found out there was a woman missing from across the street.

So you are willing to consider that the Medina's were mistaken about exactly where they were when they placed the call to their son - putting them home a little earlier? That's interesting. Are you also willing then to consider that Karen Servas could have been mistaken about where she was when she made her cell phone call that she based her timeline on (along with the time stamped receipt from the store - that Geragos proved inaccurate, imo)?

Can I ask you this - I asked Adnoid this question also. Is there anything that would convince you that the burglars could have been involved in Laci's abduction? For instance - if there was a solid connection found between the woman who pawned the Croton watch - and say - one of the burglars? Would that make you take a second look at them?

[Wudge]

Please tell in your opinion how Wall could actually see Laci sitting in front of the computer monitor with her fingers touching the keyboard? He can't unless he's psychic (which I don't believe in) or he was actually present in the house which I doubt. JMO.

In a second trial: How would Todd explain his ability to see mail inside a metal security mailbox the morning of 12/26?

X-ray vision?

[One2Snoop]

In a second trial: How would Todd explain his ability to see mail inside a metal security mailbox the morning of 12/26?

X-ray vision?

Yes, THAT'S IT! x-ray vision. :tongue: And what does this have to do with Laci physically sitting in front of her computer and Wall can prove it? :shrug:

[Wudge]

Yes, THAT'S IT! x-ray vision. :tongue: And what does this have to do with Laci physically sitting in front of her computer and Wall can prove it? :shrug:

Psychics versus X-ray vision: Indiscernable difference between fruitcakes.

Wall was not asked by LE to determine who sat at the computer on 12/24. If LE or the D.A. really wanted to know, almost assuredly, Wall would have attempted to use pattern recognition.

[Brainstorm]

If the jury had a valid inculpatory evidence source upon which they based their finding of premediatation, deliberation, intent and malice aforethought, then you could exhale. Unfortunately, all the sources of valid inculpatory evidence were dry. It's going to be a good while between breaths.

excuse me? WTH are you talking about?IMO,his aforethoughts and his during thoughts and his after thoughts were premeditated,deliberate & totally the most evil(the mother & HER BABY)...OMG.
THE JURY MADE THE RIGHT DECIDION, and I'm surprised Scotty is still breathing,IMO,but I guess our system does HAVE to treat him humanely and protect him ,but where I'm from, he might not have walked around so smugly.I have a rifle,and I like to target practice at snakes !!!
You have me with the dictionary,but I see you must be a law student or something, cause I really need more to talk to you.
jmho

[attorneywan2be]

Yes, THAT'S IT! x-ray vision. :tongue: And what does this have to do with Laci physically sitting in front of her computer and Wall can prove it? :shrug:


I think Lydell Wall could have studied the users pattern to figure out who was using the computer at 8:40 am..

Mark 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?
Lydell Wall: That's correct.
Mark Geragos: And compare them historically with that user to try to differentiate between Laci and Scott, correct?
Lydell Wall: That's correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And I assume that there's computer trails of some kind that you would use in order to do that, correct?
Lydell Wall: If it's requested, yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And the, that was never requested in this case, if I'm correct?
Lydell Wall: That's correct.
Mark 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.
Lydell Wall: What I would do?
Mark Geragos: What you would do in order to try to determine that or to make a comparison?
Lydell 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.
Mark 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?
Lydell 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.
Mark 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?
Lydell Wall: That's correct.
Mark 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?
Lydell Wall: That's correct.

[Wudge]

excuse me? WTH are you talking about?IMO,his aforethoughts and his during thoughts and his after thoughts were premeditated,deliberate & totally the most evil(the mother & HER BABY)...OMG.
THE JURY MADE THE RIGHT DECIDION, and I'm surprised Scotty is still breathing,IMO,but I guess our system does HAVE to treat him humanely and protect him ,but where I'm from, he might not have walked around so smugly.I have a rifle,and I like to target practice at snakes !!!
You have me with the dictionary,but I see you must be a law student or something, cause I really need more to talk to you.
jmho

Been there, done that. Some places just ooze malice. (chuckle)

You did fine. I'm just a simple minded old buzzard. I don't know if Scott murdered Laci. He might have. He might not have.

Call it a weakness, but all I do is assess and weigh evidence against the legal hurdle of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, nothing more.

Scott's a liar. Scott's cad. Dr. Sheppard was a liar and a cad too.

I had that case right. However, it took a decade and a second trial before I had a gold star stuck in the middle of my forehead. I hope to get lucky a second time before I pass on, I just love gold stars.

Be well.

(salute)

[Brainstorm]

I do dispise Scotty,thats for sure.
imo

[Anne2719]

Been there, done that. Some places just ooze malice. (chuckle)

You did fine. I'm just a simple minded old buzzard. I don't know if Scott murdered Laci. He might have. He might not have.

