Common Ground?

[Otter]

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?


Absolutely not. It might raise more questions though, one being how do we know Laci was wearing it?

My recall is she didn't wear the watch. Again, I'm certainly open to correction since I honestly don't know where I read that (CC?).

CE works both ways, one piece may raise reasonable doubt, and enough CE can easily erase that doubt.

I like Bugliosi's analogy, so I'll keep using it, thanks anyway. :)

[frydaddy]

Just curious, as my memory escapes me regarding the Croton watch...

Why was no one from the pawn shop that the pawn ticket actually came from put on the stand?

Wasn't there some discussion of whether or not the Croton watch was working?

Why wasn't the Renfro woman called as a witness?

TIA for indulging me in what may be redundant questions!!!

[attorneywan2be]

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.

Here is the problem with Karen Servas's timeline about finding the dog at 10:18 am:

At 10:18 am she saw McKenzie as she was backing out of her driveway..
-She pulled her car over to the curb..
-She walked over to McKenzie, as he was standing there staring at her..
-She looked at his tag to make sure it was actually McKenzie..
-she grabbed his leash..
-She walked across her lawn to the Peterson's front gate..
-She tried the gate and found it locked..
-She continued to walk across their lawn and went around the corner to the side gate..
-She found the side gate open, she walked with McKenzie into the backyard..
-She walked with the dog along the cement by the pool up to the end of the house and looked to the left.
-She walked back with Mckenzie and went under the covered patio..
-She said to Mckenzie "stay ..bye-bye", she left and closed the gate..
-She walked across both lawns..
-She realized that her hands were dirty and decided to go back to her house..
-She washed her hands..
-She walked back to her car by the curb and drove away..!

It would probably have taken her 4 minutes to do all that..however, let's say it took her 3 minutes..that would mean that she left to do her errands at 10:21..

Using mapquest:
At 10:21 she departed from 517 Covena ( her house)
At 10:26 she arrived at 1061 I st ( Bank of America) she circled the parking lot twice could not find a parking space ( let's say it took her 2 minutes to do that)
At 10:28 she departed from 1061 I st.(BOA)
At 10:31 she arrived at 701 I st (Austin's).

According to the receipt she completed her purchase at 10:34 am..
Here is the question: how was it possible for Karen Servas to do the following in 3 minutes:
Find a parking space, park her car, walk to the store, find two Christmas ornaments, stand in line, and pay for her purchase..?!

It's not realistic, and it is even more problematic in light of what she testified to in regards to a phone call she made..

Let's look at that, she testified in the Preliminary Hearing that she left the store, went back to her car and made a phone call.. here is the problem, according to her cell records that phone call was placed at 10:38 am...so it took her 4 minutes to walk from the store to her car...

However, she testified in the trial, that she made that phone call when she was between Austin's and Starbucks, however, the trip from Austins to Starbucks would only take 1 minute, even if we are to accept her testimony at the trial, then we can safely say that it took her 3 1/2 minutes to walk from the store, to get in her car, and to pull out of her parking place..
Yet it only took her 3 minutes from the moment she arrived at Austins'a address until she paid for her purchase..

[thinkaboutit]

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.


I don't remember the cash register being out of service?

I would think the MPD - if they wanted to do a thorough investigation - would have wanted to verify the accuracy of the time stamp receipt - but they didn't. So we are only left with the defense's checking of the accuracy - and they say both of those receipts were printed at the same time. This was a seasonal store. I think that leaves a huge margin for human error in programming the time into the registers. So does the fact that it was inaccurate 14 months later prove it was inaccurate in 2002 - no. But it's an indicator to me - that it's possible it was wrong. Since researching this case - I've started paying attention to the times on my receipts - and they are wrong ALOT.

I agree that the BOA receipt would have been good evidence to secure Servas' timeline. And the fact that the prosecution took the time to present a faded receipt from Austin's that could not be read anymore - but did not present the BOA receipt - is a huge red flag to me. It leads me to speculate that it did not verify Karen's version of events that day - so they ignored it. As far as why didn't Geragos get the receipt? Who knows. Why didn't Geragos call the website coordinator from SF Ports to testify that in order for Scott to view the map he did - he would have clicked on Current Maps and not Tides and not Currents.??? I think Geragos felt he was establishing reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds simply with his cross-examinations. Bad move. Why didn't Geragos discover the Aponte tip in the discovery prior to 3 weeks before the end of the trial? According to the prosecution - it was there - bad move. Geragos made mistakes - no question there.

[thinkaboutit]

Just curious, as my memory escapes me regarding the Croton watch...

Why was no one from the pawn shop that the pawn ticket actually came from put on the stand?

Wasn't there some discussion of whether or not the Croton watch was working?

Why wasn't the Renfro woman called as a witness?

TIA for indulging me in what may be redundant questions!!!

Sorry for the short answers - but I'm racing to get ready to go out of town for the weekend! If my husband comes home and finds me on the computer - and not ready - I'm going to be in BIG trouble! :eek:

I don't have any idea why the pawn shop owner was put on the stand. Dalton says in his book that the pawn shop owner was very uncooperative.

Grogan suspected the battery was dead in the watch - from viewing the video of the watch - as the time did not change in the video.

I've speculated that Renfro couldn't be found - or she was uncooperative. You don't put an uncooperative witness on the stand in hopes that being under oath, they will tell the truth. And you don't subpeona a witness and put them on the stand without knowing what the answers to your questions will be.

Ask away - Frydaddy! I don't mind! You are a very friendly debater!! I appreciate that!!

I hope EVERYONE has a GREAT weekend!

[enlightenme]

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.

It would have to be investigated and proven how Renfro came into possession of the watch (if they can prove it is indeed Laci's).

For instance, what if Scott threw it in the park on his way to the warehouse to support the theory that Laci disappeared in the park? There are many scenarios that could also point to guilty.

This reminds me, on the CourtTV board during the trial, some poster actually said, "The Croton watch has been scientifically proven to be Laci's." Huh? LOL!

JMO

[thinkaboutit]

Nope.

For instance, I believe Scott dropped McKenzie off away from the house with leash attached to make it look lake Laci had been abducted walking the dog. I believe Laci was already dead when he did this. He could also have taken Laci's watch & dropped it on the ground in the park knowing that someone might pick it up, thus throwing suspicion on whoever ended up with it. If indeed the pawned watch was Laci's we'd have to go back to whoever pawned it (DR was on the slip as I recall, and she also redeemed it) and find out where SHE got it. If she found it laying on the ground, that's not "exonerating evidence...period!" by a long shot.

And - separate point - you CAN find people and you CAN make them testify. That's what subpoena and service of process are all about! If you serve a witness with a subpoena they MUST appear and testify or they face charges THEMSELVES, including being subject to a warrant and being picked up and held in custody, then forced to testify. A man's life was on the line - the defense team could have brought in anyone they felt they needed. Perhaps rather than immediately assuming the defense didn't do their job, we can also consider the possibility that they did do their job, found nothing there, and THAT is why nobody else involved with the watch was called. Perhaps Geragos put on what he could to cloud the issue without going so far that the prosecution could shut him down on cross.

But if DR has ties to the burglars across the street - reasonably - what are the chances that she found that watch in the park?

Adnoid - you keep making this point about subpoenas - but you can't make someone tell the truth - you just can't.

[thinkaboutit]

It would have to be investigated and proven how Renfro came into possession of the watch (if they can prove it is indeed Laci's).

For instance, what if Scott threw it in the park on his way to the warehouse to support the theory that Laci disappeared in the park? There are many scenarios that could also point to guilty.

This reminds me, on the CourtTV board during the trial, some poster actually said, "The Croton watch has been scientifically proven to be Laci's." Huh? LOL!
JMO

How does this remind you of that. We are just discussing a hypothetical situation here.

[attorneywan2be]

Nope.

For instance, I believe Scott dropped McKenzie off away from the house with leash attached to make it look lake Laci had been abducted walking the dog. I believe Laci was already dead when he did this. He could also have taken Laci's watch & dropped it on the ground in the park knowing that someone might pick it up, thus throwing suspicion on whoever ended up with it. If indeed the pawned watch was Laci's we'd have to go back to whoever pawned it (DR was on the slip as I recall, and she also redeemed it) and find out where SHE got it. If she found it laying on the ground, that's not "exonerating evidence...period!" by a long shot.

snip



There was ZERO evidence Scott did what you suggested..so the jury cannot speculate as you did..the Croton watch would be considered exonerating evidence in the court of law..

I have a question: if it is your theory that Scott staged the abduction by letting McKenzie loose somewhere away from the house..can you explain, in light of your theory, why on Dec 25th Scott rejected two witnesses reports about seeing Laci walking in the park on Dec 24th?

[JustMyOpinion]

He could also have taken Laci's watch & dropped it on the ground in the park knowing that someone might pick it up, thus throwing suspicion on whoever ended up with it. If indeed the pawned watch was Laci's we'd have to go back to whoever pawned it (DR was on the slip as I recall, and she also redeemed it) and find out where SHE got it. If she found it laying on the ground, that's not "exonerating evidence...period!" by a long shot.

.

ITA with you.

[JustMyOpinion]

There was ZERO evidence Scott did what you suggested..so the jury cannot speculate as you did..the Croton watch would be considered exonerating evidence in the court of law..

I

Excuse me, attorneywan2be, but this is a message board where posters are allowed to speculate,( just as you are speculating on hypotheticals and speculating as to what would be considered exonerating evidence in a court of law.) Adnoid simply posted another possible explanation for how "Laci's" croton watch could have been found by someone, and you have no right to hold Adnoid to a standard on this board that you do not adhere to yourself. Are we jury members, or message board posters? I DO want your answer on this, because you are a moderator here ( and I think you owe the OP an apology).

[Otter]

Here's some info on the watch and other jewelry.

Three weeks before his wife went missing, Scott Peterson tried to sell a diamond-encrusted watch she had recently inherited on eBay, but failed to find any takers for the gaudy heirloom, an employee of the online auction site testified Wednesday at his capital trial.

Nils Myers, the supervisor of eBay's fraud investigations department, took the stand at the request of prosecutors, but his testimony appeared primarily to benefit the defense.

The gold watch has never been found, and Peterson's lawyers claim his wife, Laci, may have been abducted for the flashy timepiece. Specifically, they have pointed to a pawn shop receipt indicating a woman sold a watch matching the description of the bejeweled Croton on Dec. 31, 2002, six days after the mother-to-be vanished.

About a month before her disappearance, Laci Peterson inherited the watch and a stash of jewelry from her grandmother's estate. Her half-sister, Amy Rocha, previously testified that the expectant mother wore some of the items, but turned up her nose at the fancy watch, saying it was "not her style." The Petersons pawned some of the jewelry, including a gold chain.


http://www.findlaci2003.us/witness-myers-ebay.html

More on all the jewelry here:

http://www.findlaci2003.us/trial-jewelers.html

I still question that the watch was really Laci's. Not that it matters.

[frydaddy]

Here is the problem with Karen Servas's timeline about finding the dog at 10:18 am:

At 10:18 am she saw McKenzie as she was backing out of her driveway..
-She pulled her car over to the curb..
-She walked over to McKenzie, as he was standing there staring at her..
-She looked at his tag to make sure it was actually McKenzie..
-she grabbed his leash..
-She walked across her lawn to the Peterson's front gate..
-She tried the gate and found it locked..
-She continued to walk across their lawn and went around the corner to the side gate..
-She found the side gate open, she walked with McKenzie into the backyard..
-She walked with the dog along the cement by the pool up to the end of the house and looked to the left.
-She walked back with Mckenzie and went under the covered patio..
-She said to Mckenzie "stay ..bye-bye", she left and closed the gate..
-She walked across both lawns..
-She realized that her hands were dirty and decided to go back to her house..
-She washed her hands..
-She walked back to her car by the curb and drove away..!

It would probably have taken her 4 minutes to do all that..however, let's say it took her 3 minutes..that would mean that she left to do her errands at 10:21..

Using mapquest:
At 10:21 she departed from 517 Covena ( her house)
At 10:26 she arrived at 1061 I st ( Bank of America) she circled the parking lot twice could not find a parking space ( let's say it took her 2 minutes to do that)
At 10:28 she departed from 1061 I st.(BOA)
At 10:31 she arrived at 701 I st (Austin's).

According to the receipt she completed her purchase at 10:34 am..
Here is the question: how was it possible for Karen Servas to do the following in 3 minutes:
Find a parking space, park her car, walk to the store, find two Christmas ornaments, stand in line, and pay for her purchase..?!

It's not realistic, and it is even more problematic in light of what she testified to in regards to a phone call she made..

Let's look at that, she testified in the Preliminary Hearing that she left the store, went back to her car and made a phone call.. here is the problem, according to her cell records that phone call was placed at 10:38 am...so it took her 4 minutes to walk from the store to her car...

However, she testified in the trial, that she made that phone call when she was between Austin's and Starbucks, however, the trip from Austins to Starbucks would only take 1 minute, even if we are to accept her testimony at the trial, then we can safely say that it took her 3 1/2 minutes to walk from the store, to get in her car, and to pull out of her parking place..
Yet it only took her 3 minutes from the moment she arrived at Austins'a address until she paid for her purchase..

I can appeciate your efforts here and I know that I have seen similar type deductions in the past. The factors that I have with it is that a)Mapquest is unreliable in determining times relative to distance, b)one would have to assume that the cash register and the cell record timing mechanisms are in sync, and c)there is no way to estimate how long she shopped, if there was a line, or how much effort she put into shopping. It seems to come down to a minute or two here or there based on the two times we know of, not enough to reasonably impeach her story. MO, of course.

[attorneywan2be]

Excuse me, attorneywan2be, but this is a message board where posters are allowed to speculate,( just as you are speculating on hypotheticals and speculating as to what would be considered exonerating evidence in a court of law.) Adnoid simply posted another possible explanation for how "Laci's" croton watch could have been found by someone, and you have no right to hold Adnoid to a standard on this board that you do not adhere to yourself. Are we jury members, or message board posters? I DO want your answer on this, because you are a moderator here ( and I think you owe the OP an apology).

Excuse me JustMyOpinion..where did I say that we are not allowed to speculate on a message board? I think it is very clear that I said the jury CANNOT speculate..not us..in other words, since they cannot speculate as we do, then they should consider the Croton watch exonerating evidence...why not?

[attorneywan2be]

You want to stick to what was in court, that's fine as long as it's the same rule for both sides. Which would mean no bringing up burglars, for instance.

Your call.

Adnoid..where did I say that we should stick to what was in court..I stated my opinion, that since the jury cannot speculate then they should consider the Croton watch an exonerating evidence..

Then I went on to ask you a question based on your theory...( you snipped that part of my post) in other words, I have no problem discussing theories...don't you agree?..it was you who ignored that part of my post where I had a question..I hope you would address it...thanks

[frydaddy]

I don't remember the cash register being out of service?

I would think the MPD - if they wanted to do a thorough investigation - would have wanted to verify the accuracy of the time stamp receipt - but they didn't. So we are only left with the defense's checking of the accuracy - and they say both of those receipts were printed at the same time. This was a seasonal store. I think that leaves a huge margin for human error in programming the time into the registers. So does the fact that it was inaccurate 14 months later prove it was inaccurate in 2002 - no. But it's an indicator to me - that it's possible it was wrong. Since researching this case - I've started paying attention to the times on my receipts - and they are wrong ALOT.

I agree that the BOA receipt would have been good evidence to secure Servas' timeline. And the fact that the prosecution took the time to present a faded receipt from Austin's that could not be read anymore - but did not present the BOA receipt - is a huge red flag to me. It leads me to speculate that it did not verify Karen's version of events that day - so they ignored it. As far as why didn't Geragos get the receipt? Who knows. Why didn't Geragos call the website coordinator from SF Ports to testify that in order for Scott to view the map he did - he would have clicked on Current Maps and not Tides and not Currents.??? I think Geragos felt he was establishing reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds simply with his cross-examinations. Bad move. Why didn't Geragos discover the Aponte tip in the discovery prior to 3 weeks before the end of the trial? According to the prosecution - it was there - bad move. Geragos made mistakes - no question there.

According to testimony:

HARRIS: Now, those particular registers, when the holiday shops are, it's done, you close up for the season, do you put those registers out of service or commission?
AUSTIN: Out of service.
HARRIS: So they sit and they kind of wait until the next holiday season to be used again?
AUSTIN: That's correct.
HARRIS: So this defense investigator came in asked you to pull these out of storage, turn them on and check them in 2004 to see if it was accurate back in 2002?
AUSTIN: Yes, sir.

My only other thought on the Austin's receipt is that KS gave that to them as part of her note correcting her timeline. She did not give them the BOA receipt and Bertalotto, I believe, told her to keep that info in case someone requests it later. I suppose they could have added it to the already huge case they built, what's an extra page or two with all that, right? LOL Perhaps they could have added it to be thorough, but I don't know that they felt it would be necessary to prove it. I'd think it would be up to MG to bring it up and impeach her.

[frydaddy]

Sorry for the short answers - but I'm racing to get ready to go out of town for the weekend! If my husband comes home and finds me on the computer - and not ready - I'm going to be in BIG trouble! :eek:

I don't have any idea why the pawn shop owner was put on the stand. Dalton says in his book that the pawn shop owner was very uncooperative.

Grogan suspected the battery was dead in the watch - from viewing the video of the watch - as the time did not change in the video.

I've speculated that Renfro couldn't be found - or she was uncooperative. You don't put an uncooperative witness on the stand in hopes that being under oath, they will tell the truth. And you don't subpeona a witness and put them on the stand without knowing what the answers to your questions will be.

Ask away - Frydaddy! I don't mind! You are a very friendly debater!! I appreciate that!!

I hope EVERYONE has a GREAT weekend!

LOL - I am one of those husbands, so I completely understand! I realize you probably won't read this until you return (if at all), but I hope you enjoyed yourself. Thanks for the complement, I find you to be quite pleasant, even in disagreement, as well! ;)

[JustMyOpinion]

Excuse me JustMyOpinion..where did I say that we are not allowed to speculate on a message board? I think it is very clear that I said the jury CANNOT speculate..not us..in other words, since they cannot speculate as we do, then they should consider the Croton watch exonerating evidence...why not?

Are we message board posters, or jury members? Are we only to discuss the actual evidence that was presented in trial, or are we also able to discuss hypotheticals, theories, ( which all call for speculation)? I want this clarified. TIA

[attorneywan2be]

I can appeciate your efforts here and I know that I have seen similar type deductions in the past. The factors that I have with it is that a)Mapquest is unreliable in determining times relative to distance, b)one would have to assume that the cash register and the cell record timing mechanisms are in sync, and c)there is no way to estimate how long she shopped, if there was a line, or how much effort she put into shopping. It seems to come down to a minute or two here or there based on the two times we know of, not enough to reasonably impeach her story. MO, of course.