Call it a weakness, but all I do is assess and weigh evidence against the legal hurdle of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, nothing more.

Scott's a liar. Scott's cad. Dr. Sheppard was a liar and a cad too.

I had that case right. However, it took a decade and a second trial before I had a gold star stuck in the middle of my forehead. I hope to get lucky a second time before I pass on, I just love gold stars.

Be well.

(salute)
Wudge, I grew up on the west side of Cleveland and Dr Sheppard's office was in the suburb where I grew up, a few blocks from my house. I was not yet in kindergarten when the murder occurred, but heard my parents discuss the case when I was old enough to understand a little better, and was glad to see him released (and shopping at the local deli) years later. His was a tragic case and he died a still-misunderstood man.

I have to say, if I'm ever arrested for a crime I didn't commit, I will absolutely find a way to get someone to send you a PM and ask you to work on the case.

[frydaddy]

I agree Jackson's description fits neither Todd nor Pearce - which is why I don't think any of the three that Jackson saw were Pearce - and at least two of them weren't Todd.

I don't think Karen Servas is a reliable witness when it comes to time - for reasons that I posted on another thread.

The fact of the matter is still that Jackson was insistant that she saw someone in front of the Medina home - parked and standing outside the van. Someone was there. Have you ever seen something that didn't look quite right - but didn't act on it? I think it's possible these men looked a little suspicious - but Jackson only realized what she had seen after she found out there had been a burglary - or after she found out there was a woman missing from across the street.

So you are willing to consider that the Medina's were mistaken about exactly where they were when they placed the call to their son - putting them home a little earlier? That's interesting. Are you also willing then to consider that Karen Servas could have been mistaken about where she was when she made her cell phone call that she based her timeline on (along with the time stamped receipt from the store - that Geragos proved inaccurate, imo)?

Can I ask you this - I asked Adnoid this question also. Is there anything that would convince you that the burglars could have been involved in Laci's abduction? For instance - if there was a solid connection found between the woman who pawned the Croton watch - and say - one of the burglars? Would that make you take a second look at them?

I would consider just about anything. How much weight I would put on it would depend on the credibility of the information. I am certain that it appears that I currently choose whatever outcome that is unfavorable to Scott, but at one time, I was simply looking at the information as I saw it from a distance. I'd never even followed a trial before and I came into things mid-trial and had only passing knowledge of the case. I'm no wizard, never really felt as though my opinions should carry much weight among Scott's advocates. Just calling it how I perceive it, then and now. If I never discussed another word of this case in my life, I am comfortable waiting for the appeals to determine the legal ruling. I just enjoy the debate and reading what some have to say.

Specifically, I try to explain not only what I believe, but why I believe it. For example, Susan Medina. If I were to call someone at the end of a road trip (I hate the phone, by nature), I doubt I would call when I got in town. Probably wait til I was actually home. So is it a stretch to believe that her call might have been moments after she got home. Sounds more reasonable to me than her testimony. Plus, it explains how Jackson's call might have been linked to her "hearing about the burglary" and the coincidence of her call to LE being within two minutes of Medina calling her son. Perhaps it's just that though, coincidence. And maybe Medina did call before they arrived home. Her cell records are sealed due to personal information, as are Servas'. I'd be interested to see if Susan called her son a second time shortly after she got home, to alert him to the burglary. That might give her story more weight that she called while still on the road.

As for Servas...her credibility on her timeline is critical. But, why would she purposely goof it up to hurt Scott? The BOA receipt was within reason to her story. So, is it a stretch to believe her timeline? Not to me...I see her attempts to nail down the time as wanting to assist LE with her part of the information. It was too soon in the investigation of Scott to believe that she'd already be purposefully adjusting her time sooner to Scott leaving. Again, just what feels right of the two options.

Regarding the Croton watch and the Renfro woman who pawned it. I'd consider a solid connection, but I'd guess that my version of a solid connection and yours might be different. Not to be difficult, but it would take something remarkable and new to qualify as solid. For instance, if THE watch that was pawned was found and someone could verify it was Laci's, I would be interested in how Renfro acquired it and when. As of now, I can't say the Croton provides any pause for me.

[Wudge]

Wudge, I grew up on the west side of Cleveland and Dr Sheppard's office was in the suburb where I grew up, a few blocks from my house. I was not yet in kindergarten when the murder occurred, but heard my parents discuss the case when I was old enough to understand a little better, and was glad to see him released (and shopping at the local deli) years later. His was a tragic case and he died a still-misunderstood man.

I have to say, if I'm ever arrested for a crime I didn't commit, I will absolutely find a way to get someone to send you a PM and ask you to work on the case.

I've always attributed Dr. Sheppard's Mother committing suicide eleven days after his conviction (his Father died a few days later) to the Cleveland Plain Dealer's demonization campaign and to Dr. Gerber, the coroner, providing, in my mind, willfully false testimony.

Dr. Sheppard's case demonstrates the importance of having a jury that, first and foremost, truly evaluates exonerating evidence. The blood on the stairs and in the stairwell was not Marilyn Sheppard's blood type nor was it Dr. Sheppard's blood either. In fact, testimony clearly established that, without any doubt whatsoever (per totally unchallenged testimony from multiple doctors), Dr. Sheppard had not a nick or cut anywhere on his body when he was admitted to the hospital.

No explanation came forth at trial for how the blood could have come from Dr. Sheppard. The blood was exonerating evidence. Nevertheless, the prosecutor told the jury that the blood drops had to be Dr. Sheppard's blood, because nobody else was there that night (does anyone recognize this logical fallacy by now).

In this case, the twice-knotted twine around Conner's neck is exoneratiing evidence. There was no explanation during the trial as regards the when and where for how the twine could have gotten over Conner's head and down past his ears to end up around his neck, absolutely none.

The twine around Conner's neck is to this case as the blood in the stairway and stairwell was in Dr. Sheppard's case.

When I was a little pup, my Dad use to tell me: "You never learn anything the second time a mule kicks you in the head".

[Anne2719]

I've always attributed Dr. Sheppard's Mother committing suicide eleven days after his conviction (his Father died a few days later) to the Cleveland Plain Dealer's demonization campaign and to Dr. Gerber, the coroner, providing, in my mind, willfully false testimony.

Dr. Sheppard's case demonstrates the importance of having a jury that, first and foremost, truly evaluates exonerating evidence. The blood on the stairs and in the stairwell was not Marilyn Sheppard's blood type nor was it Dr. Sheppard's blood either. In fact, testimony clearly established that, without any doubt whatsoever (per totally unchallenged testimony from multiple doctors), Dr. Sheppard had not a nick or cut anywhere on his body when he was admitted to the hospital.

No explanation came forth at trial for how the blood could have come from Dr. Sheppard. The blood was exonerating evidence. Nevertheless, the prosecutor told the jury that the blood drops had to be Dr. Sheppard's blood, because nobody else was there that night (does anyone recognize this logical fallacy by now).

In this case, the twice-knotted twine around Conner's neck is exoneratiing evidence. There was no explanation during the trial as regards the when and where for how the twine could have gotten over Conner's head and down past his ears to end up around his neck, absolutely none.

The twine around Conner's neck is to this case as the blood in the stairway and stairwell was in Dr. Sheppard's case.

When I was a little pup, my Dad use to tell me: "You never learn anything the second time a mule kicks you in the head".
I thought it was the Cleveland News that had the publisher who demonized him, but I could be remembering it wrong. And I think you're right that Dr Gerber was an evil force in the trial, deliberately perjuring himself. One odd thing was that friends of my parents lived next door to one of Dr Sheppard's brothers, and woke up to hear him leave suddenly and later return in the middle of the night. The thought at the time was that he went to help his brother stage the scene. I don't think there was any testimony about this, and I never heard an explanation. I think history has, hopefully, exonerated Dr Sheppard. Sad that it wasn't in his lifetime -- even though he was eventually found not guilty, he was never really seen as innocent.

[deputydi]

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.
This post is as far as I've gotten in an attempt to catch up but I needed to ask a serious question before I go on.

You are totally aware that motive is not an element the pros needs to prove BARD. Why do you keep insisting that this verdict was "decided absent motive" as if that is an important part of this case? It's not, it never has been and you are smart enough to know that. We all want to know why he did it to satisfy our own curiosity and put a period behind this whole thing. It's something impossible to prove because we cannot get into the killer's mind. We can speculate until Hell freezes over but it's something we'll never know unless or until the killer starts talking.

Maybe by the time I get to the end of this thread, you'll have either dropped that nonsense about motive or have given me an answer that makes sense.

[Anne2719]

I thought it was the Cleveland News that had the publisher who demonized him, but I could be remembering it wrong. And I think you're right that Dr Gerber was an evil force in the trial, deliberately perjuring himself. One odd thing was that friends of my parents lived next door to one of Dr Sheppard's brothers, and woke up to hear him leave suddenly and later return in the middle of the night. The thought at the time was that he went to help his brother stage the scene. I don't think there was any testimony about this, and I never heard an explanation. I think history has, hopefully, exonerated Dr Sheppard. Sad that it wasn't in his lifetime -- even though he was eventually found not guilty, he was never really seen as innocent.
My mistake -- it was the Cleveland Press that was the worst offender. The Plain Dealer was historically a more fair-minded newspaper, which may be why it's the only one that has survived.