Mapquest doesn't take into account unusual situations where the traffic would be either too light or too heavy..however, it is my experience that traffic on Christmas eve is very heavy and stores are packed..according to Karen's testimony, she was not able to find a parking place at the bank..if anything, that would indicate the traffic was probably heavy on that day..

[accordn2me]

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...

____

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?If it were a major exculpatory piece of evidence.....the defense would have hired an expert to do the analysis, don'tcha think?

Just curious....how long do you think it would take to strangle/suffocate someone to death?

[attorneywan2be]

Are we message board posters, or jury members? Are we only to discuss the actual evidence that was presented in trial, or are we also able to discuss hypotheticals, theories, ( which all call for speculation)? I want this clarified. TIA

Please read my entire post in question including the part you snipped..TIA..

You would agree that it is clear that I was talking regarding 2 situations..1- in terms of the jury, they cannot speculate thus the Croton watch should be exonerating..2- in terms of Adnoid's speculation, I asked him a question based on his theory..(the part you snipped)..

[frydaddy]

Mapquest doesn't take into account unusual situations where the traffic would be either too light or too heavy..however, it is my experience that traffic on Christmas eve is very heavy and stores are packed..according to Karen's testimony, she was not able to find a parking place at the bank..if anything, that would indicate the traffic was probably heavy on that day..

I understand your point...if the Austin's receipt was printed at 10:37 per the actual cell phone tower clock (in other words, they were three minutes apart at a particular moment), then that gives her three additional minutes. Or, if you add five minutes onto her backtrack, she found the dog at 10:13 instead of 10:18. Both of which are reasonable and not helpful to SP, IMO! Of course I realize that it could swing the other way, but I still do not see anything relevant to the theories about the burglars.

[JustMyOpinion]

Please read my entire post in question including the part you snipped..TIA..

You would agree that it is clear that I was talking regarding 2 situations..1- in terms of the jury, they cannot speculate thus the Croton watch should be exonerating..2- in terms of Adnoid's speculation, I asked him a question based on his theory..(the part you snipped)..

Obviously I would not agree that you were "clear". You did not type "thus the watch SHOULD BE exonerating." Is that how you meant to type it?

[attorneywan2be]

I understand your point...if the Austin's receipt was printed at 10:37 per the actual cell phone tower clock (in other words, they were three minutes apart at a particular moment), then that gives her three additional minutes. Or, if you add five minutes onto her backtrack, she found the dog at 10:13 instead of 10:18. Both of which are reasonable and not helpful to SP, IMO! Of course I realize that it could swing the other way, but I still do not see anything relevant to the theories about the burglars.

My point is, if her timeline as she testified to could be proved unrealistic.. then that could indicate that she was mistaken about her timeline, thus, it should not have any bearing on the credibility of Lt. Aponte's report..

[accordn2me]

Obviously I would not agree that you were "clear". You did not type "thus the watch SHOULD BE exonerating." Is that how you meant to type it?
IF the watch SHOULD BE, or could be, exonerating evidence......do you....believe the Peterson's would be offering more than a mere $5,000 for it's return?

Just curious...when a family offers such a reward......does that money have to be escrowed....or whatever (set aside)?

[JustMyOpinion]

IF the watch SHOULD BE, or could be, exonerating evidence......do you....believe the Peterson's would be offering more than a mere $5,000 for it's return?

Just curious...when a family offers such a reward......does that money have to be escrowed....or whatever (set aside)?

I doubt there is any law which would dictate the Peterson family must set aside reward money in an account, so it would be a matter of someone trusting the Petersons to pay them 5 grand, IMO
I am sure there are many Croton watches out there in this world that match the description of Laci's watch..the Petersons could easily purchase one, IMO.
A watch by itself is not going to be evidence of anything relating to Laci Peterson, IMO..anyone who goes after that reward will be setting themselves up for the Petersons to potentially try to implicate them in a serious crime, IMO.

[Wearing A Halo]

There was ZERO evidence Scott did what you suggested..so the jury cannot speculate as you did..the Croton watch would be considered exonerating evidence in the court of law..

I have a question: if it is your theory that Scott staged the abduction by letting McKenzie loose somewhere away from the house..can you explain, in light of your theory, why on Dec 25th Scott rejected two witnesses reports about seeing Laci walking in the park on Dec 24th?

Where is the link to these two witnesses reports? You've have brought this topic before and it is bothering you some. You can always go to CCADP and write to ask DRISP and hope that happyhaddock sends it off to him and you get an answer. BTW-just how did DRISP approach this info? Did these witnesses come up to him and he just said, 'No, it wasn't her.' or did he ponder it and asked to be taken to the spot and then after consideration said, 'No, it wasn't her.'?? It is a red flag not to consider anything and everything when Laci went "missing" in his case. IMO, he knew where Laci was.

[frydaddy]

My point is, if her timeline as she testified to could be proved unrealistic.. then that could indicate that she was mistaken about her timeline, thus, it should not have any bearing on the credibility of Lt. Aponte's report..

And my point is, despite the best efforts of folks to prove otherwise, her timeline for the morning of the 24th is NOT unrealistic. Matter of fact, I believe it to be rock solid. And I think this because I think MG would have torn this to shreds on it's own merit as opposed to try and disqualify her based on mail she saw and/or the evening time issue (4:05 vs 5:05). Why not impeach the pertinent issue, if you can?

[attorneywan2be]

Where is the link to these two witnesses reports? You've have brought this topic before and it is bothering you some. You can always go to CCADP and write to ask DRISP and hope that happyhaddock sends it off to him and you get an answer. BTW-just how did DRISP approach this info? Did these witnesses come up to him and he just said, 'No, it wasn't her.' or did he ponder it and asked to be taken to the spot and then after consideration said, 'No, it wasn't her.'?? It is a red flag not to consider anything and everything when Laci went "missing" in his case. IMO, he knew where Laci was.

I don't have a question to ask Scott...

I was addressing the question to the people who think Scott staged the abduction by letting McKenzie loose...IMO, had he staged the abduction he would have been quick to accept those two witnesses reports that they saw Laci walking in the park..after all, that would have been the objective of staging the abduction...he was truthful because he was seriously looking for Laci..

Susan Aquino, Sharon's sister..on direct..

Rick Distaso: And some officers come to the door?
Susan Aquino: Hm-hmm.
Rick Distaso: And what do they say?
Susan Aquino: They let Scott know that there was two witnesses down at the park saying that they saw walking over at the walking bridge, you walk over the bridge, the walking bridge or whatever.
Rick Distaso: I'm sorry. One of the bridges down in the park?
Susan Aquino: Yes.
Rick Distaso: And what did the defendant say, if anything?
Susan Aquino: Well, I kind of got excited somebody had seen her and I said, well, what do you think. He says that wasn't Laci. He says, she doesn't go that way.

[attorneywan2be]

Why was he himself looking for Laci in the park on the evening of the 24th?


The witnesses reported seeing Laci by the walking bridge in the park..he stated that was not a route she would take..

Rick Distaso: And some officers come to the door?
Susan Aquino: Hm-hmm.
Rick Distaso: And what do they say?
Susan Aquino: They let Scott know that there was two witnesses down at the park saying that they saw walking over at the walking bridge, you walk over the bridge, the walking bridge or whatever.
Rick Distaso: I'm sorry. One of the bridges down in the park?
Susan Aquino: Yes.
Rick Distaso: And what did the defendant say, if anything?
Susan Aquino: Well, I kind of got excited somebody had seen her and I said, well, what do you think. He says that wasn't Laci. He says, she doesn't go that way.

[JustMyOpinion]

The witnesses reported seeing Laci by the walking bridge in the park..he stated that was not a route she would take..

Rick Distaso: And some officers come to the door?
Susan Aquino: Hm-hmm.
Rick Distaso: And what do they say?
Susan Aquino: They let Scott know that there was two witnesses down at the park saying that they saw walking over at the walking bridge, you walk over the bridge, the walking bridge or whatever.
Rick Distaso: I'm sorry. One of the bridges down in the park?
Susan Aquino: Yes.
Rick Distaso: And what did the defendant say, if anything?
Susan Aquino: Well, I kind of got excited somebody had seen her and I said, well, what do you think. He says that wasn't Laci. He says, she doesn't go that way.


What does this have to do with the OP's question? Why do you think SP told Sharon he would meet her at the park, why did HE take the dog and go to the park, IYO? Do his words to Sharon in their conversation and his subsequent actions indicate Scott was leading Sharon ( and others) to the park? IYO? What does his comment about Laci's route have to do with the OP's question?

[accordn2me]

Why was he himself looking for Laci in the park on the evening of the 24th?

I know:seeya: I know:seeya: PICK ME!:seeya:

[JustMyOpinion]

I don't have a question to ask Scott...

I was addressing the question to the people who think Scott staged the abduction by letting McKenzie loose...IMO, had he staged the abduction he would have been quick to accept those two witnesses reports that they saw Laci walking in the park..after all, that would have been the objective of staging the abduction...he was truthful because he was seriously looking for Laci..

Susan Aquino, Sharon's sister..on direct..

Rick Distaso: And some officers come to the door?
Susan Aquino: Hm-hmm.
Rick Distaso: And what do they say?
Susan Aquino: They let Scott know that there was two witnesses down at the park saying that they saw walking over at the walking bridge, you walk over the bridge, the walking bridge or whatever.
Rick Distaso: I'm sorry. One of the bridges down in the park?
Susan Aquino: Yes.
Rick Distaso: And what did the defendant say, if anything?
Susan Aquino: Well, I kind of got excited somebody had seen her and I said, well, what do you think. He says that wasn't Laci. He says, she doesn't go that way.

Susan Aquino overheard this conversation between SP & two officers on 12/25. I think it's entirely possible Scott was trying to shift some things in his initial "story", by then ( for example, later in the day he gave detailed information about what he was fishing for, when he couldn't say the night before). And, based on the evidence, I don't think SP was ever "seriously looking for Laci". Like his double life before he murdered ( where he gave the appearance of a loving devoted husband & expectant father, while doing other things away from Modesto that nobody associated with Laci knew about.), he was only trying to give the appearance he was seriously searching,, IMO

[JustMyOpinion]

he was only trying to give the appearance he was seriously searching,, IMO

Oh, except for the three, known trips he made to the Bay, only then do I believe he was "seriously looking for Laci".. JMO

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/02/national/main640635.shtml
AP) The witnesses described how Peterson visited the Berkley Marina three times — on Jan. 5, Jan. 6 and Jan. 9 — as police scoured the bay for Laci's body. Witnesses noted that Peterson drove at speeds approaching 90 mph, at times in rental cars.

[attorneywan2be]

What does this have to do with the OP's question? Why do you think SP told Sharon he would meet her at the park, why did HE take the dog and go to the park, IYO? Do his words to Sharon in their conversation and his subsequent actions indicate Scott was leading Sharon ( and others) to the park? IYO? What does his comment about Laci's route have to do with the OP's question?

You asked:

"What does his comment about Laci's route have to do with the OP's question?"

What are you talking about? please elaborate..


It was Sharon who decided to go to the park..in addition, Scott knew that Laci was going to walk the dog..and that normally she would go to the park..

So what if it was Scott who suggested to go look for her at the park? what's the significance of that IYO?

Sharon Rocha: And so we hung up at that time and I remember changing my clothes that time. I was already dressing warmer because I just felt I knew something was wrong and I knew that I felt I needed to go to the park because he said the dog has his leash on so my first thought is she would have been walking the dog.
Rick Distaso: Okay. Hold it. Let me stop you for a second. So he since called two times, right?
Sharon Rocha: Yes.
Rick Distaso: Keep going then.
Sharon Rocha: The third time he called he said the neighbors hadn't seen her. Nobody had seen her. And I told him I was going to go to the park. And I believe it was after the second call that I had told Ron to call the hospitals and the police because I knew, I just knew something was wrong. Then when I, after the third,

[attorneywan2be]

Susan Aquino overheard this conversation between SP & two officers on 12/25. I think it's entirely possible Scott was trying to shift some things in his initial "story", by then ( for example, later in the day he gave detailed information about what he was fishing for, when he couldn't say the night before). And, based on the evidence, I don't think SP was ever "seriously looking for Laci". Like his double life before he murdered ( where he gave the appearance of a loving devoted husband & expectant father, while doing other things away from Modesto that nobody associated with Laci knew about.), he was only trying to give the appearance he was seriously searching,, IMO

You are entitled to your opinion..

IMO, this incident completely refutes the "Scott staged the abduction" theory...

[Wearing A Halo]

I don't have a question to ask Scott...

I was addressing the question to the people who think Scott staged the abduction by letting McKenzie loose...IMO, had he staged the abduction he would have been quick to accept those two witnesses reports that they saw Laci walking in the park..after all, that would have been the objective of staging the abduction...he was truthful because he was seriously looking for Laci..

Susan Aquino, Sharon's sister..on direct..

Rick Distaso: And some officers come to the door?
Susan Aquino: Hm-hmm.
Rick Distaso: And what do they say?
Susan Aquino: They let Scott know that there was two witnesses down at the park saying that they saw walking over at the walking bridge, you walk over the bridge, the walking bridge or whatever.
Rick Distaso: I'm sorry. One of the bridges down in the park?
Susan Aquino: Yes.
Rick Distaso: And what did the defendant say, if anything?
Susan Aquino: Well, I kind of got excited somebody had seen her and I said, well, what do you think. He says that wasn't Laci. He says, she doesn't go that way.

Here's the deal: even if he had nothing to do with Laci's disappearance, he had to consider any direction she may have gone towards. As you say-after all, he didn't jump to the possibility that she might have been in that spot-the bridge, after all, as you say, it might have been a morning decision for Laci to go to the bridge and DRISP did not care to check it out because he knew otherwise that he took her to the bay. All I am saying is no matter what DRISP was thinking, he should not have dismissed the two witnesses so quickly. Think about it- A: staged abduction-check out the two witnesses. B: no staged abduction-check out the two witnesses. One cannot go wrong in either A or B, but, DRISP didn't even bother two both-RED FLAG!!!

[ekg]

If it were a major exculpatory piece of evidence.....the defense would have hired an expert to do the analysis, don'tcha think?


again..... MG not getting his expert is not the issue.. you are trying to re-direct the issue for what reason? Does the theory that she was alive that morning threaten the case? well sure it does b/c it gives Scott even less time to pull of the perfect foresenically free crime...

The issue is....... did Wall say he could do it.. can I get any answer to that single question...

why didn't MG get his own expert? Well IIRC he says b/c he just found out about it in court the day Wall testified to it.... is that the real reason? IDK.. it's not issue...

But did it look better to have the DA's expert testify for MG that Yes it could have been Laci instead of having a Def. expert testify for RD that while it looked like Laci he wouldn't be able to tell with 100% certainty.. Of course it did... MG turned alot of the DA's witness and used them as his own experts.. it's a great strategy if you think about it... b/c it's much better to have his guy say something postive for you than to have your guy say something postive for him...

on top of that it's cheaper.... and this was an expensive case... why should he have paid someone to say exactly what the DA's expert had just said? answer...he shouldn't have.


Just curious....how long do you think it would take to strangle/suffocate someone to death?

and your point? if it took 2 minutes to strangle/suffocate her he still only has approx 60 minutes to get her wrapped up, house cleaned up and then her body out and into the truck in the middle of the morning with neighbors all around... are you saying this is what he did? I mean I guess it's possible since he left her all alone in the boat tied to the dock while he drove his truck away and parked it..... but I just don't see it as being likely...

[ekg]

Susan Aquino overheard this conversation between SP & two officers on 12/25. I think it's entirely possible Scott was trying to shift some things in his initial "story", by then ( for example, later in the day he gave detailed information about what he was fishing for, when he couldn't say the night before). And, based on the evidence, I don't think SP was ever "seriously looking for Laci". Like his double life before he murdered ( where he gave the appearance of a loving devoted husband & expectant father, while doing other things away from Modesto that nobody associated with Laci knew about.), he was only trying to give the appearance he was seriously searching,, IMO


hehe.......

a statment is made he wouldn't have staged an abduction and then turn away witnesses..implying that he'd want everyone and anyone to back up his story.

a question is asked to provide a link for this.... the implication is that it cannot be true b/c really, why would he turn away a witness when it only helps his story?

a link is provided which proves atleast one person in Laci's family heard the exchange... and then instead of asking 'why would a guilty man do that when it helps his story'... it's turned around to 'he wasn't really looking for her anyway'...and the issue is changed to where the person defending their statement now has to prove his was looking for her...HA!:chicken:

my friend debates politics this way..... it's brilliant IMO.:)

[ekg]

Please read my entire post in question including the part you snipped..TIA..

You would agree that it is clear that I was talking regarding 2 situations..1- in terms of the jury, they cannot speculate thus the Croton watch should be exonerating..2- in terms of Adnoid's speculation, I asked him a question based on his theory..(the part you snipped)..


hey AW2B....... didn't Scott ask Karan S. to go thru her timeline again to make absolute sure she was right and thats when she came up with her revised timeline?

[ekg]

What does this have to do with the OP's question? Why do you think SP told Sharon he would meet her at the park, why did HE take the dog and go to the park, IYO? Do his words to Sharon in their conversation and his subsequent actions indicate Scott was leading Sharon ( and others) to the park? IYO? What does his comment about Laci's route have to do with the OP's question?

well IMO it tells me he wanted Sharon et all to look in the park where Laci's normal route was instead of wasting time in a part of the park that she didn't go to....

seeems reasonable to me and I can't understand what makes it sinister.... :shrug:

[cookiewench]

Here's the deal: even if he had nothing to do with Laci's disappearance, he had to consider any direction she may have gone towards. As you say-after all, he didn't jump to the possibility that she might have been in that spot-the bridge, after all, as you say, it might have been a morning decision for Laci to go to the bridge and DRISP did not care to check it out because he knew otherwise that he took her to the bay. All I am saying is no matter what DRISP was thinking, he should not have dismissed the two witnesses so quickly. Think about it- A: staged abduction-check out the two witnesses. B: no staged abduction-check out the two witnesses. One cannot go wrong in either A or B, but, DRISP didn't even bother two both-RED FLAG!!!


There could be a number of reasons why he dismissed alleged sightings at the beginning. He could have thought that by saying that wasn't Laci's regular route, it would make him look innocent. After all, NGs are using it as an "innocent" argument now, aren't they?