[ekg]

Please tell in your opinion how Wall could actually see Laci sitting in front of the computer monitor with her fingers touching the keyboard? He can't unless he's psychic (which I don't believe in) or he was actually present in the house which I doubt. JMO.

whether you think he can do it or not isn't the issue..... the issue in the common ground thread was can we add that he said he could, but was never asked to do so, to the list of 'common ground....'

next are you going to argue that since MG didn't use his own expert then it must have been Scott online?-lol

MOO of it is that he said he could......and here's what I base that on...


193. 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?

194. No.

195. Okay. Nobody ever asked you to do that?

196. No
_____________________________



276. Back on the Windows 98 system, two people, both he and I, would normally, the way we would use this is both people would share the computer and you wouldn't have to log on separately, correct?

277. That's correct. It's not -- it was not a requirement to log on separately like it is with the Windows XP operating system now.

278. 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?

279. That's correct.

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

281. That's correct.

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

283. If it's requested, yes.

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

285. That's correct.

286. 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.

287. What I would do?

288. What you would do in order to try to determine that or to make a comparison?

289. 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.

290. 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?

291. 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.

292. 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?

293. That's correct.

294. 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?

295. That's correct.

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

297. A specific time line, no.

______________


644. Okay. And there's nothing that would indicate who the user was, whether it was Scott or Laci, unless you did the analysis that we talked about before the break, correct?



645. That's correct.



646. Okay. And if you did the analysis that we talked about before the break you could make some pretty good educated guesses as to who was actually accessing that computer, correct?



647. Correct.



he says he can....... and he says he wasn't asked to..... sorry you don't believe him...

I find it terrible funny that the one major exculpatory piece of evidence is not believed or is argued as to whether it can even be done. I almost feel like saying 'well now you know how I feel on the items I question' -lol

I don't believe Amber didn't know Scott was married... but I agreed to the statement "she says she didn't know"...

Wall says he can do it... Wall says he wasn't asked to.. what more is there to say?

ETA..I'm curious,what do you base your disbelief of Wall on anyway? and if you don't believe that part, do you believe the rest of his testimony?

[JustMyOpinion]

I've always attributed Dr. Sheppard's Mother committing suicide eleven days after his conviction (his Father died a few days later) to the Cleveland Plain Dealer's demonization campaign and to Dr. Gerber, the coroner, providing, in my mind, willfully false testimony.

Dr. Sheppard's case demonstrates the importance of having a jury that, first and foremost, truly evaluates exonerating evidence. The blood on the stairs and in the stairwell was not Marilyn Sheppard's blood type nor was it Dr. Sheppard's blood either. In fact, testimony clearly established that, without any doubt whatsoever (per totally unchallenged testimony from multiple doctors), Dr. Sheppard had not a nick or cut anywhere on his body when he was admitted to the hospital.

No explanation came forth at trial for how the blood could have come from Dr. Sheppard. The blood was exonerating evidence. Nevertheless, the prosecutor told the jury that the blood drops had to be Dr. Sheppard's blood, because nobody else was there that night (does anyone recognize this logical fallacy by now).

In this case, the twice-knotted twine around Conner's neck is exoneratiing evidence. There was no explanation during the trial as regards the when and where for how the twine could have gotten over Conner's head and down past his ears to end up around his neck, absolutely none.

The twine around Conner's neck is to this case as the blood in the stairway and stairwell was in Dr. Sheppard's case.

When I was a little pup, my Dad use to tell me: "You never learn anything the second time a mule kicks you in the head".


Reviewing the evidence in the case,I think Sheppard was guilty ( although without a doubt he deserved the new trial) I don't think the blood on the stairs was proven to be exonerating evidence, JMO. I think the tape-like material Conner was entangled in was flotsam/jetstam that the body picked up in the ocean, it isn't exonerating evidence, either, IMO.

[Wudge]

This post is as far as I've gotten in an attempt to catch up but I needed to ask a serious question before I go on.

You are totally aware that motive is not an element the pros needs to prove BARD. Why do you keep insisting that this verdict was "decided absent motive" as if that is an important part of this case? It's not, it never has been and you are smart enough to know that. We all want to know why he did it to satisfy our own curiosity and put a period behind this whole thing. It's something impossible to prove because we cannot get into the killer's mind. We can speculate until Hell freezes over but it's something we'll never know unless or until the killer starts talking.

Maybe by the time I get to the end of this thread, you'll have either dropped that nonsense about motive or have given me an answer that makes sense.

This has been oft posted elsewhere.

Larry King Show 12-14-04

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.

Beratlis's "if/then" statement conditions deductive logic. Further, Beratlis himself is included in "We". At the very least, motive was unclear in his mind.

For motive to have been used to support the verdict, 12 jurors had to agree. Beratlis proved that did not happen. Thus, motive is necessarily absent as an element supporting the verdict.

[Wudge]

Reviewing the evidence in the case,I think Sheppard was guilty

SNIP



Color me unsurprised.

[Wearing A Halo]

I've always attributed Dr. Sheppard's Mother committing suicide eleven days after his conviction (his Father died a few days later) to the Cleveland Plain Dealer's demonization campaign and to Dr. Gerber, the coroner, providing, in my mind, willfully false testimony.

Dr. Sheppard's case demonstrates the importance of having a jury that, first and foremost, truly evaluates exonerating evidence. The blood on the stairs and in the stairwell was not Marilyn Sheppard's blood type nor was it Dr. Sheppard's blood either. In fact, testimony clearly established that, without any doubt whatsoever (per totally unchallenged testimony from multiple doctors), Dr. Sheppard had not a nick or cut anywhere on his body when he was admitted to the hospital.

No explanation came forth at trial for how the blood could have come from Dr. Sheppard. The blood was exonerating evidence. Nevertheless, the prosecutor told the jury that the blood drops had to be Dr. Sheppard's blood, because nobody else was there that night (does anyone recognize this logical fallacy by now).

In this case, the twice-knotted twine around Conner's neck is exoneratiing evidence. There was no explanation during the trial as regards the when and where for how the twine could have gotten over Conner's head and down past his ears to end up around his neck, absolutely none.

The twine around Conner's neck is to this case as the blood in the stairway and stairwell was in Dr. Sheppard's case.

When I was a little pup, my Dad use to tell me: "You never learn anything the second time a mule kicks you in the head".

It is very disrespectful to Dr. Sheppard to compare him to a double murderer.

[Wudge]

My mistake -- it was the Cleveland Press that was the worst offender. The Plain Dealer was historically a more fair-minded newspaper, which may be why it's the only one that has survived.

No paper in Cleveland got the Pearl Pureheart award for their handling of the Sheppard case. And yes, many of the old Clevelander's still hold that Dr. Sheppard murdered his wife.

[Otter]

I THINK he said in his interview with Grogan in 2004 that he saw her between 2:00 and 4:00 - squating by a fence with two men standing over her then being forced into a van.

I'm not saying that this was Laci - but I think it's terrible that Tom Harshman had to call the tipline twice AND go to the command center AND have a NY police detective friend call in February 2003 to tell the MPD that his friend thinks he saw Laci and NO ONE had called him back. 2 months later - and no one had contacted this man - even though he made at least 3 attempts that we know of to contact them regarding what he saw.

In response to JMO's question of did Detective Holmes talk to him - this is what Grogan said:



and



So the call on the 28th of December was given to Detective Holmes. But Harshman's NY detective friend called in February 2003 and said the Harshmans had not been contacted - so I am assuming that Det. Holmes took down the information but no one actually interviewed Harshman until 2004.

Harshman made no mention of a dog - so the time should not have eliminated this sighting - who's to say Laci wasn't abducted earlier - but seen later in the afternoon with her abductors? I think he should have at least been talked to.

You have to wonder why Grogan would have bothered talking to Harshman after the trial started??

Sorry, I hadn't had the opportunity today to come back to my own question. I don't want to be OCD about this but now I'm pondering.

One thing that jumps out at me, and tia, I appreciate your not taking this sighting as fact but this is to others. Here are men who have just abducted a woman. She's freaking out -- scared to death. They drive 1 or 2 miles and they stop so she can pee?

Not gonna happen.

If any of us were shoved into a van by strange men, we'd pee right there. If strange men bodily forced us into a van they wouldn't have the compassion to let us not pee in our pants, and is peeing on the side of the road with an audience compassion? They're not stopping.

I don't have a clue who the Harshmans saw, and I pray she met nothing evil, but it wasn't Laci. Common sense tells me that.

Another question. Was the Croton watch appraised? I mean appraised to the extent that the stones could be identified?

[thinkaboutit]

.......

...............
As for Servas...her credibility on her timeline is critical. But, why would she purposely goof it up to hurt Scott? The BOA receipt was within reason to her story. So, is it a stretch to believe her timeline? Not to me...I see her attempts to nail down the time as wanting to assist LE with her part of the information. It was too soon in the investigation of Scott to believe that she'd already be purposefully adjusting her time sooner to Scott leaving. Again, just what feels right of the two options.

..........