And then again.....he could have simply been tired and wanting everyone to give up and go home so that he could get some sleep...........or go back to the warehouse and do some more cleanup.

[accordn2me]

again..... MG not getting his expert is not the issue.. you are trying to re-direct the issue for what reason? Does the theory that she was alive that morning threaten the case? well sure it does b/c it gives Scott even less time to pull of the perfect foresenically free crime...

The issue is....... did Wall say he could do it.. can I get any answer to that single question...

why didn't MG get his own expert? Well IIRC he says b/c he just found out about it in court the day Wall testified to it.... is that the real reason? IDK.. it's not issue...

But did it look better to have the DA's expert testify for MG that Yes it could have been Laci instead of having a Def. expert testify for RD that while it looked like Laci he wouldn't be able to tell with 100% certainty.. Of course it did... MG turned alot of the DA's witness and used them as his own experts.. it's a great strategy if you think about it... b/c it's much better to have his guy say something postive for you than to have your guy say something postive for him...

on top of that it's cheaper.... and this was an expensive case... why should he have paid someone to say exactly what the DA's expert had just said? answer...he shouldn't have.



and your point? if it took 2 minutes to strangle/suffocate her he still only has approx 60 minutes to get her wrapped up, house cleaned up and then her body out and into the truck in the middle of the morning with neighbors all around... are you saying this is what he did? I mean I guess it's possible since he left her all alone in the boat tied to the dock while he drove his truck away and parked it..... but I just don't see it as being likely...You're a long winded one, aren't you? :punch: Just kidding! Howdy ekg!

Sorry....you are right, Wall said it would be possible to review the history and make an educated guess who was using the computer that morning but that he wasn't asked to do that. I didn't mean to...how'd you put it.......redirect the issue.....but since you predicted someone would...I didn't want you to be let down. :tongue:

My point is.....Scott had all the time he needed to kill Laci.

[Otter]

You're a long winded one, aren't you? Just kidding! Howdy ekg!

I'll agree with the first part of a2m's post, but as sure as anything I'm not ready to say howdy.

You don't own this board missy. I ask that you show some respect, we've gone through this already, and don't need someone like you to stir the pot to sideswipe good discussions. And I ask the mods to step in to prevent that.

EKG. :rolleyes: Not for me sweetie, my heartbeat is just fine TYVM. Been there, done that. I've watched you here, and I will not throw down. Bait all you want. You came to the wrong place. :seeya:

[Wearing A Halo]

IMO, Laci was not on the computer. It was DRISP. Had it been Laci, DRISP would have said so.

[enlightenme]

Originally Posted by ekg
I mean I guess it's possible since he left her all alone in the boat tied to the dock while he drove his truck away and parked it..... but I just don't see it as being likely...

Why not? If he still had the boat cover on, no one is going to see inside. There was no one around on the docks that day anyway.

He took a risk, but then killing your wife is a big risk too. Adreneline will give you great powers to move, clean up, and take chances as well.

JMO

[ekg]

You're a long winded one, aren't you? :punch: Just kidding! Howdy ekg!

HA! that was just a shortie.... you should see me when I really get going..:tongue:


Sorry....you are right, Wall said it would be possible to review the history and make an educated guess who was using the computer that morning but that he wasn't asked to do that. I didn't mean to...how'd you put it.......redirect the issue.....but since you predicted someone would...I didn't want you to be let down. *stolen smiley*

My point is.....Scott had all the time he needed to kill Laci.

we'll have to agree to disagree.... I don't think he'd pre-med a murder that only gives him approx 60 mins to get all his ducks in order and then have to take her body out in broad daylight on a residential street..

G'night EM....:seeya:

[Miss Bootsie]

You're a long winded one, aren't you? :punch: Just kidding! Howdy ekg!

Sorry....you are right, Wall said it would be possible to review the history and make an educated guess who was using the computer that morning but that he wasn't asked to do that. I didn't mean to...how'd you put it.......redirect the issue.....but since you predicted someone would...I didn't want you to be let down. :tongue:

My point is.....Scott had all the time he needed to kill Laci.

Yes, Wall did say he could make an educated guess, but unless Scott and Laci had separate passwords to access the computer, Wall's analysis would be just what he said - an educated guess. No way the analysis could be conclusive.
imo

[ekg]

Why not? If he still had the boat cover on, no one is going to see inside. There was no one around on the docks that day anyway.

He took a risk, but then killing your wife is a big risk too. Adreneline will give you great powers to move, clean up, and take chances as well.

JMO

I've never known anyone to leave the boat cover on and then drive off in the truck..... but that doesn't mean it's never done...

and how would he know noone would drive up to launch their boat and tie it next to his and the see the body when he walked back and took the tarp off?

and for that matter how'd he know noone who lived right there wouldn't see anything....

I don't know..... just seems like way too much of a risk....

Adreneline also makes you sloppy...;)

[ekg]

I'll agree with the first part of a2m's post, but as sure as anything I'm not ready to say howdy.

You don't own this board missy. I ask that you show some respect, we've gone through this already, and don't need someone like you to stir the pot to sideswipe good discussions. And I ask the mods to step in to prevent that.


example of this sideswipe please? I thought I was asking questions directed at me when I was giving an example to frydaddy..or just participating in said 'good discussions'....




EKG. :rolleyes: Not for me sweetie, my heartbeat is just fine TYVM. Been there, done that. I've watched you here, and I will not throw down. Bait all you want. You came to the wrong place. *stolen seeya smiley*

Bait? HAHAAAAAAAAAAHAA... sorry, that made me LOL...

sure I will question you.... I will throw back whats thrown at me..I will even have a decent conversation with you even if we don't and probably never will agree... but bait you?

and again you say I'm the disrespectful one?

maybe it is me who should ask a mod that you stop making fun of my nic with your rolled eyes and stop implying that I'm baiting here.. but really IMO, why bother wasting their time..but talk to the mods if you must...while you do, I'll disregard the disrespect you just showed me and say Howdy to ya anyway....:seeya: G'night...

PS.....you've been watching me on here? I'm flattered you'd take the time,Thanks :~)

[Miss Bootsie]

Geragos had the perfect opportunity to ask Wall to give an educated guess who was on the computer the morning of the 24th. Yet, note that he drops the subject immediately.
He then asks Wall, "when you save a site, that's what's saved". lol



GERAGOS: Only saw, I think I showed it to you, I think it was marked, was somebody check the e-mail, correct?

WALL: That's correct, but it would be simple just to look.

GERAGOS: Would it be as simple to see, to do an analysis as to who's history it was that matched up with accessing on the 24th?

WALL: Yes, it's very possible just from viewing.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now the other question that Mr. Harris asked about the saving of the site by the, when you save the site, that's what's saved, correct?

WALL: That's correct.

[Hey Paula]

I've never known anyone to leave the boat cover on and then drive off in the truck..... but that doesn't mean it's never done...

and how would he know noone would drive up to launch their boat and tie it next to his and the see the body when he walked back and took the tarp off?

and for that matter how'd he know noone who lived right there wouldn't see anything....

I don't know..... just seems like way too much of a risk....

Adreneline also makes you sloppy...;)

There were but a handful of people at the Marina that day, as evidenced by the scant number of parking receipts dispensed. The parking area was adjacent to where Scott left the boat. I agree with EM that he would have left the boat cover on until he parked his vehicle. And upon removing it, because I believe Laci's body was wrapped in tarp and placed between the seat and the floor of the boat, would have gone unnoticed, as evidence by the demo supplied by the Pros of the pregnant LE office worker, who was pregnant and of the same size and stature as Laci, and who fit in that area without being visible.

IMO

[cookiewench]

I still think it's quite possible that he put her body in the bay the night before, and just went back that day to check.

That would explain some of his strange behavior: fishing or golfing, you're not going to wait until almost noon to go.

He could have been too "jazzed" to go play golf, and undecided about what to do. Sitting around in the warehouse, sending a Christmas email to his boss, and then deciding that he'd better go back to the bay to make sure he'd done it right.

[accordn2me]

HA! that was just a shortie.... you should see me when I really get going..:tongue:



we'll have to agree to disagree.... I don't think he'd pre-med a murder that only gives him approx 60 mins to get all his ducks in order and then have to take her body out in broad daylight on a residential street..

G'night EM....:seeya:
He had at least a month to get all his ducks in order - buy the boat, acquire weights, decide the location. The killing & loading of the body didn't have to take but a few minutes. I'd guess less than 10.

What was to clean up besides the body? The house was clean. The maid did it!

I didn't know Scott's truck was parked out on a residential street. I imagined he backed it up to the gate to load those umbrellas. Did the Kristen girl....the one Rachel Cory claims said had a conversation w/ Scott, say which way the truck was pointing?

[Miss Bootsie]

I still think it's quite possible that he put her body in the bay the night before, and just went back that day to check.

That would explain some of his strange behavior: fishing or golfing, you're not going to wait until almost noon to go.

He could have been too "jazzed" to go play golf, and undecided about what to do. Sitting around in the warehouse, sending a Christmas email to his boss, and then deciding that he'd better go back to the bay to make sure he'd done it right.

I agree Cookie.
That would also explain the short period of time he was at the Bay on the 24th.

[accordn2me]

Yes, Wall did say he could make an educated guess, but unless Scott and Laci had separate passwords to access the computer, Wall's analysis would be just what he said - an educated guess. No way the analysis could be conclusive.
imo
And I believe that's why the defense didn't produce their own expert.

[attorneywan2be]

hey AW2B....... didn't Scott ask Karan S. to go thru her timeline again to make absolute sure she was right and thats when she came up with her revised timeline?


Hi ekg..as far as I remember, you are correct...Scott did ask her that...

[attorneywan2be]

hey AW2B....... didn't Scott ask Karan S. to go thru her timeline again to make absolute sure she was right and thats when she came up with her revised timeline?

You're absolutely correct ekg..


Rick Distaso: At some point were you asked or did Scott Peterson call you and ask you if you could more definitively define exactly what time you found the dog?
Karen Servas: Yes, he did.
Rick Distaso: What time did you initially tell the police that you found the dog?
Karen Servas: I told them it was about 10:30.
Rick Distaso: And did you find some records that helped you to really narrow the time frame down that you actually found the dog?
Karen Servas: Yeah, first I found my receipt from Austin Christmas Store, and then I received my cell phone records when my cell phone bill came.
Rick Distaso: Okay.


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


Rick Distaso: The, you said that you have received a phone call on the 28th from Scott Peterson asking you if you could kind of narrow your time frame down or kind of find by minute when you actually found the dog?
Karen Servas: Yes, he left a cell phone message for me.
Rick Distaso: And is that call also reflected on those phone records in front of you?
Karen Servas: I don't know of his incoming call, you know what, yeah, it's actually on the second page. I am not sure if his incoming call is shown on here because it went to voicemail, but my call responding back to him, which was approximately an hour-and-a-half later is listed on here.
Rick Distaso: Okay. And where were you at the time?
Karen Servas: I was in Sante Fe, New Mexico.
Rick Distaso: And what date was it that you called him back?
Karen Servas: December 28th.

[JustMyOpinion]

I've never known anyone to leave the boat cover on and then drive off in the truck..... but that doesn't mean it's never done...

and how would he know noone would drive up to launch their boat and tie it next to his and the see the body when he walked back and took the tarp off?

and for that matter how'd he know noone who lived right there wouldn't see anything....

I don't know..... just seems like way too much of a risk....

Adreneline also makes you sloppy...;)

Have you ever known anyone that weighted a body and disposed of it in a body of water? I am guessing he would "know" when to remove the boat cover at the pier by using his eyes & ears. JMO He had no way of knowing that nobody who lived there would see anything, but since the State demonstrated a pregnant woman of Laci's size could fit into areas of the boat
without being visible, not sure what others could have seen from a distance. JMO I agree committing murder & disposing of a body involves risk, I think Scott took calculated risks ( he did almost get away with this, IMO) Adrenaline can make some people "sloppy" I suppose, but for some.. it can provide energy, strength, focus..IMO. Do you think it's possible Scott knew the Marina wasn't busy this time of year ( as was proven at trial), and chose Xmas Eve figuring it would be even less so?

[JustMyOpinion]

I still think it's quite possible that he put her body in the bay the night before, and just went back that day to check.

That would explain some of his strange behavior: fishing or golfing, you're not going to wait until almost noon to go.

He could have been too "jazzed" to go play golf, and undecided about what to do. Sitting around in the warehouse, sending a Christmas email to his boss, and then deciding that he'd better go back to the bay to make sure he'd done it right.

I think this is possible, as well. "Jazzed" because he wasn't sure what might be visible in the daylight? "Jazzed" because he hoped his calculations on the number/size of weights & channels/ currents were accurate? Very possible, IMO. Nobody decides to go fishing in the Bay, and can't remember what they were fishing for, IMO. Nobody decides to "fish" in the windy Bay because it is "too cold to golf"..IMO. It is inconsistent that he claimed it was a morning decision but evidence reveals he previously purchased a license with a marine stamp and filled in 12/23 & 12/24. IMO

[JustMyOpinion]

He had at least a month to get all his ducks in order - buy the boat, acquire weights, decide the location. The killing & loading of the body didn't have to take but a few minutes. I'd guess less than 10.

What was to clean up besides the body? The house was clean. The maid did it!

I didn't know Scott's truck was parked out on a residential street. I imagined he backed it up to the gate to load those umbrellas. Did the Kristen girl....the one Rachel Cory claims said had a conversation w/ Scott, say which way the truck was pointing?

I agree with you that there's substantial evidence he planned ahead of time, and the as house had been cleaned by the maid, I doubt it would take him long to mop, JMO. Since Dempewolf didn't testify I don't know exactly what she told police she remembered about the position of his truck, but I'm not sure why the OP believes it was parked in the street. I do agree with you that Scott had ample time (to murder, load the truck, drive to the warehouse, transfer body to boat/attach anchors to body on the morning of 12/24.)

[JustMyOpinion]

[QUOTE=attorneywan2be;8851321]You asked:

"What does his comment about Laci's route have to do with the OP's question?"

What are you talking about? please elaborate..


It was Sharon who decided to go to the park..in addition, Scott knew that Laci was going to walk the dog..and that normally she would go to the park..

So what if it was Scott who suggested to go look for her at the park? what's the significance of that IYO?

QUOTE]

Would you agree that Scott's actions and words indicate he was leading people to search in the park?

[attorneywan2be]

Snip

and how would he know noone would drive up to launch their boat and tie it next to his and the see the body when he walked back and took the tarp off?

Snip



Excellent point!!..he had to leave the boat unattended for few minutes, he had to drive his truck back and park it..

As you said, the possibility existed that someone would tie their boat next to his, and what if those people had a dog with them? can we imagine the dog's reaction standing next a decomposing body..!

[Wearing A Halo]

Excellent point!!..he had to leave the boat unattended for few minutes, he had to drive his truck back and park it..

As you said, the possibility existed that someone would tie their boat next to his, and what if those people had a dog with them? can we imagine the dog's reaction standing next a decomposing body..!

Anything is possible, but there is always risk involved in anything everyone does sinister like murder and covering up. Luckily for DRISP and unluckily for Laci, noone withd or no dog came about the same time. The matter about DRISP is that no NG ever gives him any credit for accomplishing his mission.

[ekg]

He had at least a month to get all his ducks in order - buy the boat, acquire weights, decide the location. The killing & loading of the body didn't have to take but a few minutes. I'd guess less than 10.

What was to clean up besides the body? The house was clean. The maid did it!

I didn't know Scott's truck was parked out on a residential street. I imagined he backed it up to the gate to load those umbrellas. Did the Kristen girl....the one Rachel Cory claims said had a conversation w/ Scott, say which way the truck was pointing?

But he went to a pretty large marina... that has a pretty large amount of ppl living there... and it was unknown to him.. as was the boat.

with it being his 1st time there..... how could he be so sure noone would come upon the boat while he drove off to park the truck? For that matter how could he be sure the boat would start? Hubby was working on his last month, cleaned the carb out 3 times and it ran fine after each time... until he got it to the lake.. then it didn't work at all.. finally he figured out he was missing a chamber in his cleaning.... Scott only had Petersons word that it worked... that's abig risk isn't? especially since he had time to plan it... but then why does he go with a place he's never been to and a vehicle he's never tested???

it's too many unknowns in that scenerio IMO....

[attorneywan2be]

Anything is possible, but there is always risk involved in anything everyone does sinister like murder and covering up. Luckily for DRISP and unluckily for Laci, noone withd or no dog came about the same time. The matter about DRISP is that no NG ever gives him any credit for accomplishing his mission.

The question is : why would he take unnecessary risks?

To begin with, why would he need to buy a boat to dump a body? what for??
As if, everyone that murdered someone had to go buy themselves a boat first..in addition, using a boat to dump a body is highly risky as opposed to simply dump the body in a remote area..

Why would he tow a boat for 90 miles to go in BROAD DAYLIGHT to one of the largest Marina in Northern California to dump the body?? what for? all he had to do was to dump the body in a remote area under cover of the night..

Why would he use such a plan where he would have no choice but to leave the body in the boat unattended to park his truck..what for?

[ekg]

snipped

JMO He had no way of knowing that nobody who lived there would see anything,

exactly..... he had no way to know... and yet he supposedly planned everything out to end with an unknown? wouldn't he plan to go somewhere he was atleast familar with like any number of the lakes that he had been to? Wasn't there even one lake, or quarry that like 60ft deep that he'd been to before?


Do you think it's possible Scott knew the Marina wasn't busy this time of year ( as was proven at trial), and chose Xmas Eve figuring it would be even less so?

there were still ppl living there weren't there?

and wasn't it established in court that the parking ticket was more of an 'honor' thing?

Do I think he knew it wouldn't be busy? How could he have? I never know when our fishing holes will be busy or not...... some days when the weather is perfect you just know they will be..... but they aren't.. and other times when the weather is crappy you think noone will be there and we wind up waiting 30 mins to launch...

Again, to me it's just way too many unknowns..... I can't see someone making this kind of plan and the saying 'well I'll just shoot in the dark and hope for the best for the body dump"....

[ekg]

I agree with you that there's substantial evidence he planned ahead of time, and the as house had been cleaned by the maid, I doubt it would take him long to mop, JMO. Since Dempewolf didn't testify I don't know exactly what she told police she remembered about the position of his truck, but I'm not sure why the OP believes it was parked in the street. I do agree with you that Scott had ample time (to murder, load the truck, drive to the warehouse, transfer body to boat/attach anchors to body on the morning of 12/24.)


parked on a residential street..... not literally ON the street.... but you'd describe someone parked on their driveway in a neighborhood as being 'parked on a residental street'...

just like you'd say they lived on a residential street... they don't literally live ON the street tho do they?
:)

[ekg]

You're absolutely correct ekg..