I don't believe for a second that Karen Servas goofed up her timeline on purpose to hurt Scott. Just as you think it's possible that Susan Medina could have been at home when she made that call to her son - as the human memory is fallible - I believe it's possible Karen Servas was somewhere other than where she remembers being when she made that cell call. I believe this because she originally testified at prelim that she left her house at 5:05 in the afternoon on the 24th - then checked her planner and called the MPD to say she realized it must have been 4:05 - because if it was 5:05 she would not have been able to see the package in the mail box....also she testified at pre-lim that she didn't try the front gate and has no idea if it was locked - then at trial she testified that not only did she try the front gate and it was locked - but she felt slightly panicked. How do you forget feeling panicked - and then remember again a year later? I think the time stamp receipt was wrong - very wrong - and I think she adjusted the rest of her account around that receipt. Not maliciously - I just think it's possible she trusted that time stamp receipt more than her own memory - and figured she must be remembering incorrectly. You mentioned the BOA receipt - but I don't think we know what the time was on that - it was the Austin's Christmas store receipt that was introduced into evidence. The officer that testified - IIRC - couldn't remember if she had actually given him the BOA receipt or not. I definitely wish we knew what the time stamp said on her BOA receipt.

[thinkaboutit]

Sorry, I hadn't had the opportunity today to come back to my own question. I don't want to be OCD about this but now I'm pondering.

One thing that jumps out at me, and tia, I appreciate your not taking this sighting as fact but this is to others. Here are men who have just abducted a woman. She's freaking out -- scared to death. They drive 1 or 2 miles and they stop so she can pee?

Not gonna happen.

If any of us were shoved into a van by strange men, we'd pee right there. If strange men bodily forced us into a van they wouldn't have the compassion to let us not pee in our pants, and is peeing on the side of the road with an audience compassion? They're not stopping.

I don't have a clue who the Harshmans saw, and I pray she met nothing evil, but it wasn't Laci. Common sense tells me that.

Another question. Was the Croton watch appraised? I mean appraised to the extent that the stones could be identified?

To my knowledge it was not appraised. I believe Laci and Scott started the bid at $100 IIRC.

[Otter]

To my knowledge it was not appraised. I believe Laci and Scott started the bid at $100 IIRC.

Thanks. I didn't believe it was valuable. You posted earlier a question if our (the G's) minds would be open if the watch could be connected to the burglars. FD answered the question for me. Yes, of course. But without a very comprehensive appraisal where each stone is identified by it uniqueness (and all stones are unique), there's no way to prove the pawned watch ever belonged to Laci.

Kind of a nonstarter.

So, is SP the unluckiest man who ever lived or the victim of the greatest frame job ever?

Or *drumroll* did he murder his wife and baby? Yep, IMO and the opinion of a sworn jury of his peers and a judge who has been around the block a few times.

[JustMyOpinion]

No paper in Cleveland got the Pearl Pureheart award for their handling of the Sheppard case. And yes, many of the old Clevelander's still hold that Dr. Sheppard murdered his wife.


It's not just old Clevelanders who hold that Sam committed this murder, IMO.
I don't see that many similarities in the evidence in Peterson and Sheppard cases. Although they were both domestic homicides, both highly publicized, it's clear to me that Marilyn Sheppard's murder was a crime of passion, IMO. Sam Sheppard did not receive a fair trial the first time, he deserved the second trial, IMO. But, I personally ( based on the evidence brought at civil trial) don't believe the wrong man 10 years in prison before being acquitted in a second trial.. JMO

[thinkaboutit]

Thanks. I didn't believe it was valuable. You posted earlier a question if our (the G's) minds would be open if the watch could be connected to the burglars. FD answered the question for me. Yes, of course. But without a very comprehensive appraisal where each stone is identified by it uniqueness (and all stones are unique), there's no way to prove the pawned watch ever belonged to Laci.

Kind of a nonstarter.

So, is SP the unluckiest man who ever lived or the victim of the greatest frame job ever?

Or *drumroll* did he murder his wife and baby? Yep, IMO and the opinion of a sworn jury of his peers and a judge who has been around the block a few times.

Thanks Otter...now let me ask you this......if the Croton watch that DR pawned was found - and it LOOKED identical to the one that belonged to Laci.....and it was found that DR had a solid connection to the burglars and knowing this was the ONLY Croton watch that had been pawned in Modesto in the three month period beginning when Laci disappeared......wouldn't you consider that STRONG circumstantial evidence that the burglars at least came into contact with Laci that morning - after SP left the house - thus exonerating him?

[enlightenme]

Thanks. I didn't believe it was valuable. You posted earlier a question if our (the G's) minds would be open if the watch could be connected to the burglars. FD answered the question for me. Yes, of course. But without a very comprehensive appraisal where each stone is identified by it uniqueness (and all stones are unique), there's no way to prove the pawned watch ever belonged to Laci.

Kind of a nonstarter.

So, is SP the unluckiest man who ever lived or the victim of the greatest frame job ever?

Or *drumroll* did he murder his wife and baby? Yep, IMO and the opinion of a sworn jury of his peers and a judge who has been around the block a few times.

I am very tired of the phrase "there was NO evidence!"