Rick Distaso: At some point were you asked or did Scott Peterson call you and ask you if you could more definitively define exactly what time you found the dog?
Karen Servas: Yes, he did.
Rick Distaso: What time did you initially tell the police that you found the dog?
Karen Servas: I told them it was about 10:30.
Rick Distaso: And did you find some records that helped you to really narrow the time frame down that you actually found the dog?
Karen Servas: Yeah, first I found my receipt from Austin Christmas Store, and then I received my cell phone records when my cell phone bill came.
Rick Distaso: Okay.


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


Rick Distaso: The, you said that you have received a phone call on the 28th from Scott Peterson asking you if you could kind of narrow your time frame down or kind of find by minute when you actually found the dog?
Karen Servas: Yes, he left a cell phone message for me.
Rick Distaso: And is that call also reflected on those phone records in front of you?
Karen Servas: I don't know of his incoming call, you know what, yeah, it's actually on the second page. I am not sure if his incoming call is shown on here because it went to voicemail, but my call responding back to him, which was approximately an hour-and-a-half later is listed on here.
Rick Distaso: Okay. And where were you at the time?
Karen Servas: I was in Sante Fe, New Mexico.
Rick Distaso: And what date was it that you called him back?
Karen Servas: December 28th.

thank you... I thought I had heard that but didn't have the time to go thru my TS...

he should have STFU and not asked her to make sure... but maybe that was part of his 'plan' too? LOL

Thanks again AW2B:seeya:

[JustMyOpinion]

with it being his 1st time there..... how could he be so sure noone would come upon the boat while he drove off to park the truck? .

How do you know it was his first time there?

[ekg]

snipped

I still think it's quite possible that he put her body in the bay the night before, and just went back that day to check.

except then he would have been in an unknown marina, unknown waters and in an unknown boat in the dead of night... even the DA didn't try that theory...


That would explain some of his strange behavior: fishing or golfing, you're not going to wait until almost noon to go.

Ron did....

284. What time do you think that that was? If you don't know the exact time, that's okay, but --



285. Probably around 11:00, 11:30, 12:00. I wished everybody a Merry Christmas and said I would see them afterwards.



286. And then you left the job site. And on the way home did you do any fishing?



287. Yeah. I -- I believe I called Sharon and, you know, that was a Tuesday. A lot of people had to kind of work part of the day or you had to get things ready, and I -- I told her I was getting ready, and she said she was going to the show, I believe with Sandy, so I figured well, I've got a few hours, so I decided to drive and go fishing.



288. Okay. And did you go fishing at the same place in Oakdale where you had gone on the 15th?



289. Yes.

so why couldn't Scott?

[Wearing A Halo]

The question is : why would he take unnecessary risks?
To begin with, why would he need to buy a boat to dump a body? what for??
As if, everyone that murdered someone had to go buy themselves a boat first..in addition, using a boat to dump a body is highly risky as opposed to simply dump the body in a remote area..

Why would he tow a boat for 90 miles to go in BROAD DAYLIGHT to one of the largest Marina in Northern California to dump the body?? what for? all he had to do was to dump the body in a remote area under cover of the night..

Why would he use such a plan where he would have no choice but to leave the body in the boat unattended to park his truck..what for?

"The question is : why would he take unnecessary risks?"

Please define "unnecessary risks." or at least your definition of "unnecessary risks."

[ekg]

Anything is possible, but there is always risk involved in anything everyone does sinister like murder and covering up. Luckily for DRISP and unluckily for Laci, noone withd or no dog came about the same time. The matter about DRISP is that no NG ever gives him any credit for accomplishing his mission.

that's b/c his 'mission' doesn't make sense....

do you plan a christmas eve dinner 2 wks in advance, telling one or 2 ppl about those plans...go out that day buy all the ingredients, spend the morning cooking everything up, loading it into the truck and then drive to the mall for ~ 60 mins while everything is still sitting in your truck, then drive 90 miles away to the Marriot banquet room, where you've never been and have no way of know how busy it is, and just hope they're open and available for you?

of course you don't..

how does he 'plan' this from around 12/7-9 and then wing it in the end?

for a plan of this magnitude, where his life is literally at stake... wouldn't he atleast do a 'dry run' and make sure of something as big as dumping the body was fool-proof? or at the very least, feasible..?

I can't grasp that anyone would plan the day, place, time, and manner of death, how he was going to dispose of the body, alibi he was going to give, but then just say 'eh, I decide that morning what to do with the body..'

it's just baffling to me...

[ekg]

Excellent point!!..he had to leave the boat unattended for few minutes, he had to drive his truck back and park it..

As you said, the possibility existed that someone would tie their boat next to his, and what if those people had a dog with them? can we imagine the dog's reaction standing next a decomposing body..!

isn't that insane? or ballsy?

even if she was wrapped up, the 'lump'(<-- for lack of a better word) would still be there in the boat for God and everyone to see... and imagine that testimony in court "Yeah I tied my boat next to his and saw something pretty large wrapped up in a tarp on the bottom of the boat."

:confused:

[Wearing A Halo]

isn't that insane? or ballsy?

even if she was wrapped up, the 'lump'(<-- for lack of a better word) would still be there in the boat for God and everyone to see... and imagine that testimony in court "Yeah I tied my boat next to his and saw something pretty large wrapped up in a tarp on the bottom of the boat."

:confused:

Yeah, that would have been great testimony and it would have been direct evidence too. To DRISP's relief it didn't happen as you propose.

[Wearing A Halo]

that's b/c his 'mission' doesn't make sense....

do you plan a christmas eve dinner 2 wks in advance, telling one or 2 ppl about those plans...go out that day buy all the ingredients, spend the morning cooking everything up, loading it into the truck and then drive to the mall for ~ 60 mins while everything is still sitting in your truck, then drive 90 miles away to the Marriot banquet room, where you've never been and have no way of know how busy it is, and just hope they're open and available for you?

of course you don't..

how does he 'plan' this from around 12/7-9 and then wing it in the end?

for a plan of this magnitude, where his life is literally at stake... wouldn't he atleast do a 'dry run' and make sure of something as big as dumping the body was fool-proof? or at the very least, feasible..?

I can't grasp that anyone would plan the day, place, time, and manner of death, how he was going to dispose of the body, alibi he was going to give, but then just say 'eh, I decide that morning what to do with the body..'

it's just baffling to me...

To start off with; your post above "is just baffling to me."

[JustMyOpinion]

except then he would have been in an unknown marina, unknown waters and in an unknown boat in the dead of night... even the DA didn't try that theory...



Ron did....


so why couldn't Scott?

I don't understand why you believe it the marina & waters were unknown to Scott. What evidence are you utilizing for this hypothesis?
Yes, Ron Grantski ( who is a fisherman) did go fishing, 90 miles closer to home. How do you account for Scott's claim it was a last-minute decision ( because it was too cold to golf) yet.. evidence shows he purchased a fishing permit with marine stamp and filled out the dates 12/23 & 12/24?

[JustMyOpinion]

that's b/c his 'mission' doesn't make sense....

do you plan a christmas eve dinner 2 wks in advance, telling one or 2 ppl about those plans...go out that day buy all the ingredients, spend the morning cooking everything up, loading it into the truck and then drive to the mall for ~ 60 mins while everything is still sitting in your truck, then drive 90 miles away to the Marriot banquet room, where you've never been and have no way of know how busy it is, and just hope they're open and available for you?

of course you don't..

how does he 'plan' this from around 12/7-9 and then wing it in the end?

for a plan of this magnitude, where his life is literally at stake... wouldn't he atleast do a 'dry run' and make sure of something as big as dumping the body was fool-proof? or at the very least, feasible..?

I can't grasp that anyone would plan the day, place, time, and manner of death, how he was going to dispose of the body, alibi he was going to give, but then just say 'eh, I decide that morning what to do with the body..'

it's just baffling to me...

How do you know he didn't "make a dry run"? He searched tides, bought boat around Dec 8.. would you agree he had ample time & opportunity to do this?

[ekg]

I don't understand why you believe it the marina & waters were unknown to Scott. What evidence are you utilizing for this hypothesis?
Yes, Ron Grantski ( who is a fisherman) did go fishing, 90 miles closer to home. How do you account for Scott's claim it was a last-minute decision ( because it was too cold to golf) yet.. evidence shows he purchased a fishing permit with marine stamp and filled out the dates 12/23 & 12/24?

Ron wasn't 90 miles closer...he was about 70 miles closer wasn't he?


288. Okay. And did you go fishing at the same place in Oakdale where you had gone on the 15th?



289. Yes

yahoo and mapquest say oakdale is about 16-17 miles from modesto...but that doesn't take into account where in Oakdale, so figure it's 20 miles away... not as far away as Scott, but certainly not right there next to the house either...


he bought stamp b/c he knew he was going to go fishing just not when.. when he did know he filled out the day... and since it was the 24th and he filled it out for the 23rd/24th he had to use it that day..

I know that here on the beach the weather is different than it is 90 miles inland... I know that when it's rainy and crappy here it can be nice a beautiful 60 miles away in orlando... Maybe Ca. weather isn't like that tho.:shrug:

he had the day to himself... he didn't want to golf... he had a perfectly good fishing stamp set to expire that day... why not use it?

"Ron Grantski ( who is a fisherman)" what does this mean? So he fished more than Scott, that doesn't make him the only fishman does it?

and regardless what 'rank' of fisherman either one of them is CW said "you're not going to wait until almost noon to go." well, sorry but Ron did wait until that time...you can't use the time he went as proof of guilt and then innocently explain it away when another family member is doing the exact same thing at the exact same time.. just like you can't use Scott's [unannounced to everyone but his wife] fishing trip as proof of guilt while innocently explaining Ron's [unannounced to everyone but his wife] fishing trip... it's biased,unfair and illogical

are you trying to say he had intimate personal knowledge of the bay and marina? Are you implying that he did go to the bay and it wasn't unfamilar to him? I'm kinda lost on what your asking... :confused:

[ekg]

To start off with; your post above "is just baffling to me."

I'm sorry about that...... I've re-read it can't see a way to make it any easier to understand..:o

maybe someone will say it better...:shrug:

[ekg]

How do you know he didn't "make a dry run"? He searched tides, bought boat around Dec 8.. would you agree he had ample time & opportunity to do this?


sure....

but where's the proof he did?

until this moment I never knew it was a debatable issue....

did I miss something? Did RD or anyone for that matter imply otherwise?

would the boat still be secret if he had used it at the bay before?

were any of his cell calls traced to the area b/t 12-7 and 12/24?

any CC reciepts from the area or on the way to the area?

but you're right, I'm only assuming he didn't go out there.... since LE got pretty deep into his comp,cc reciepts,cell records, life..... I just assumed that if he had been there before we'd have heard about it....

[accordn2me]

Wasn't Ron working and realized he had some time to kill? So.... he went fishing at a place he always goes fishing with fishing equipment he carries with him all the time for when such an opportunity arises?

I wonder, not that it matters, but does Ron have to purchase a temporary fishing license every time, or does he have a permanent one....like most avid lifelong fishermen do?

[Otter]

Wasn't Ron working and realized he had some time to kill? So.... he went fishing at a place he always goes fishing with fishing equipment he carries with him all the time for when such an opportunity arises?

I wonder, not that it matters, but does Ron have to purchase a temporary fishing license every time, or does he have a permanent one....like most avid lifelong fishermen do?

And Sharon wasn't 8 months pregnant and home alone either. Apples and oranges comparison.

I've never understood the nefarious activity implied with bringing RG into this. Cheap shot while avoiding the issues of SP's activities. Distract them if you don't have the facts. :rolleyes:

[JustMyOpinion]

are you trying to say he had intimate personal knowledge of the bay and marina? Are you implying that he did go to the bay and it wasn't unfamilar to him? I'm kinda lost on what your asking... :confused:

I asked you how you know Scott didn't make a dry run, how you know he had no personal knowledge of the marina or bay prior to 12/24.? TIA.

[JustMyOpinion]

sure....

but where's the proof he did?

until this moment I never knew it was a debatable issue....

did I miss something? Did RD or anyone for that matter imply otherwise?

would the boat still be secret if he had used it at the bay before?

were any of his cell calls traced to the area b/t 12-7 and 12/24?

any CC reciepts from the area or on the way to the area?

but you're right, I'm only assuming he didn't go out there.... since LE got pretty deep into his comp,cc reciepts,cell records, life..... I just assumed that if he had been there before we'd have heard about it....

I agree there is no proof he did, but you assert he didn't plan, so therefore wouldn't have risked this. IMO, he had ample time & opportunity to plan ( beginning Dec 8 & 9). There's evidence some planning ( purchase of boat, search of tides, purchase of license, purchase of bag of cement, making of anchors) I haven't seen the investigative file to ascertain how far back they traced Scott's cell calls, IIRC, they presented his cell activity beginning 12/24.

[attorneywan2be]

snip


would the boat still be secret if he had used it at the bay before?

snip

but you're right, I'm only assuming he didn't go out there.... since LE got pretty deep into his comp,cc reciepts,cell records, life..... I just assumed that if he had been there before we'd have heard about it....

I don't think it is a speculation that it was his first time to use the boat in the bay and that he had not been fishing there before....Scott's statements to Brocchini and Doug Mansfield regarding that matter were admitted into evidence and were not proven false by the prosecution...


David Harris: Did you ever ask him, or did he ever comment on whether he had been fishing in The Bay before?
Doug Mansfield: He indicated he had not.
David Harris: He had not?
Doug Mansfield: Had not been fishing in the Bay.

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


Rick Distaso: Oh, one last thing I wanted to ask you about. There were some questions about the defendant using his boat for the first time?
Allen Brocchini: Yes.
Rick Distaso: And he said that this was the first time that he had used his boat?
Allen Brocchini: Yes.

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

BROCCHINI: Did you troll?
PETERSON: Little bit. I mean a lot of, lot of the reason I went was just to get that boat in the water to see, you know.
BROCCHINI: Yeah.

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


Mark Geragos: Okay. So when Scott told you, I mean a lot of the reason I went to just get, was just to get that boat in the water, to see, you know, Scott was telling you that was the first time he put the boat in the water, didn't even know if it would run; is that correct?
Rick Distaso: Objection, your Honor. It assumes facts not in evidence.
Mark Geragos: I'm asking him if he knows.
Judge Delucchi: I don't think so. Overruled. Is that what he told you?
Allen Brocchini: Well, that's what he told me. But I don't know if that's what he meant.
Mark Geragos: That's what he told you, right?
Allen Brocchini: That's what he told me.
Mark Geragos: You didn't find any evidence in your investigation to show that he had ever put that boat in the water prior to that, correct?
Allen Brocchini: That's correct.
Mark Geragos: Didn't find any evidence to show in your investigation that anybody had demonstrated that the boat or the motor even worked prior to putting it in the water; isn't that correct?
Allen Brocchini: That's correct.

[JustMyOpinion]

I don't think it is a speculation that it was his first time to use the boat in the bay and that he had not been fishing there before....Scott's statements to Brocchini and Doug Mansfield regarding that matter were admitted into evidence and were not proven false by the prosecution...


.

Agree there was testimony that Scott told others he had not taken the boat out, and had not been fishing in the Bay. Also agree the State did not prove otherwise. I personally believe Scott had ample time & opportunity to scout out areas around the Bay, take the boat out on water, etc. Also, Lee testified that Scott developed a love for deep, sea fishing, fished with friends, etc.. I do think Scott was familiar with the Bay, with boats, with "fishing". JMO

[ekg]

Wasn't Ron working and realized he had some time to kill? So.... he went fishing at a place he always goes fishing with fishing equipment he carries with him all the time for when such an opportunity arises?

I wonder, not that it matters, but does Ron have to purchase a temporary fishing license every time, or does he have a permanent one....like most avid lifelong fishermen do?


the op said...

" Originally Posted by cookiewench View Post
That would explain some of his strange behavior: fishing or golfing, you're not going to wait until almost noon to go."


well, it looks like someone else in this case did wait until almost noon to go...

how do you have 2 ppl doing the exact same thing, at the exact same time, for the exact reason of 'killing time'.... but only say one is innocent b/c he's more avid than the other?

at the very least you should say "well, fishing at noon doesn't indicate guilt or innocence'

IMO anything else is biased....

[JustMyOpinion]

well, it looks like someone else in this case did wait until almost noon to go...

how do you have 2 ppl doing the exact same thing, at the exact same time, for the exact reason of 'killing time'.... but only say one is innocent b/c he's more avid than the other?

at the very least you should say "well, fishing at noon doesn't indicate guilt or innocence'

IMO anything else is biased....

?? It isn't the fact that Scott went fishing at noon. It is all of Scott's statements about the "fishing trip" (i.e. he didn't say he went to "kill time", he said he decided that morning because it was too cold to golf). His statements about the "fishing" trip are only a piece of the evidence that when placed with all the rest, proved his guilt.IMO Ron Grantski wasn't a suspect in this case, and it was an established part of his pattern to fish in lakes close to Modesto ( kept fishing gear in his car for that purpose, etc) What does Grantski's fishing trip have to do with what happened to Laci, IYO?

[ekg]

And Sharon wasn't 8 months pregnant and home alone either. Apples and oranges comparison.

I've never understood the nefarious activity implied with bringing RG into this. Cheap shot while avoiding the issues of SP's activities.


Bringing up the fact that Ron also went fishing at noon is nefarious??????

please explain how?

the fact that Scott did exactly what Ron did doesn't imply Ron's guilt, it implies Scott innocence..

who cares that she was pregnant? Where does that figure in this at all? Are husbands not allowed to leave their wives sight when they are pregnant?

Hadn't he been leaving her alone before to go to work? and yes, to Ambers also..

and no SR wasn't pregnant, But Laci was related to Ron in a sense right? If something happened to her he would get the same call Scott would get to come home asap.

why then is it only a sign of guilt when Scott does it?




Distract them if you don't have the facts. :rolleyes:


did Ron go fishing or not...what fact am I distracting 'them' from Otter!?

Show me! or recant that I am trying to distract from the truth! :flamemad:

[ekg]

I agree there is no proof he did, but you assert he didn't plan, so therefore wouldn't have risked this. IMO, he had ample time & opportunity to plan ( beginning Dec 8 & 9). There's evidence some planning ( purchase of boat, search of tides, purchase of license, purchase of bag of cement, making of anchors) I haven't seen the investigative file to ascertain how far back they traced Scott's cell calls, IIRC, they presented his cell activity beginning 12/24.

so you think MPD or RD wouldn't have investigated to see if he had been there before?

you think that they only looked at his phone record or CC records from 12/24 onward? and didn't look to anything prior to see if there in them to use against him?

you think they just let this go?

well then, atleast we agree.. b/c I don't think they were the best investigative team either..