Three criminal court judges determined that there WAS enough evidence to go to trial or to continue with the trial:

Judge Al Girolami

Judge Marie Silvera

Judge Al Delucchi

Judge Delucchi's "petri dish" quote is favored among the SII crowd, but he also said:

"The court is satisfied that the evidence before this court is sufficient to sustain a conviction on appeal," Judge Alfred A. Delucchi said in denying the motion.

IMO, the "petri dish" comment was because Geragos made a LOT of motions in-chambers that the appellate lawyers will have to comb through. I sure wish I could have been a mouse in the corner during those in-chamber meetings!

[Otter]

Thanks Otter...now let me ask you this......if the Croton watch that DR pawned was found - and it LOOKED identical to the one that belonged to Laci.....and it was found that DR had a solid connection to the burglars and knowing this was the ONLY Croton watch that had been pawned in Modesto in the three month period beginning when Laci disappeared......wouldn't you consider that STRONG circumstantial evidence that the burglars at least came into contact with Laci that morning - after SP left the house - thus exonerating him?

Hi tai, if it simply looked identical and was the only Croton pawned in a three month period, I would consider it as CE. But as strong CE, I don't think so because it would be only one piece out of so many that go to guilt.

Vincent Bugliosi described CE as a rope, where each strand makes the rope stronger. If one strand breaks, the rope is still strong. Even if two strands break its still strong...three, four, ten strands can break with no effect.

There's so much of this case I only have a memory of -- but IIRC, Laci never wore that watch. She thought it was gaudy. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't see the watch doing much to go to NG by unravelling the rope.

[Wudge]

Hi tai, if it simply looked identical and was the only Croton pawned in a three month period, I would consider it as CE. But as strong CE, I don't think so because it would be only one piece out of so many that go to guilt.

Vincent Bugliosi described CE as a rope, where each strand makes the rope stronger. If one strand breaks, the rope is still strong. Even if two strands break its still strong...three, four, ten strands can break with no effect.

There's so much of this case I only have a memory of -- but IIRC, Laci never wore that watch. She thought it was gaudy. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't see the watch doing much to go to NG by unravelling the rope.

A rope composed of corroborative evidence needs to be properly tied off.

Given that the jury reached its verdict absent motive. The figurative rope was not tied to any necessary inculpatory evidence for premeditation, deliberation, intent and malice afirethought.

[attorneywan2be]

Hi tai, if it simply looked identical and was the only Croton pawned in a three month period, I would consider it as CE. But as strong CE, I don't think so because it would be only one piece out of so many that go to guilt.

Vincent Bugliosi described CE as a rope, where each strand makes the rope stronger. If one strand breaks, the rope is still strong. Even if two strands break its still strong...three, four, ten strands can break with no effect.

There's so much of this case I only have a memory of -- but IIRC, Laci never wore that watch. She thought it was gaudy. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't see the watch doing much to go to NG by unravelling the rope.

For example, if this one piece of cirmcumstantial evidence indicates that Laci's Croton watch was in the burglars's possession...wouldn't that one piece of evidence break the entire rope of CE as you see it?

[attorneywan2be]

A rope composed of corroborative evidence needs to be properly tied off.

Given that the jury reached its verdict absent motive. The figurative rope was not tied to any necessary inculpatory evidence for premeditation, deliberation, intent and malice afirethought.

I agree Wudge....

I don't see a rope of CE at all..but even for the people that believe there was enough circumstantial evidence forming that rope, I would say that if it is proved that the pawned Croton watch was indeed Laci's..that should be exonerating evidence...period!

[Wudge]

For example, if this one piece of cirmcumstantial evidence indicates that Laci's Croton watch was in the burglars's possession...wouldn't that one piece of evidence break the entire rope of CE as you see it?


If any of Laci's jewelry was in the possession of the burglars or a close associate of the burglars, then given Bates 14765 and Steven Todd's alleged ability to see mail inside a metal security mailbox, a reasonable jury would find Scott not guilty in a second trial.

[Wudge]

I agree Wudge....

I don't see a rope of CE at all..but even for the people that believe there was enough circumstantial evidence forming that rope, I would say that if it is proved that the pawned Croton watch was indeed Laci's..that should be exonerating evidence...period!


I agree. If the Croton watch Deanna Renfro pawned was ever proven to be Laci's watch, you have to expect, at the very least, that could only be but more exonerating evidence.

[frydaddy]

I don't believe for a second that Karen Servas goofed up her timeline on purpose to hurt Scott. Just as you think it's possible that Susan Medina could have been at home when she made that call to her son - as the human memory is fallible - I believe it's possible Karen Servas was somewhere other than where she remembers being when she made that cell call. I believe this because she originally testified at prelim that she left her house at 5:05 in the afternoon on the 24th - then checked her planner and called the MPD to say she realized it must have been 4:05 - because if it was 5:05 she would not have been able to see the package in the mail box....also she testified at pre-lim that she didn't try the front gate and has no idea if it was locked - then at trial she testified that not only did she try the front gate and it was locked - but she felt slightly panicked. How do you forget feeling panicked - and then remember again a year later? I think the time stamp receipt was wrong - very wrong - and I think she adjusted the rest of her account around that receipt. Not maliciously - I just think it's possible she trusted that time stamp receipt more than her own memory - and figured she must be remembering incorrectly. You mentioned the BOA receipt - but I don't think we know what the time was on that - it was the Austin's Christmas store receipt that was introduced into evidence. The officer that testified - IIRC - couldn't remember if she had actually given him the BOA receipt or not. I definitely wish we knew what the time stamp said on her BOA receipt.

It's completely fair for you to not believe Karen Servas to be a reliable witness. Lord know that many would agree with you. But her first account, the day after Laci disappeared, she said 10:30 was the time she left. She then produces a receipt from Austin's that said, I think, 10:34. She also has a cell record of calling Tom Egan at 10:38 after Austins. She wrote Beuhler the note and provided the receipt from Austin's on 1-3-03.

You base your assumption on a few things.

One, the Austin's receipt was wrong. This is based on a test of a cash register how long after Karen had her receipt? 14 months. And it's based on a test of a cash register that was out of service at the time. To me, this doesn't really give me any pause regarding the original receipt. I could even go wild with speculation and ask if it is possible that the defense investigator went back a second time and got some lackey at Austin's to run another one, since the month is cut off of one receipt and the clerk number was cut off of another. Like perhaps the first one was thrown out and the third one was substituted. But, I'm not into all that conspiracy stuff.

Two, no Bank of America receipt. I'd think banks, of all places, would have records of deposits. If MG felt there was a way to impeach her 12-24 morning timeline, he could have proven or disproven the 10:53 time, correct? He did not.

While Karen Servas may have been a flustered witness when it came to testimony in the prelim and the trial, it was based on her recollection. The receipts and her story were only ten days old. Comparing ten months of detailed memory to ten days with documented back up is a little unfair. But as I said, this is what I believe and why, not what is fact or what you should believe.

[frydaddy]

I am very tired of the phrase "there was NO evidence!"

Three criminal court judges determined that there WAS enough evidence to go to trial or to continue with the trial:

Judge Al Girolami

Judge Marie Silvera

Judge Al Delucchi

Judge Delucchi's "petri dish" quote is favored among the SII crowd, but he also said:

"The court is satisfied that the evidence before this court is sufficient to sustain a conviction on appeal," Judge Alfred A. Delucchi said in denying the motion.

IMO, the "petri dish" comment was because Geragos made a LOT of motions in-chambers that the appellate lawyers will have to comb through. I sure wish I could have been a mouse in the corner during those in-chamber meetings!

Agree with this 100%. With all due respect to Scott's advocates, we are to believe them over experienced judges? Guess that's why I talk about the emotional investment in Scott...they appear to be craving a reversal so bad that they look at things through a biased pair of eyes. And perhaps the G's do to. But these three judges, sworn to uphold the law, it seems to be quite a leap to accuse them of all having ignored their experience and expertise in the law just to put away Scott unfairly. IMO

[thinkaboutit]

There's so much of this case I only have a memory of -- but IIRC, Laci never wore that watch. She thought it was gaudy. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't see the watch doing much to go to NG by unravelling the rope.

I personally don't think anyone could say Laci NEVER wore that watch except a person that saw her every day - and that would only be Scott. I think the following facts establish it's a good chance she was wearing that watch...

1. The watch was recently taken off of e-bay for sale.
2. We know where Laci pawned all of the jewelry she pawned - she did not pawn the Croton watch.
3. The watch is definitely missing. Scott didn't pawn it - we know that. There has been a reward for quite some time now specifically for that watch - if someone had acquired the watch, legally (as in it was purchased from Scott or Laci), there would be no reason for them NOT to come forward with it.


Which leads to only one of two conclusions for the whereabouts of that watch. IF SP is guilty - it was on her wrist and is at the bottom of the bay. Or - whoever abducted/murdered Laci has it (or pawned it).

Either scenario - Laci was wearing that watch. IMO :)

[JustMyOpinion]

I agree. If the Croton watch Deanna Renfro pawned was ever proven to be Laci's watch, you have to expect, at the very least, that could only be but more exonerating evidence.

I disagree. There has never been any indication or one iota of evidence that Deanna Renfro had access, opportunity, motive.. or had anything to do with this crime. JMO My standard for what construes "exonerating evidence" is higher than your own,JMO ( exculpatory evidence is another issue) IMO.