[ekg]

I don't think it is a speculation that it was his first time to use the boat in the bay and that he had not been fishing there before....Scott's statements to Brocchini and Doug Mansfield regarding that matter were admitted into evidence and were not proven false by the prosecution...


David Harris: Did you ever ask him, or did he ever comment on whether he had been fishing in The Bay before?
Doug Mansfield: He indicated he had not.
David Harris: He had not?
Doug Mansfield: Had not been fishing in the Bay.

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


Rick Distaso: Oh, one last thing I wanted to ask you about. There were some questions about the defendant using his boat for the first time?
Allen Brocchini: Yes.
Rick Distaso: And he said that this was the first time that he had used his boat?
Allen Brocchini: Yes.

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

BROCCHINI: Did you troll?
PETERSON: Little bit. I mean a lot of, lot of the reason I went was just to get that boat in the water to see, you know.
BROCCHINI: Yeah.

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


Mark Geragos: Okay. So when Scott told you, I mean a lot of the reason I went to just get, was just to get that boat in the water, to see, you know, Scott was telling you that was the first time he put the boat in the water, didn't even know if it would run; is that correct?
Rick Distaso: Objection, your Honor. It assumes facts not in evidence.
Mark Geragos: I'm asking him if he knows.
Judge Delucchi: I don't think so. Overruled. Is that what he told you?
Allen Brocchini: Well, that's what he told me. But I don't know if that's what he meant.
Mark Geragos: That's what he told you, right?
Allen Brocchini: That's what he told me.
Mark Geragos: You didn't find any evidence in your investigation to show that he had ever put that boat in the water prior to that, correct?
Allen Brocchini: That's correct.
Mark Geragos: Didn't find any evidence to show in your investigation that anybody had demonstrated that the boat or the motor even worked prior to putting it in the water; isn't that correct?
Allen Brocchini: That's correct.

well there you go JMO...

Thank you AW2B:beer:

now JMO, can we get back to the issue?

why would he go to an unknown location, with an unknown amt of ppl around and use an unknown vehicle to do the 2nd most important part of the crime?

how does he make such a meticulous plan and then figure he'll leave the last part up to chance? doesn't it go against any common sense that he would plan how to kill her for 3 wks and not investigate his means of getting rid the body?

Does it seem logical that he would say "Doh! I sure hopes this works"

what would he have done if the bay had been busy and the boat didn't work? load it back up and drive around some more with Laci's body in the boat until some kind of idea came to him?

[JustMyOpinion]

well there you go JMO...

Thank you AW2B:beer:

now JMO, can we get back to the issue?

why would he go to an unknown location, with an unknown amt of ppl around and use an unknown vehicle to do the 2nd most important part of the crime?



I don't believe Scott. You apparently do.
I don't think the location was not known to him, and he had ample time & opportunity to test the boat, IMO.

[JustMyOpinion]

so you think MPD or RD wouldn't have investigated to see if he had been there before?

you think that they only looked at his phone record or CC records from 12/24 onward? and didn't look to anything prior to see if there in them to use against him?

you think they just let this go?

.


Yes, I think they investigated, there wouldn't necessarily be any evidence showing Scott had been there before, IMO. ( they didn't even have an eye-witness who was able to testify that they saw him there on the 24th)

[ekg]

?? It isn't the fact that Scott went fishing at noon. It is all of Scott's statements about the "fishing trip" (i.e. he didn't say he went to "kill time", he said he decided that morning because it was too cold to golf). His statements about the "fishing" trip are only a piece of the evidence that when placed with all the rest, proved his guilt.IMO Ron Grantski wasn't a suspect in this case, and it was an established part of his pattern to fish in lakes close to Modesto ( kept fishing gear in his car for that purpose, etc) What does Grantski's fishing trip have to do with what happened to Laci, IYO?


'killing time' was a quote about Ron from the op I was repling to..:rolleyes:

Ron's fishing has nothing to do with Laci... Just like Scott's fishing didn't either..

if you have an innocent piece of the puzzle that is exactly like a guilty piece of the puzzle.... shouldn't they cancel each other out at the very least?

you just cannot say one is guilty for doing exactly what you call innocent and unmeaningful in another person..

it's not puzzle pieces....... it's biased

[ekg]

I don't believe Scott. You apparently do.
I don't think the location was not known to him, and he had ample time & opportunity to test the boat, IMO.


do you believe Brocchini?

[JustMyOpinion]

'killing time' was a quote about Ron from the op I was repling to..:rolleyes:

Ron's fishing has nothing to do with Laci... Just like Scott's fishing didn't either..

if you have an innocent piece of the puzzle that is exactly like a guilty piece of the puzzle.... shouldn't they cancel each other out at the very least?

you just cannot say one is guilty for doing exactly what you call innocent and unmeaningful in another person..

it's not puzzle pieces....... it's biased

The evidence presented proved to me that Scott didn't go fishing, he went to dispose of Laci's body. IMO. Ron's testimony doesn't cancel out Scott's own statements & actions, or the other evidence. I believe Ron went fishing, I believe Scott did not. JMO

[JustMyOpinion]

do you believe Brocchini?

Yes, I believe Brocchini testified truthfully about Scott's statements, and truthfully when he said they had found no evidence that Scott had put the boat in the water or anybody had demonstrated the motor worked.

[ekg]

Yes, I think they investigated, there wouldn't necessarily be any evidence showing Scott had been there before, IMO. ( they didn't even have an eye-witness who was able to testify that they saw him there on the 24th)






since they investigated either Brocchini is lying, incompetent or Scott is once again, a criminal mastermind that bested a veteran detective and an entire police force....

I ask with all the kindness I can........ which is it?

[accordn2me]

<snip>
the fact that Scott did exactly what Ron did doesn't imply Ron's guilt, it implies Scott innocence..<snip>
Ron's fishing trip was not the same as Scott's, ekg. Sorry I don't know the details of Ron's trip...but I'm confident someone will correct me if I misrepresent something. ;) The following is my belief about what happened and will not be supported with trial transcripts:

Ron's trip (RT): truly an on the spot decision
Scott's trip (ST): planned

RT: no boat
ST: boat

RT: had equipment handy
ST: had "wrong" equipment, not opened


Elmo is distracting me....ready to play....one more point.....some believe Scott didn't even know if the motor would start...why? :shrug: He could have just hooked a water hose to the motor and cranked it. It didn't have to be in a body of water to see if it worked.

[JustMyOpinion]

since they investigated either Brocchini is lying, incompetent or Scott is once again, a criminal mastermind that bested a veteran detective and an entire police force....

I ask with all the kindness I can........ which is it?

I don't think Brocchini was lying. I don't think MPD is incompetent. I don't think Scott is a criminal mastermind that bested detectives and the entire police force. Scott was arrested, charged, indicted, tried, convicted & sentenced. He "bested" nobody, IMO ( although, he appears to believe that he could...IMO)

[ekg]

The evidence presented proved to me that Scott didn't go fishing, he went to dispose of Laci's body. IMO. Ron's testimony doesn't cancel out Scott's own statements & actions, or the other evidence. I believe Ron went fishing, I believe Scott did not. JMO


what evidence shows that Ron went fishing....


IMO if you want to discredit scott's fishing story you just can't use "you're not going to wait until almost noon to go." as the reason.. .:shrug:

[JustMyOpinion]

what evidence shows that Ron went fishing....


:

??? Ron Grantski was not on trial, nobody was going to present EVIDENCE that he went fishing. I think Ron was a credible witness, I believed his testimony about his fishing trip on the 24th.

[One2Snoop]

Was there any truth to whether or not Scott went fishing in the bay with friends - a business fishing trip IIRC?

[ekg]

Ron's fishing trip was not the same as Scott's, ekg. Sorry I don't know the details of Ron's trip...but I'm confident someone will correct me if I misrepresent something. ;) The following is my belief about what happened and will not be supported with trial transcripts:

Ron's trip (RT): truly an on the spot decision
Scott's trip (ST): planned

RT: no boat
ST: boat

RT: had equipment handy
ST: had "wrong" equipment, not opened


Elmo is distracting me....ready to play....one more point.....some believe Scott didn't even know if the motor would start...why? :shrug: He could have just hooked a water hose to the motor and cranked it. It didn't have to be in a body of water to see if it worked.


your wrong about that water hose thing..... as I have said Hubby cleaned the carb on his boat a few times... hooked up hose and it ran just fine each time.. took boat to lake, launched it and it bogged down and wouldn't run... turned out he missed a chamber in his cleaning...4th time was the charm it seemed....

I'm beating against a wall here.... going fishing at noon is acceptable,explainable and unmeaningful when everyone else, except Scott Peterson, does it. The reason? B/c he's guilty....nothing I say will change your mind or any G's mind..no amount of 'it is normal and ok that ppl do this' will change a mind that only see 100% guilt in every single action, even when that action is accepted as normal in others..:shrug:

atleast I'm willing to say when things are against Scott... I can't understand why saying something doesn't prove anything is so hard...

[ekg]

I don't think Brocchini was lying. I don't think MPD is incompetent. I don't think Scott is a criminal mastermind that bested detectives and the entire police force. Scott was arrested, charged, indicted, tried, convicted & sentenced. He "bested" nobody, IMO ( although, he appears to believe that he could...IMO)


but if Brocchini investigated it and didn't find any evidence to support the theory that Scott had been there before... then you are left with only 2 options

A. Brocchini failed in his investigation (which can only mean Scott 'bested' him)
B. Scott never went there...

it seems you believe that AB failed in his investigation..Well then doesn't it stand to reason that if he failed to find that evidence, he might have failed to find other evidence as well?

[accordn2me]

your wrong about that water hose thing..... as I have said Hubby cleaned the carb on his boat a few times... hooked up hose and it ran just fine each time.. took boat to lake, launched it and it bogged down and wouldn't run... turned out he missed a chamber in his cleaning...4th time was the charm it seemed....

I'm beating against a wall here.... going fishing at noon is acceptable,explainable and unmeaningful when everyone else, except Scott Peterson, does it. The reason? B/c he's guilty....nothing I say will change your mind or any G's mind..no amount of 'it is normal and ok that ppl do this' will change a mind that only see 100% guilt in every single action, even when that action is accepted as normal in others..:shrug:

atleast I'm willing to say when things are against Scott... I can't understand why saying something doesn't prove anything is so hard...Don't beat against a wall....I'll give you this: I don't think going fishing at noon implies or proves anything sinister.

However, Scott said he went golfing, no fishing (wasn't sure for what), no he really went 90 miles from home just to see if the boat worked. It's Scott's constant lying and revising of his story that implies something sinister.

[ekg]

??? Ron Grantski was not on trial, nobody was going to present EVIDENCE that he went fishing. I think Ron was a credible witness, I believed his testimony about his fishing trip on the 24th.

you said "The evidence presented proved to me that Scott didn't go fishing"

I was just wondering what evidence proved to you that Ron did?

so none then?

you just 'know' he did....

ok..

I'm seeing a pattern here...:read:

Brochini not finding it doesn't matter
Wall saying he could do it doesn't matter
Ron just saying he did is what counts.

Scott's guilty b/c you know it.and anything else is just distracting from that truth...

ok... I can actually live with that...

[JustMyOpinion]

you said "The evidence presented proved to me that Scott didn't go fishing"

I was just wondering what evidence proved to you that Ron did?

so none then?

you just 'know' he did....

ok..

I'm seeing a pattern here...:read:

Brochini not finding it doesn't matter
Wall saying he could do it doesn't matter
Ron just saying he did is what counts.

Scott's guilty b/c you know it.and anything else is just distracting from that truth...

ok... I can actually live with that...


ekg..
If you are here to make other members the topic, instead of discussing the case, so be it. You are being disrespectful, IMO.

[One2Snoop]

you said "The evidence presented proved to me that Scott didn't go fishing"

I was just wondering what evidence proved to you that Ron did?

so none then?

you just 'know' he did....

ok..

I'm seeing a pattern here...:read:

Brochini not finding it doesn't matter
Wall saying he could do it doesn't matter
Ron just saying he did is what counts.

Scott's guilty b/c you know it.and anything else is just distracting from that truth...

ok... I can actually live with that...

And why was Ron Grantski on trial? I think I missed that part of the trial. :shrug:

[JustMyOpinion]

[QUOTE=ekg;8852147]but if Brocchini investigated it and didn't find any evidence to support the theory that Scott had been there before... then you are left with only 2 options

A. Brocchini failed in his investigation (which can only mean Scott 'bested' him)
B. Scott never went there...

QUOTE]

There are more than two "options".
There would not necessarily BE any evidence showing Scott had been there, IMO. I don't think Scott "bested" anyone. He's convicted and on death row.

[ekg]

Don't beat against a wall....I'll give you this: I don't think going fishing at noon implies or proves anything sinister.

well my head thanks you for that:tongue:


However, Scott said he went golfing, no fishing (wasn't sure for what), no he really went 90 miles from home just to see if the boat worked. It's Scott's constant lying and revising of his story that implies something sinister.

well I don't know how much I believe Uncle Harvey.. he also says Scott should have allowed LE to search the house,truck and warehouse that night.. and we know they did..

Amy K said

"271. I had told him no, and he -- he had told me -- he told me he was golfing all day and he had tried to phone her, and I said that we hadn't seen her, we hadn't seen any movement, we thought they were out of town because the house had not moved at all, and we just thought the neighborhood was weird because it was so silent. We just figured everybody was out of town but us."

IMO he could have said "I was gone all day"

b/c she said

"279. So I mean he -- he was distraught; it kind of made me a little distraught, so I didn't really know how to handle the situation, so..."

so it is possible she or he was too distraught and either misheard or misspoke...

Terra and Michael were 10ft away in other parts of the house so I don't know how reliable their hearing is..

when Ron brought it up he didn't say "yeah. wait no I didn't go golfing" he wasn't caught off guard by it so to speak...when it made a difference he said where he was and even withstood Ron's bad joke, that had no place there.. especially at that time and in light of his fishing at the same time that day...(and I'd just like to say that, not that it means anything sinister,why is Scott smiling at a vigil another indication of guilt when Ron was making jokes the night she went missing and he knew SR was close to loosing her mind with anxiety? doesn't it show that ppl can do ithings like that and still be innocent?)

and when I go to the mall I say I'm going shopping...but most times I'm just there to waste some time and see the new fashions...

when hubby says he's going fishing I don't think he's lying when he doesn't get into the detail that he meant he was taking the boat out to see how it was running after having being parked for a cpl months... I accept 'fishing' as a generalization of the event.

IMO there are just way too many other things to say hmmmmmm about than him just generalizing 'fishing' instead of spefically describing taking the boat for a test spin.. when asked about it he did get into the specific detail and provided evidence to support his claim without being forced to do so...

in short... maybe it's enough to make you look at him maybe..... but imo not enough to convict..

[JustMyOpinion]

well my head thanks you for that:tongue:



well I don't know how much I believe Uncle Harvey.. he also says Scott should have allowed LE to search the house,truck and warehouse that night.. and we know they did..

Amy K said

"271. I had told him no, and he -- he had told me -- he told me he was golfing all day and he had tried to phone her, and I said that we hadn't seen her, we hadn't seen any movement, we thought they were out of town because the house had not moved at all, and we just thought the neighborhood was weird because it was so silent. We just figured everybody was out of town but us."

IMO he could have said "I was gone all day"

b/c she said

"279. So I mean he -- he was distraught; it kind of made me a little distraught, so I didn't really know how to handle the situation, so..."

so it is possible she or he was too distraught and either misheard or misspoke...

Terra and Michael were 10ft away in other parts of the house so I don't know how reliable their hearing is..

when Ron brought it up he didn't say "yeah. wait no I didn't go golfing" he wasn't caught off guard by it so to speak...when it made a difference he said where he was and even withstood Ron's bad joke, that had no place there.. especially at that time and in light of his fishing at the same time that day...(and I'd just like to say that, not that it means anything sinister,why is Scott smiling at a vigil another indication of guilt when Ron was making jokes the night she went missing and he knew SR was close to loosing her mind with anxiety? doesn't it show that ppl can do ithings like that and still be innocent?)

and when I go to the mall I say I'm going shopping...but most times I'm just there to waste some time and see the new fashions...

when hubby says he's going fishing I don't think he's lying when he doesn't get into the detail that he meant he was taking the boat out to see how it was running after having being parked for a cpl months... I accept 'fishing' as a generalization of the event.

IMO there are just way too many other things to say hmmmmmm about than him just generalizing 'fishing' instead of spefically describing taking the boat for a test spin.. when asked about it he did get into the specific detail and provided evidence to support his claim without being forced to do so...

in short... maybe it's enough to make you look at him maybe..... but imo not enough to convict..

ekg, are you under the impression that Scott was convicted based on a few of his statements or convicted on one piece of evidence?

[ekg]

ekg..
If you are here to make other members the topic, instead of discussing the case, so be it. You are being disrespectful, IMO.


But saying I'm trying to distract or imply something nefarious isn't disrespectful?

where is your chastizing post to that poster making members aruging facts in testimony, a topic ?

(I don't know if I'm allowed to do this [c/p a 2nd post in this reply].. I'm sorry if I'm not and won't happen again)


There are more than two "options".
There would not necessarily BE any evidence showing Scott had been there, IMO. I don't think Scott "bested" anyone. He's convicted and on death row.

maybe we should establish what besting means?

to me it means when you beat someone on some issue...

AB said he investigated whether Scott went to the bay before.... He said he found no evidence of it ever happening....

so if Scott had been there before and AB didn't find it... what else does that mean besides Scott bested him on that issue?

and if you don't believe AB could find the truth about Scott being at the bay before.... then do you ask yourself what other 'truths' did he miss b/c there wasn't any evidence?

[JustMyOpinion]

But saying I'm trying to distract or imply something nefarious isn't disrespectful?

where is your chastizing post to that poster making members aruging facts in testimony, a topic ?

(I don't know if I'm allowed to do this [c/p a 2nd post in this reply].. I'm sorry if I'm not and won't happen again)



maybe we should establish what besting means?

to me it means when you beat someone on some issue...

AB said he investigated whether Scott went to the bay before.... He said he found no evidence of it ever happening....

so if Scott had been there before and AB didn't find it... what else does that mean besides Scott bested him on that issue?

and if you don't believe AB could find the truth about Scott being at the bay before.... then do you ask yourself what other 'truths' did he miss b/c there wasn't any evidence?

If you believe Scott "bested" Brocchini, ( because he didn't find any evidence he had been to the Bay prior to 12/24) fine with me. I simply disagree with you.
I don't know what other "truths" Brocchini missed, his own decisions/actions on the 24th/25th ( ie. ordering some items collected into potential evidence, having photographs taken of items, taking photos of items himself, going to warehouse, searching vehicle, video-taping statement from Scott) were instrumental in solving the case and bringing evidence at trial which helped to convict him, IMO.

[ekg]

ekg, are you under the impression that Scott was convicted based on a few of his statements or convicted on one piece of evidence?

I think he was convicted on emotion....

for every piece of daming evidence there's a innocent explaination...

ex. noone would go fishing that late in the day

you show a plan....
I show a where the body dump couldn't be a plan b/c it was unknown

you show him saying he said golfing
I show where one person wasn't very reliable and the other could have easily missunderstood 'golfing all day' for 'gone all day'

You show the bodies washing up where they did.
I show that the expert couldn't prove where Laci started from.

you show where he lied to his mistress.
I show that lying to a mistress is understandable and unmeaningful.

I have no problems believing he did it... my own common sense looks at the cover and says "oh yeah, guilty"... but I cannot go with emotions here, his life is at stake, her and Conners life deserve justice.. emotion shouldn't covict him...evidence should.

you concede the investigators were unable to prove one simple item...I ask then what else did the they miss?

show me unequivocal evidence.... evidence that can only mean one thing....Not evidence that means he's guilty b/c you know it..show me something that has no other meaning other than guilt, no matter who it is.....I just can't make the 100% certain leap of guilt without it...

[JustMyOpinion]

I think he was convicted on emotion....

for every piece of daming evidence there's a innocent explaination...

ex. noone would go fishing that late in the day

you show a plan....
I show a where the body dump couldn't be a plan b/c it was unknown

you show him saying he said golfing
I show where one person wasn't very reliable and the other could have easily missunderstood 'golfing all day' for 'gone all day'

You show the bodies washing up where they did.
I show that the expert couldn't prove where Laci started from.

you show where he lied to his mistress.
I show that lying to a mistress is understandable and unmeaningful.

I have no problems believing he did it... my own common sense looks at the cover and says "oh yeah, guilty"... but I cannot go with emotions here, his life is at stake, her and Conners life deserve justice.. emotion shouldn't covict him...evidence should.

you concede the investigators were unable to prove one simple item...I ask then what else did the they miss?

show me unequivocal evidence.... evidence that can only mean one thing....Not evidence that means he's guilty b/c you know it..show me something that has no other meaning other than guilt, no matter who it is.....I just can't make the 100% certain leap of guilt without it...

First of all, I didn't "show" anything. The Prosecution & Defense brought evidence. For me, the State's evidence proved his guilty beyond my own reasonable doubt, and the Defense failed to bring sufficient evidence I could utilize to form reasnable doubt. JMO
You know how to review the evidence, you appear to interpret it differently than I do, and you disagree with me and with the jury's verdict.
I'm not interested in convincing you to make a "certain leap of guilt". I'm only offering my own opinion.

[ekg]

If you believe Scott "bested" Brocchini, ( because he didn't find any evidence he had been to the Bay prior to 12/24) fine with me.


:no: that's not fair...... I do not believe Scott bested Brochini. I do not believe Scott went there and AB just couldn't find it..... that's YOO remember...whether you label it as 'bested' or not... Scott doing it and AB not finding it means Scott won that round....

I believe AB didn't find any proof of it b/c it didn't happen...no 'besting' needed...



I simply disagree with you.

no... you simply disagree with Brochini....


I don't know what other "truths" Brocchini missed, his own decisions/actions on the 24th/25th ( ie. ordering some items collected into potential evidence, having photographs taken of items, taking photos of items himself, going to warehouse, searching vehicle, video-taping statement from Scott) were instrumental in solving the case and bringing evidence at trial which helped to convict him, IMO.

I don't know either.. but you've said he didn't find evidence that Scott was at the bay before, like you believed him to be... so I have to wonder what else he didn't find if he missed that...

it's a valid question isn't it?

[ekg]

First of all, I didn't "show" anything. The Prosecution & Defense brought evidence. For me, the State's evidence proved his guilty beyond my own reasonable doubt, and the Defense failed to bring sufficient evidence I could utilize to form reasnable doubt. JMO
You know how to review the evidence, you appear to interpret it differently than I do, and you disagree with me and with the jury's verdict.
I'm not interested in convincing you to make a "certain leap of guilt". I'm only offering my own opinion.

OMG....... I wasn't using "You" literally... you have to know that...

and you're right... I don't believe the evidence was proven beyond a reasonable doubt... We have both found issues that we disagree with the stated testimony... and we are both only offering our opinions here.

Obviously we interpret it differently or we'd be on the same side:biggrin:

[enlightenme]

the op said...

" Originally Posted by cookiewench View Post
That would explain some of his strange behavior: fishing or golfing, you're not going to wait until almost noon to go."


well, it looks like someone else in this case did wait until almost noon to go...

how do you have 2 ppl doing the exact same thing, at the exact same time, for the exact reason of 'killing time'.... but only say one is innocent b/c he's more avid than the other?

at the very least you should say "well, fishing at noon doesn't indicate guilt or innocence'

IMO anything else is biased....

When did Scott ever claim he was "killing time"? Ugh! That phrase is creepy considering he had just killed Laci!

He claimed he was fishing for, well, he wasn't sure at first. :shrug: Then it was sturgeon, then it was mainly "checking out the boat".

You and some other NGs take one piece of CE and say that it means nothing as far as guilt is concerned or, in fact, points towards innocence. You need to look at the big picture and consider ALL of the evidence in a CE case.

IMO, some of the explanations given here and by Geragos that are supposed to go toward innocence are not reasonable at all, therefore they DO NOT go toward innocence.

MHO

[attorneywan2be]

I think he was convicted on emotion....

for every piece of daming evidence there's a innocent explaination...

ex. noone would go fishing that late in the day

you show a plan....
I show a where the body dump couldn't be a plan b/c it was unknown

you show him saying he said golfing
I show where one person wasn't very reliable and the other could have easily missunderstood 'golfing all day' for 'gone all day'

You show the bodies washing up where they did.
I show that the expert couldn't prove where Laci started from.

you show where he lied to his mistress.
I show that lying to a mistress is understandable and unmeaningful.

I have no problems believing he did it... my own common sense looks at the cover and says "oh yeah, guilty"... but I cannot go with emotions here, his life is at stake, her and Conners life deserve justice.. emotion shouldn't covict him...evidence should.

you concede the investigators were unable to prove one simple item...I ask then what else did the they miss?

show me unequivocal evidence.... evidence that can only mean one thing....Not evidence that means he's guilty b/c you know it..show me something that has no other meaning other than guilt, no matter who it is.....I just can't make the 100% certain leap of guilt without it...

Exactly!!...IMO, if the jury followed the judge instructions they would have found Scott "not guilty"..IMO, they speculated BIG TIME, thus, creating their own evidence, and IMO, they reached an emotional verdict that was not based on the evidence presented in court..

[accordn2me]

When did Scott ever claim he was "killing time"? Ugh! That phrase is creepy considering he had just killed Laci!

He claimed he was fishing for, well, he wasn't sure at first. :shrug: Then it was sturgeon, then it was mainly "checking out the boat".

You and some other NGs take one piece of CE and say that it means nothing as far as guilt is concerned or, in fact, points towards innocence. You need to look at the big picture and consider ALL of the evidence in a CE case.

IMO, some of the explanations given here and by Geragos that are supposed to go toward innocence are not reasonable at all, therefore they DO NOT go toward innocence.

MHOenlightenme.....I may have been the one that introduced the creepy phrase "killing time" but I was talking about RG's sudden decision to go fishing because he had some extra time and was near a favorite honey hole. It was being implied that RG drove 70 (give or take) miles away to go fishing on Christmas Eve day around noon while his stepdaughter was pregnant. And that RG's trip was the same as Scott's which points towards Scott's innocence. Of course, RG's trip is nothing like Scott's and does nothing of the sort as pointing to Scott's innocence. :rolleyes: Bad choice of words on my part.

Like you, the problem I have with Scott's words, actions, etc....is that he said, did, lied about so much that he didn't need to. Why did he do it? Are we supposed to brush aside all of that bizarre behavior? I can't.

If something happened to my daughter, and my SIL refused to take a polygraph.......he'd be lucky to ever see his day in court. I would immediately take it to mean his was guilty. Are there really innocent people that won't take a lie detector test?

[deputydi]

I think he was convicted on emotion....
<snip>
I hope you don't mind if I jump in here but I just wanted you to know that not everyone convicted him on "emotion". I sure didn't. For me, it was a very gradual process because I really wanted to believe someone other than her husband murdered Laci and Conner.

Before the trial started, everytime the news would report another piece of information I would brush it off as simply another rumor or rationalize it away as best I could. There came a time, however, when I couldn't kid myself anymore. Instead of taking one rationalization at a time, I started putting them all together --- it made me start believing he could have done it.

Why didn't he call Amy to say he wouldn't be back in time to pick up grandpa's gift?

Why didn't he answer her calls to him that day?

Why did he tell Amy the night before that he planned on going golfing the next day? Along that same thought -- why didn't he say his plans were undecided -- golfing vs fishing. If he thought it was "too cold" to go golfing how did he think it was going to be any warmer in a boat in the middle of the bay?

What was Jackie talking about when she advised Scott to "Deny, deny, deny"?

How could he have sounded so jovial on the phone with Amber and have the presence of mind to make up that incredible lie when a vigil for his missing wife was underway?

The kicker, finally, was when the bodies washed ashore in the same area where he had been fishing. When you think about it logically and unemotionally, it makes NO sense that a kidnapper, burglar or anyone but Scott would have dumped her body there. IMO he believed it would never surface and the tides would carry her body into the Ocean. He was arrogantly sure she would never be found. Nothing else made any sense to me. It still doesn't.

On the old LP board, that is the one question I kept asking over and over and never got a believable answer.

[accordn2me]

But saying I'm trying to distract or imply something nefarious isn't disrespectful?

where is your chastizing post to that poster making members aruging facts in testimony, a topic ?<snip>?ekg.....not saying you are doing this but I have seen others throw Ron Grantski's name around as if there is something questionable or "sketchy... shady" about Ron's fishing trip. I have seen it suggested that Ron or his son may have "done something to Laci when she was young." It seems like some SIIs suggest that Ron Grantski should have been investigated or considered a suspect. To suggest such things is as asinine as it is appalling. Blaming the victim or innocent family members in any fashion reeks of desperation and it's completely reprehensible.

[JustMyOpinion]

Exactly!!...IMO, if the jury followed the judge instructions they would have found Scott "not guilty"..IMO, they speculated BIG TIME, thus, creating their own evidence, and IMO, they reached an emotional verdict that was not based on the evidence presented in court..

There was no need to speculate, there was plenty of evidence proving guilt, IMO.

[Wudge]

Exactly!!...IMO, if the jury followed the judge instructions they would have found Scott "not guilty"..IMO, they speculated BIG TIME, thus, creating their own evidence, and IMO, they reached an emotional verdict that was not based on the evidence presented in court..


If you think Nice, Guinasso, Mylett, Belmessieri, Beratlis, et al were emotional during deliberations, watch them bounce off the ceiling when they see their names highlighted throughout Scott's appeal.

(chuckle)

[thinkaboutit]

LOL - I am one of those husbands, so I completely understand! I realize you probably won't read this until you return (if at all), but I hope you enjoyed yourself. Thanks for the complement, I find you to be quite pleasant, even in disagreement, as well! ;)

Thank you! We had a lovely time! One weekend a year - we get to go away alone - a MUCH needed break!!

[JustMyOpinion]

If you think Nice, Guinasso, Mylett, Belmessieri, Beratlis, et al were emotional during deliberations, watch them bounce off the ceiling when they see their names highlighted throughout Scott's appeal.

(chuckle)

I don't think any juror needs to bounce off the ceiling or feel the slightest bit upset if their name is mentioned in an appeal, it's to be expected that appellate lawyers will try to exploit any public comments they made after the verdict. These citizens did their sworn duty to the best of their ability, they are good people, IMO.

[attorneywan2be]

Snip

If he thought it was "too cold" to go golfing how did he think it was going to be any warmer in a boat in the middle of the bay?

Snip



Simply because it is indeed warmer in the bay..

December 24, 2002

Modesto: 8:53 am the temp: 37.9 F...wind speed: 4.6 mph..scattered clouds
12:53 pm the temp:46.9 F...wind speed: 5.8 mph..mostly cloudy

Oakland (when you request Berkeley's historical data they give you Oakland's, which is about 8 miles away)
8:53 am the temp : 45 F...wind speed : 4.6 mph ..overcast
12:53 pm the temp: 53.1 F..wind speed: 4.6 mph...overcast

Richmond ( Berkeley is in between Oakland and Richmond)
8:53 am the temp: 45 F ..wind speed : 4:6 mph...overcast
12:53 pm the temp:53.1...wind speed: 4:6 mph...overcast

[attorneywan2be]

If you think Nice, Guinasso, Mylett, Belmessieri, Beratlis, et al were emotional during deliberations, watch them bounce off the ceiling when they see their names highlighted throughout Scott's appeal.

(chuckle)


LOL...I think there will be one appeal issue, if not more, per each juror you mentioned..

[deputydi]

Simply because it is indeed warmer in the bay..<snip>
LOL. Not that much warmer -- 53 degrees on the water and an overcast day is still darned cold.

Your post only addresses one of my problems with this case. The big one -- the one I could never get past -- is the question of who would have gone to all that trouble to frame Scott. It doesn't make sense that anyone else would have killed Laci, kept her body somewhere for several days and then risk being discovered by driving her body 90 miles to Berkely. That is totally illogical. If someone other than Scott killed her, they would have either left her body where she was killed or taken her somewhere nearby and buried her in a shallow grave. Just about everyone knows that the first suspect is always a husband or s/o and no matter where the body was found, Scott was going to come under suspicion first.

Had the bodies been found within a 10 or 20 mile radius of the home, I would agree that there would be lingering doubt. All the other CE would still be bizarre and could possibly add up to reasonable doubt, but this one fact makes all the other suspicious facts and behavior point only in one direction. Just my opinion.

[ekg]

ekg.....not saying you are doing this but I have seen others throw Ron Grantski's name around as if there is something questionable or "sketchy... shady" about Ron's fishing trip. I have seen it suggested that Ron or his son may have "done something to Laci when she was young." It seems like some SIIs suggest that Ron Grantski should have been investigated or considered a suspect. To suggest such things is as asinine as it is appalling. Blaming the victim or innocent family members in any fashion reeks of desperation and it's completely reprehensible.


But thats not what I did is it?

my reply to "you're not going to wait until almost noon to go."

was Ron did...

I remember ppl getting P-O'd about questions dealing with Ron, so when pressed on the issue I treaded very carefully and stuck to the exact testimony...I stated simply and plainly that Scott going at that time is not an indication of guilt since Ron also went at the same time.

It's not slamming Ron in anyway to talk about his testimony. Is it not asinine,appaling or desperate to ask.. Why is Scott fishing at noon so unbelievable when Ron did the exact same thing at the exact same time...

Otter implying that I have some villainous motive to misdirect ppl from the truth was the true act of desperation IMO. I have yet to see an apology from otter or even a chiding given to him/her by someone other than me ( and I don't mean the mods, as I said before, why waste their time) No, what I have seen instead is ppl condoning me being called disrespectful,up to no good,sideswiping the thread, baiting ppl and posting nefarious remarks to distract others from the truth that Scott's guilty...

It's a good thing I can take the personal nature of the insults thrown at me on this board and still debate the issues huh?

and sorry, everyone in a family is open to investigation/questions IMO...to do otherwise is not doing justice to the victim.

[ekg]

LOL. Not that much warmer -- 53 degrees on the water and an overcast day is still darned cold.

Your post only addresses one of my problems with this case. The big one -- the one I could never get past -- is the question of who would have gone to all that trouble to frame Scott. It doesn't make sense that anyone else would have killed Laci, kept her body somewhere for several days and then risk being discovered by driving her body 90 miles to Berkely. That is totally illogical. If someone other than Scott killed her, they would have either left her body where she was killed or taken her somewhere nearby and buried her in a shallow grave. Just about everyone knows that the first suspect is always a husband or s/o and no matter where the body was found, Scott was going to come under suspicion first.

Had the bodies been found within a 10 or 20 mile radius of the home, I would agree that there would be lingering doubt. All the other CE would still be bizarre and could possibly add up to reasonable doubt, but this one fact makes all the other suspicious facts and behavior point only in one direction. Just my opinion.

but don't forget.... Perry Monroe lived in the area, abducted women, cut off their heads, forearms and feet and dumped the torso's in water..

some might call it a stretch to look at him.... I say I don't know enough to know if it is or not...:shrug:

[enlightenme]

I don't think any juror needs to bounce off the ceiling or feel the slightest bit upset if their name is mentioned in an appeal, it's to be expected that appellate lawyers will try to exploit any public comments they made after the verdict. These citizens did their sworn duty to the best of their ability, they are good people, IMO.


ITA! I would also like an example of one successful appeal based on what jurors said after the trial. Sure, if it rose to the level of juror misconduct, such as saying, "I was paid off for my guilty vote" or "I went to the crime scene and that's when I decided guilty", etc. The comments I heard from these jurors will not be successful appeal issues, IMO.

[enlightenme]

but don't forget.... Perry Monroe lived in the area, abducted women, cut off their heads, forearms and feet and dumped the torso's in water..

some might call it a stretch to look at him.... I say I don't know enough to know if it is or not...:shrug:

How do you know he wasn't looked at? If he had a solid alibi for the 24th, case closed, it wasn't him. He was also in jail, I believe, when the bodies washed ashore (or were dumped on the shore, by some people's opinion).

[deputydi]

<snip>why would he go to an unknown location, with an unknown amt of ppl around and use an unknown vehicle to do the 2nd most important part of the crime?

how does he make such a meticulous plan and then figure he'll leave the last part up to chance? doesn't it go against any common sense that he would plan how to kill her for 3 wks and not investigate his means of getting rid the body?<snip>
These same questions are more relevant IMO if you're talking about someone other than Scott. SOMEONE did it and it makes even less sense to think that the burglars somehow obtained access to a boat and drove 90 miles just to get rid of Laci's body.

[Otter]

Otter implying that I have some villainous motive to misdirect ppl from the truth was the true act of desperation IMO. I have yet to see an apology from otter or even a chiding given to him/her by someone other than me ( and I don't mean the mods, as I said before, why waste their time) No, what I have seen instead is ppl condoning me being called disrespectful,up to no good,sideswiping the thread, baiting ppl and posting nefarious remarks to distract others from the truth that Scott's guilty...

It's a good thing I can take the personal nature of the insults thrown at me on this board and still debate the issues huh?

I'm a she. :) And no, I don't apologize. You brought RG into this discussion and for what reason? Only you know that and I won't speculate because I'm not a mind reader. EKG, I've seen endless posts accusing Laci's family of everything under the sun, and frankly I'm tired of it. I'm beyond being offended when I read them.

And then there's another one -- from you.

Answer me this ... what does RG stopping to fish from a bank, which was his habit, have to do with SP driving 90 miles one way to "test" a boat? Its a canard. And it doesn't work with me or with any other G on this board.

BTW, I used the word nefarious, not villainous. They're not truly synonymous. Close, but not quite, and your use of the word is telling.

Hope you had a lovely weekend. :seeya:

[accordn2me]

Simply because it is indeed warmer in the bay..

December 24, 2002

Modesto: 8:53 am the temp: 37.9 F...wind speed: 4.6 mph..scattered clouds
12:53 pm the temp:46.9 F...wind speed: 5.8 mph..mostly cloudy

Oakland (when you request Berkeley's historical data they give you Oakland's, which is about 8 miles away)
8:53 am the temp : 45 F...wind speed : 4.6 mph ..overcast
12:53 pm the temp: 53.1 F..wind speed: 4.6 mph...overcast

Richmond ( Berkeley is in between Oakland and Richmond)
8:53 am the temp: 45 F ..wind speed : 4:6 mph...overcast
12:53 pm the temp:53.1...wind speed: 4:6 mph...overcastBut I don't think there was any indication that Scott checked the temperature, wind speed, or visibility, in Modesto versus Oakland/Richmond, was there?

[Otter]

But I don't think there was any indication that Scott checked the temperature, wind speed, or visibility, in Modesto versus Oakland/Richmond, was there?


There's also a big difference when you consider physical activity. Sitting in a boat fishing, totally sedentary, until the sturgeon bites is cold, bone chilling. Playing golf, even an informal game involves movement. Would he have taken a cart? I don't know -- at the time of the year, walking is required because the fairways are being rehabbed at many courses. At least you're swinging a club and walking to your ball.

You're moving, so less cold. That excuse is just another lame alibi IMO. He never had an intention of playing golf, again MOO, that was just something he did more often than going fishing -- a good thing to tell anyone prior to his absence.

[enlightenme]

Exactly!!...IMO, if the jury followed the judge instructions they would have found Scott "not guilty"..IMO, they speculated BIG TIME, thus, creating their own evidence, and IMO, they reached an emotional verdict that was not based on the evidence presented in court..

"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.

Evidentally, the judge felt they followed his instructions.

Why do you think the verdict was "emotional"?

[attorneywan2be]

but don't forget.... Perry Monroe lived in the area, abducted women, cut off their heads, forearms and feet and dumped the torso's in water..

some might call it a stretch to look at him.... I say I don't know enough to know if it is or not...:shrug:

He was my number one suspect at one point..he lived few miles from where the bodies were found..and IMO, the facts surrounding Laci's body were consistent with his modus operandi..and the same goes to EH...

BTW, he was arrested after Laci's body was found...as far as I know, LaDonna's head was never found??? and we know that he dumped her torso in a pond..so what did he do with the head? ..that leads me to believe that he must have had a secret place where he hid his victim's head...Laci's head is still missing as well as EH's...so IMO, he is a possible suspect..but at this point, the burglars are my number one suspects..

[attorneywan2be]

But I don't think there was any indication that Scott checked the temperature, wind speed, or visibility, in Modesto versus Oakland/Richmond, was there?


The average temp. in Modesto is almost always lower than the bay during winter..so he might have been aware of that...

[accordn2me]

But thats not what I did is it?

my reply to "you're not going to wait until almost noon to go."

was Ron did...

I remember ppl getting P-O'd about questions dealing with Ron, so when pressed on the issue I treaded very carefully and stuck to the exact testimony...I stated simply and plainly that Scott going at that time is not an indication of guilt since Ron also went at the same time.

It's not slamming Ron in anyway to talk about his testimony. Is it not asinine,appaling or desperate to ask.. Why is Scott fishing at noon so unbelievable when Ron did the exact same thing at the exact same time...

Otter implying that I have some villainous motive to misdirect ppl from the truth was the true act of desperation IMO. I have yet to see an apology from otter or even a chiding given to him/her by someone other than me ( and I don't mean the mods, as I said before, why waste their time) No, what I have seen instead is ppl condoning me being called disrespectful,up to no good,sideswiping the thread, baiting ppl and posting nefarious remarks to distract others from the truth that Scott's guilty...

It's a good thing I can take the personal nature of the insults thrown at me on this board and still debate the issues huh?

and sorry, everyone in a family is open to investigation/questions IMO...to do otherwise is not doing justice to the victim.I won't pretend to know how it works when someone goes missing. Maybe LE views everyone as a potential suspect and they begin ruling people out from there. If that's the way it's done...and that sounds like a good way....I'm sure Ron Grantski was ruled out almost immediately, and rightfully so. Any more suggestion that Ron Grantski had something to do with, or could have had something to do with Laci's murder is asinine, desperate, reprehensible. I know you didn't do that! I'm just trying to help you understand why some people are sensitive to Ron's name and actions being associated with Scott and Scott's actions.

Ron's fishing trip was not similar to Scott's if you ask me. Again, the time of day may have been the same, but that's where it stops. I'm not really a betting person, but I would be willing to bet had LE asked Ron what he was fishing for, Ron could have told them. I'd bet Ron was using the correct lures and rig to catch what he was fishing for. I'd bet Ron had a permanent fishing license. Ron's fishing trip would have been akin to Scott taking a telescoping rod along in his golf bag and taking a few casts on the ponds on the golf course or stopping at a lake along the way.

Here's something that I find fishy: not only did no person in Scott's & Laci's family know about the boat, Scott told not one person where he was going or what he was going to do that day. This is not good boating safety, especially given that Scott claims he'd never tested the boat and was not familiar with the bay area/waters. Again, I don't think Scott's timing alone is what makes his trip look sinister. What actually makes Scott's trip sinister is that he went 90 miles away to test a boat, his wife is reported missing that day, and her body washes up in that vicinity 4 months later.

[accordn2me]

He was my number one suspect at one point..he lived few miles from where the bodies were found..and IMO, the facts surrounding Laci's body were consistent with his modus operandi..and the same goes to EH...

BTW, he was arrested after Laci's body was found...as far as I know, LaDonna's head was never found??? and we know that he dumped her torso in a pond..so what did he do with the head? ..that leads me to believe that he must have had a secret place where he hid his victim's head...Laci's head is still missing as well as EH's...so IMO, he is a possible suspect..but at this point, the burglars are my number one suspects..Where do extraterrestrials fall on your list?

[attorneywan2be]

"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.

Evidentally, the judge felt they followed his instructions.

Why do you think the verdict was "emotional"?

IMO, what Delucchi said doesn't make it so...look at the cases where the convictions were reversed by the appellate court due to insufficient evidence...

I think it was an emotional verdict...my opinion is based on the jurors's statements to the media..

[accordn2me]

IMO, what Delucchi said doesn't make it so...look at the cases where the convictions were reversed by the appellate court due to insufficient evidence...
I think it was an emotional verdict...my opinion is based on the jurors's statements to the media..
OK...Please cite the cases and provide a link. I'll look at them.

[attorneywan2be]

It doesn't make sense that anyone else would have killed Laci, kept her body somewhere for several days and then risk being discovered by driving her body 90 miles to Berkely. That is totally illogical.

As far as I remember, I have heard of cases where the body was transported to another place to pin it on someone else..with that said..

And does it make sense to you that Scott would go shopping for a boat as part of his plan to dump the body, and giving his correct name and home address, why would he even need a boat? and does it make sense to you that he would select the largest marina in Northern California to dump the body? and does it make sense to you that he would select one of the shallowest area in the bay to dump the body (as shallow as a swimming pool)? and does it make sense to you that he would tow his boat for 90 miles risking being discovered so he can dump the body in BROAD DAYLIGHT?

This is the case against him..

[enlightenme]

IMO, what Delucchi said doesn't make it so...look at the cases where the convictions were reversed by the appellate court due to insufficient evidence...

I think it was an emotional verdict...my opinion is based on the jurors's statements to the media..


Do you have one case I can look up?

Emotional AFTER the verdict. They just found Scott guilty of murdering his wife and innocent, unborn child base on the evidence. What are they supposed to think of him? "Oh, I hope Scott is treated well on Death Row." "He's really a nice guy other than the murders."

:rolleyes:

[accordn2me]

As far as I remember, I have heard of cases where the body was transported to another place to pin it on someone else..with that said....Really? That's interesting...did those killers in the cases you remember take that HUGE RISK to frame someone they didn't even know?

And does it make sense to you that Scott would go shopping for a boat as part of his plan to dump the body, and giving his correct name and home address, why would he even need a boat? ..Well, let's see...what was he to do? Give his mother's name and address....that's silly. His murdered wife's and unborn baby's bodies were found after washing up from the San Francisco Bay. Experts testified they had been in the water for months. How else could Scott have put them there if not with a boat?

and does it make sense to you that he would select the largest marina in Northern California to dump the body?.. Absolutely! It's the only one that opens directly into the Pacific Ocean...the largest body of water in the world.

and does it make sense to you that he would select one of the shallowest area in the bay to dump the body (as shallow as a swimming pool)? ..This shallow area had a deep shipping channel that ran through it.

and does it make sense to you that he would tow his boat for 90 miles risking being discovered so he can dump the body in BROAD DAYLIGHT? ..Another "brilliant" idea! Put himself as far away from where Laci was last known to be, and still appear (in his mind) to have a reasonable alibi.

This is the case against him..And if the bodies hadn't washed up where they did, Scott wouldn't have landed himself on Death Row in San Quentin.

[ekg]

I'm a she. :) And no, I don't apologize. You brought RG into this discussion and for what reason? Only you know that and I won't speculate because I'm not a mind reader. EKG, I've seen endless posts accusing Laci's family of everything under the sun, and frankly I'm tired of it. I'm beyond being offended when I read them.

noone goes fishing at that time

ron did..

what part of my post was unclear to you? which part would you have to be a mind reader to understand? which part required any speculation from you? was it the "Ron" or the "did" that gave you trouble?

I didn't know I had to the power to imply so much by saying so little, thank you again for teaching me how my words and posts affect you.


And then there's another one -- from you.

Answer me this ... what does RG stopping to fish from a bank, which was his habit, have to do with SP driving 90 miles one way to "test" a boat? Its a canard. And it doesn't work with me or with any other G on this board.

it is one thing to say my opinons are false... but you are still saying I am lying about the Ron fishing time story. It's not a "canard"..

I can't believe this is allowed here!

can I start calling people nefarious liars when I don't agree with them?


BTW, I used the word nefarious, not villainous. They're not truly synonymous. Close, but not quite, and your use of the word is telling.

Hope you had a lovely weekend. :seeya:

you must like it when I prove you wrong...


ne·far·i·ous /nɪˈfɛəriəs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ni-fair-ee-uhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
extremely wicked or villainous; iniquitous:


Main Entry: nefarious
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: sinful
Synonyms: abominable, atrocious, bad, base, corrupt, criminal, degenerate, depraved, detestable, dreadful, evil, execrable, flagitious, flagrant, foul, glaring, gross, heinous, horrible, infamous, infernal, iniquitous, miscreant, monstrous, odious, opprobrious, outrageous, perverse, putrid, rank, rotten, shameful, treacherous, vicious, vile, villainous, wicked

[One2Snoop]

noone goes fishing at that time

ron did..

what part of my post was unclear to you? which part would you have to be a mind reader to understand? which part required any speculation from you? was it the "Ron" or the "did" that gave you trouble?

I didn't know I had to the power to imply so much by saying so little, thank you again for teaching me how my words and posts affect you.



it is one thing to say my opinons are false... but you are still saying I am lying about the Ron fishing time story. It's not a "canard"..

I can't believe this is allowed here!

can I start calling people nefarious liars when I don't agree with them?



you must like it when I prove you wrong...

You can't believe what is allowed here? :confused:
Your opinion is just as welcome here as Otters. I don't see anywhere in Otter's post where she says you're lying. Everyone's simply stating their opinons, nothing more, nothing less, and if its not opinion of course we'd expect facts/links to back it up.

Thank you.

[accordn2me]

noone goes fishing at that time

ron did..

what part of my post was unclear to you? which part would you have to be a mind reader to understand? which part required any speculation from you? was it the "Ron" or the "did" that gave you trouble?

I didn't know I had to the power to imply so much by saying so little, thank you again for teaching me how my words and posts affect you.



it is one thing to say my opinons are false... but you are still saying I am lying about the Ron fishing time story. It's not a "canard"..

I can't believe this is allowed here!

can I start calling people nefarious liars when I don't agree with them?



you must like it when I prove you wrong...Trying to show Scott is innocent by comparing his planned fishing trip to an innocent Ron Grantski's spur-of-the-moment fishing trip is a distortion, at best.

[JustMyOpinion]

As far as I remember, I have heard of cases where the body was transported to another place to pin it on someone else..with that said..

And does it make sense to you that Scott would go shopping for a boat as part of his plan to dump the body, and giving his correct name and home address, why would he even need a boat? and does it make sense to you that he would select the largest marina in Northern California to dump the body? and does it make sense to you that he would select one of the shallowest area in the bay to dump the body (as shallow as a swimming pool)? and does it make sense to you that he would tow his boat for 90 miles risking being discovered so he can dump the body in BROAD DAYLIGHT?

This is the case against him..

?? Do you think planning and carrying out murder is a sensible act? Scott mis-calculated a few things, IMO ( such as his own ability to use the charts to dispose of the body in the deepest water, the police response to a missing-adult report on Xmas Eve, his own ability to successfully manipulate and deceive others.).

[JustMyOpinion]

'killing time' was a quote about Ron from the op I was repling to..:rolleyes:

Ron's fishing has nothing to do with Laci... Just like Scott's fishing didn't either..

if you have an innocent piece of the puzzle that is exactly like a guilty piece of the puzzle.... shouldn't they cancel each other out at the very least?

you just cannot say one is guilty for doing exactly what you call innocent and unmeaningful in another person..

it's not puzzle pieces....... it's biased


I agree Ron Grantski's fishing trip had nothing to do with Laci. The evidence presented proved to me that Scott wasn't fishing. ( i.e on Dec 6 he told Shawn he'd lost his wife begged her to let him tell Amber,on Dec 9 he told Amber he had lost his wife, told Amber he'd be traveling but would be available at the end of January, on Dec 8 searched tides/currents of Bay, bought the boat Dec 9 & nobody known to him testified they knew about the boat,pre- purchased a fishing permit w/ marine stamp and filled in 12/23 & 12/24 yet claimed the "fishing" decision was last minute because it was too cold to golf, told two witnesses he had been golfing, couldn't tell the officers what he was fishing for, later told Brocchini he just took the boat out, later claims he was fishing for sturgeon, didn't make any cell calls for hours the morning/afternoon of 12/24, "lures" still in bag, bodies washed ashore near where he claimed he was "fishing", Tidal expert/Hydrologist proved the trajectory of Conner's body showed the beginning origin to be near where he claimed to be fishing, etc.)

[frydaddy]

I agree Ron Grantski's fishing trip had nothing to do with Laci. The evidence presented proved to me that Scott wasn't fishing. ( i.e on Dec 6 he told Shawn he'd lost his wife begged her to let him tell Amber,on Dec 9 he told Amber he had lost his wife, told Amber he'd be traveling but would be available at the end of January, on Dec 8 searched tides/currents of Bay, bought the boat Dec 9 & nobody known to him testified they knew about the boat,pre- purchased a fishing permit w/ marine stamp and filled in 12/23 & 12/24 yet claimed the "fishing" decision was last minute because it was too cold to golf, told two witnesses he had been golfing, couldn't tell the officers what he was fishing for, later told Brocchini he just took the boat out, later claims he was fishing for sturgeon, didn't make any cell calls for hours the morning/afternoon of 12/24, "lures" still in bag, bodies washed ashore near where he claimed he was "fishing", Tidal expert/Hydrologist proved the trajectory of Conner's body showed the beginning origin to be near where he claimed to be fishing, etc.)

Your story flows with very reasonable credibility. Let's see if anyone can use these same details and provide this story with the alternate explanations and see how reasonable the story is.

[thinkaboutit]

In all fairness to EKG - IMO - she never implicated any of the Rocha/Grantski family.

She only brought up the fact that Ron was fishing at noon because someone said that no one goes fishing at noon. So Ron fishing at noon is a completely valid counter argument to this general/absolute statement.

[Hey Paula]

In all fairness to EKG - IMO - she never implicated any of the Rocha/Grantski family.

She only brought up the fact that Ron was fishing at noon because someone said that no one goes fishing at noon. So Ron fishing at noon is a completely valid counter argument to this general/absolute statement.

The only problem I've ever had with that argument is that Ron fished locally, off the land, while Scott decided to go fishing 90 miles from home, starting out at nearly 11AM on Christmas Eve with dinner plans, despite there having been a number of closer fishing sites compatible with the fresh water tackle he had, for which he was ill-prepared to use in the salt water of the SF Bay.

IMO

~~~~~~WAVING~~~~~~~ TO FRYDADDY!

[JustMyOpinion]

In all fairness to EKG - IMO - she never implicated any of the Rocha/Grantski family.

She only brought up the fact that Ron was fishing at noon because someone said that no one goes fishing at noon. So Ron fishing at noon is a completely valid counter argument to this general/absolute statement.

That's your own opinion. Her own statement about investigating/suspecting Laci's family members combined with bringing up Ron Grantski's testimony and challenging why I believed his story,, speaks volumes about her intentions to me. JMO

[attorneywan2be]

That's your own opinion. Her own statement about investigating/suspecting Laci's family members combined with bringing up Ron Grantski's testimony and challenging why I believed his story,, speaks volumes about her intentions to me. JMO

I have to disagree, this is what ekg said in one of her posts:



the fact that Scott did exactly what Ron did doesn't imply Ron's guilt, it implies Scott innocence

[JustMyOpinion]

I have to disagree, this is what ekg said in one of her posts:

I'll agree to disagree.

[frydaddy]

The only problem I've ever had with that argument is that Ron fished locally, off the land, while Scott decided to go fishing 90 miles from home, starting out at nearly 11AM on Christmas Eve with dinner plans, despite there having been a number of closer fishing sites compatible with the fresh water tackle he had, for which he was ill-prepared to use in the salt water of the SF Bay.

IMO

~~~~~~WAVING~~~~~~~ TO FRYDADDY!

Hi there Sweet P! I sincerely hope you've been well wherever you've been fighting the good fight! Always wonderful to see ya! ;)

[frydaddy]

Thank you! We had a lovely time! One weekend a year - we get to go away alone - a MUCH needed break!!

I'm glad for you, wherever you ventured off to, that you enjoyed yourselves! "Go away alone"...hubba hubba! LOL

[accordn2me]

I have to disagree, this is what ekg said in one of her posts:Did you ever find the links to those cases enlightenme and I asked you to post?

[frydaddy]

I have to disagree, this is what ekg said in one of her posts:

Truth is though...Ron did not do exactly what Scott did, not even close really. Ron regularly stopped off and threw in a line...he had no boat...you can be darn sure he knew what he was fishing for...he told one story, not two...etc. Now if someone wants to take exception to Ron mentioning how late a certain time is to go fishing, I have no problem with it. But since Scott didn't fish, he drove 90 miles to test a boat not perfectly suited to the Bay, he was erratic as heck when asked about it, and he lost his memory of what he was doing, I think Ron likely sensed Scott was somehow up to no good. And generally speaking...those who were the quickest to be suspicious of Scott usually get targeted with the most heat from Scott's advocates. JMO

[ekg]

In all fairness to EKG - IMO - she never implicated any of the Rocha/Grantski family.

She only brought up the fact that Ron was fishing at noon because someone said that no one goes fishing at noon. So Ron fishing at noon is a completely valid counter argument to this general/absolute statement.

Thank you...

I meant nothing other than what I said.... Ron went fishing at the same time Scott went fishing/boating.. it doesn't(and I didn't) impy that Ron is guilty in any way, shape, or form. All it shows is that ppl actually do what the op stated as fact that ppl don't do.

[accordn2me]

Thank you...

I meant nothing other than what I said.... Ron went fishing at the same time Scott went fishing/boating.. it doesn't(and I didn't) impy that Ron is guilty in any way, shape, or form. All it shows is that ppl actually do what the op stated as fact that ppl don't do.Don'tcha wish we had some avid, lifelong fishermen that would weigh in on this one for us?

I know when I go fishing with my fishing buddy back in Louisiana, we leave well before dawn in order to be on the honey hole as the sun begins to rise. Because I am not a morning person, and sometimes it's cold in the mornings and I DESPISE being on the water when it's cold....I beg, "PLEASE let's go later in the day!" Kenny immediately shuts me down with, "FISH DON'T BITE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY! They bite in the morning and in the evening." When I beg to go in the evening, he won't because he won't feel like cleaning the fish, the boat, and the truck at night. Morning is it for us.

My grandfather, an avid, lifelong, commercial fisherman was the same way. Left before dawn...was home in time for church on Sundays. Based on those two experiences, I'd say, in the least, it's unusual for a "real" fisherman to leave close to noon and drive 90 miles to fish, or to drive 90 miles to test a boat.

A fishing trip that's 90 miles, one-way, from home is planned. Ron's, "oh, I have some time on my hands, I'll go make a few casts," is nowhere near what Scott's trip was. They are incomparable.

[accordn2me]

I'd kind of like to read those, too!
Wanna take turns holding our breaths?

[accordn2me]

I don't think anyone has lungs that big.I know.

What time do you leave to go fishing?

[ekg]

I have to disagree, this is what ekg said in one of her posts:


that is exactly right.. to say I meant something else is convicting me for what someone else said,did, or meant when they said it.

:seeya:

[thinkaboutit]

Don'tcha wish we had some avid, lifelong fishermen that would weigh in on this one for us?

I know when I go fishing with my fishing buddy back in Louisiana, we leave well before dawn in order to be on the honey hole as the sun begins to rise. Because I am not a morning person, and sometimes it's cold in the mornings and I DESPISE being on the water when it's cold....I beg, "PLEASE let's go later in the day!" Kenny immediately shuts me down with, "FISH DON'T BITE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY! They bite in the morning and in the evening." When I beg to go in the evening, he won't because he won't feel like cleaning the fish, the boat, and the truck at night. Morning is it for us.

My grandfather, an avid, lifelong, commercial fisherman was the same way. Left before dawn...was home in time for church on Sundays. Based on those two experiences, I'd say, in the least, it's unusual for a "real" fisherman to leave close to noon and drive 90 miles to fish, or to drive 90 miles to test a boat.

A fishing trip that's 90 miles, one-way, from home is planned. Ron's, "oh, I have some time on my hands, I'll go make a few casts," is nowhere near what Scott's trip was. They are incomparable.

But I'm confused - according to your friend - "fish don't bite in the middle of the day". Whether Ron's was planned or spur of the moment - it was still in the middle of the day?

[ekg]

Don'tcha wish we had some avid, lifelong fishermen that would weigh in on this one for us?

I know when I go fishing with my fishing buddy back in Louisiana, we leave well before dawn in order to be on the honey hole as the sun begins to rise. Because I am not a morning person, and sometimes it's cold in the mornings and I DESPISE being on the water when it's cold....I beg, "PLEASE let's go later in the day!" Kenny immediately shuts me down with, "FISH DON'T BITE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY! They bite in the morning and in the evening." When I beg to go in the evening, he won't because he won't feel like cleaning the fish, the boat, and the truck at night. Morning is it for us.

My grandfather, an avid, lifelong, commercial fisherman was the same way. Left before dawn...was home in time for church on Sundays. Based on those two experiences, I'd say, in the least, it's unusual for a "real" fisherman to leave close to noon and drive 90 miles to fish, or to drive 90 miles to test a boat.

A fishing trip that's 90 miles, one-way, from home is planned. Ron's, "oh, I have some time on my hands, I'll go make a few casts," is nowhere near what Scott's trip was. They are incomparable.

well there ya go... I haven't been up that early to fish since I was alot younger... in fact the only time I ever did get up that early was when we went brim fishing at the dam.. and that's only b/c the mosquitos got worse the later in the day you went.

most of the time hubby gets home at whatever time a day and says 'want to go fishing?" it can be 9am,1pm,8pm,3am...doesn't really matter since we're going to the river...and fish really do eat all day....LOL some fishing is even better midmorning.. I think it's the heat for the angler that keeps them away later in the day/morning...

but the fishing time is what was called into question.... not the reason for fishing, how much fishing they did, whether it was from a bank or boat or how far away..... the time itself was called into question.......

"noone fishes at that time.."

yes.. they do.. was all I was saying:shrug:


btw, now whenever I see 'dawn-thirty' I can't help but think of "Good morning Starshine...the earth says Hello" :seeya:

[JustMyOpinion]

Usually first thing in the morning, but it depends on how seriously I really want to catch fish.

“If you give a man a fish, you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he will sit in the boat and drink beer all day.”

Of course, since I make my living in finance, I have my own version:

“If you give a man a fish, he owes you a fish.”

LOL, Adnoid.

[accordn2me]

Usually first thing in the morning, but it depends on how seriously I really want to catch fish.

“If you give a man a fish, you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he will sit in the boat and drink beer all day.”

Of course, since I make my living in finance, I have my own version:

“If you give a man a fish, he owes you a fish.”
This is an interesting idea....BTW...I'm looking for a career change....

My version: "If I give a man a fish, I expect him to clean it and cook it for me." I should say "prepare it for me" because I love sushi...so not necessarily cook it.

[frydaddy]

With all due respect, can we agree Scott did not fish? Can we agree he had no intention to fish?

[accordn2me]

But I'm confused - according to your friend - "fish don't bite in the middle of the day". Whether Ron's was planned or spur of the moment - it was still in the middle of the day?My friend doesn't carry his tackle and rig around at all times. He, like Scott, has a boat and trailer....although Kenny has a Ranger bass boat....a tad more upscale that Scott's Gamefisher...was it? But, like Scott, Kenny's fishing trips are planned. Unlike Scott, Kenny actually fishes and catches fish. And fish do bite in the middle of the day if they are hungry...Kenny wants to be there before they start biting and leave when they slow down....when it gets very hot...around noon, in south Louisiana. Give us an overcast, cold day like Scott had....and we could very well be out until late afternoon provided it wasn't too cold. But guaranteed we got there before the sun came up!

Ron sounds more like a busy man, without a boat, who loves to fish and has to grab every opportunity to do so. If he's like me, he doesn't care if he's catching fish...as long as he's fishing. I just fish away....doesn't matter to me if they are biting are not. Because I only have one rig but a whole bunch of awesome tackle, I throw maybe one cast to Kenny's 30+ casts. But I have just as much, maybe more fun.

[thinkaboutit]

Usually first thing in the morning, but it depends on how seriously I really want to catch fish.

“If you give a man a fish, you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he will sit in the boat and drink beer all day.”

Of course, since I make my living in finance, I have my own version:

“If you give a man a fish, he owes you a fish.”


:beer: LOL!!

[accordn2me]

Try this one then:

"If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Explain why he needs a fish, explain that you are better than anyone else at fulfilling his fish requirements, and leave him your number and the website address of get-a-fish.com. Having stimulated his need for fish, both you and the venture capitalists will believe that there is no possible way he can get a fish online without coming to you. 100,000 people sign up in the first month. Your market cap goes to $50M. Now, quickly, sell up. Whilst you weren't looking your marketing manager thought it would be a great idea to turn your fish site into an 'Online Fish Portal'. As a result, everyone who signed up in the first month has followed the link to learn-to-fish.com, and taught themselves to fish online. Your company is now worthless, but you've walked away with $10M, and you still don't even know how to fish yourself."Is that how you got rich?

SHOW ME!

[accordn2me]

With all due respect, can we agree Scott did not fish? Can we agree he had no intention to fish?I can. But why pass up a perfectly good opportunity to drag him behind the boat. HE'S the one that said FISHING. We all...scratch that.....some of us know HE'S a LIAR. We know he didn't go fishing or golfing......but he should have told us he just went to test the boat! And that it worked perfectly fine for his intended purpose, thank you! But Noooooooooo:no: ........HE wants to call it a fishing trip.....OK, Scott Lee Peterson...I'll bite....like a pitbull!:eek:

[attorneywan2be]

Do you have one case I can look up?

Emotional AFTER the verdict. They just found Scott guilty of murdering his wife and innocent, unborn child base on the evidence. What are they supposed to think of him? "Oh, I hope Scott is treated well on Death Row." "He's really a nice guy other than the murders."

:rolleyes:

I sure do..

16] Speculation and conjecture cannot take the place of reasonable inferences and evidence — whether direct or circumstantial — that Juan H. — through both guilty mind and guilty act — acted in consort with Merendon. In this case,after resolving all conflicting factual inferences in favor of the prosecution, see Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326, it is only speculation that supports a conclusion that Juan H. knew that Merendon planned to commit the first-degree murders of Ramirezand Magdelano, and that Juan H. took some action intendedto encourage or facilitate Merendon in completing the killings.

15In addition, under the California Penal Code, “[t]he liability of an aider and abettor extends also to the natural and reasonable consequences of the acts he knowingly and intentionally aids and encourages.” Beeman,674 P.2d at 1326. To obtain a conviction under this theory, the jury must find the elements of aiding and abetting with respect to the target crime and “must also find that (4) the defendant’s confederate committed an offense other than the target crime; and (5) the offense committed by the confederate was a natural and probable consequence of the target crime that the defendant aided and abetted.” Prettyman, 926 P.2d at 1020. The state argues that Juan H. is liable for the natural and probable consequences of an assault with a deadly weapon on Ramirez and an attempted assault with a deadly weapon on Magdelano. We reject this argument. The reasons for finding insufficient evidence to support a conviction for aiding and abetting first-degree homicide are equally applicable to assault with a deadly weapon, as that crime is defined under California Penal Code section 245. Cf. Windham v. Merkle, 163 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir.1998). The state does not argue that Juan H. is liable for first-degree murder because he aided and abetted the misdemeanor offense of drawing, exhibiting, or using a firearm or deadly weapon under California Penal Code section 417. We accordingly do not consider this claim and any constitutional problems that it may present. 6087JUANH. v. ALLEN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 27
Such a lack of evidence violates the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee that an accused must go free unless and until the prosecution presents evidence that proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See In re Winship, 397 U.S. at 365-68.16
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO GRANT A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BEC947915021C49388257013007E6D30/$file/0415562.pdf?openelement

[enlightenme]

"Speculation and conjecture cannot take the place of reasonable inferences and evidence — whether direct or circumstantial"

Good thing that didn't happen in the Peterson trial.

:read:

[accordn2me]

Well, credit where credit is due. You found one:

Juan H. v. Walter Allen (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8623C3FBB150AACD882570380065966A/$file/0415562oa.pdf?openelement)

Great reading. I will summarize:

Two groups of gang bangers had been in each other's faces for some time. On day two brothers from Gang A run across two members from Gang B. The Gang A brothers have hidden a shotgun nearby, which the older brother gets and uses to shoot the guys in Gang B, killing one.

Both brothers are found guilty of murder. The younger brother appeals - repeatedly - and this appeal is an appeal to a rejection of a Federal Habeus Corpus appeal.

To make a long story short, the younger brother was standing behind the older brother during the shooting, had no weapon of his own, and after the shooting ran and hid in a different place from his older brother. This ruling states that the connection was not strong enough to show that the younger brother was sufficiently connected to the older brother to conclude that they were working together to commit the crime.

At this point the State court is free to correct this issue by retrying the younger brother on the counts in question. They can also let him just go, although that would be highly unlikely.

Note, however, that the jury's deliberations were not at issue - the court determined that the facts could not produce the verdict with everything accruing to the benefit of the prosecution.

So I'll say AW2B did come through.

Having read the whole thing, I will say that the guy who benefited from this needs to be in prison - very badly. No innocent bystander was set free here.


Man! adnoid...I am ever so glad you translated that. I couldn't make heads or tails out of what she posted.

It really ticks me off when guilty people are released on ridiculous legal technicalities. I don't think there is a chance of that in Scott's case.

[attorneywan2be]

"Speculation and conjecture cannot take the place of reasonable inferences and evidence — whether direct or circumstantial"

Good thing that didn't happen in the Peterson trial.

:read:


That is your opinion..

IMO...

If there is one case where the conviction could be reversed due to insufficient evidence, Scott's case should be the one..

There was evidence Scott had an affair...but there was no evidence he killed his wife..

There was evidence he purchased a boat...but there was no evidence he used the boat to dump Laci's body

There was evidence he went to the bay on Dec 24th ...but there ws no evidence he transported Laci's body in his truck or toolbox..

There was evidence the bodies were FOUND close to where he went fishing..but there was no evidence the bodies washed ashore

There was no time of death..no cause of death...no crime scene..no motive..

His actions regarding the boat purchase/storage/use do not reflect consciousness of guilt..

What they got is the fact that the bodies were FOUND on the shore about 1.25 miles from where he went fishing..but the evidence presented didn't prove the bodies washed ashore..quite the contrary, the evidence indicates that the bodies were planted where they were found...the evidence indicates that Conner was older than when Laci went missing..so Scott should have been found FACTUALLY innocent...

[deputydi]

<snip>What they got is the fact that the bodies were FOUND on the shore about 1.25 miles from where he went fishing..but the evidence presented didn't prove the bodies washed ashore..quite the contrary, the evidence indicates that the bodies were planted where they were found...the evidence indicates that Conner was older than when Laci went missing..so Scott should have been found FACTUALLY innocent...
Okay, I'll bite. I don't remember anyone disputing the fact under oath that Laci's body had been submerged for quite some time. So, if you think her body was planted, where had she been for 4 mths? The testimony was that Laci did not give birth vaginally, so she was still pregnant when her body was submerged and if you believe that Conner was 38 to 40 weeks, she would have been dead somewhere since early in February. That still leaves 3 mths -- where was she?

BTW, Conner's age will never be proven bard. Even at trial, different experts testified to different ranges. Apparently the jury did not believe what you keep insisting is mathematical fact. Childbirth is not an exact science that can be predicted with absolute certainty. Fortunately, the jury recognized that.

[enlightenme]

That is your opinion..

IMO...

If there is one case where the conviction could be reversed due to insufficient evidence, Scott's case should be the one..

There was evidence Scott had an affair...but there was no evidence he killed his wife..

There was evidence he purchased a boat...but there was no evidence he used the boat to dump Laci's body

There was evidence he went to the bay on Dec 24th ...but there ws no evidence he transported Laci's body in his truck or toolbox..

There was evidence the bodies were FOUND close to where he went fishing..but there was no evidence the bodies washed ashore

There was no time of death..no cause of death...no crime scene..no motive..

His actions regarding the boat purchase/storage/use do not reflect consciousness of guilt..

What they got is the fact that the bodies were FOUND on the shore about 1.25 miles from where he went fishing..but the evidence presented didn't prove the bodies washed ashore..quite the contrary, the evidence indicates that the bodies were planted where they were found...the evidence indicates that Conner was older than when Laci went missing..so Scott should have been found FACTUALLY innocent...

You, nor I, were not present at the body recovery sites. I don't think there was a single person there who doubted that Laci and Conner washed ashore, along with a lot of other debri, after a 2 day storm. There was no evidence that they were "dumped" there.

Dr. Peterson testified that Laci's body showed signs of being in the bay for 3 to 6 months.

You, nor I, saw the autopsy photos either, which may have explained more than you know.

I can say with certainty that the "bodies dumped on the shoreline" will never make it in as a defense strategy, should there ever be a new trial. It's too ridiculous for any intelligent jury with common sense.

IMO

[Wudge]

Okay, I'll bite. I don't remember anyone disputing the fact under oath that Laci's body had been submerged for quite some time. So, if you think her body was planted, where had she been for 4 mths?

SNIP




Between where the two bodies were found, lies the Hoffman marsh. A boat is not needed to dump a body there.

[Wearing A Halo]

Between where the two bodies were found, lies the Hoffman marsh. A boat is not needed to dump a body there.

Who else in the NG camp believe withw that the bodies were dumped at the Hoffman marsh?

[accordn2me]

Who else in the NG camp believe withw that the bodies were dumped at the Hoffman marsh? Do the NGs believe Laci's and Conner's bodies were dumped in the Hoffman Marsh and :

a) the storm washed them over to where they were found

or

b) someone went back to where they dumped the bodies and moved them to where they were "planted"

Which is it NGs....or if neither...WHAT?

[caphill]

Speaking of mathematical *facts* - I was reading Sharon's book again last night. The last night she saw ISP a free man. He was at her house, and she heard him on the phone with Kim Peterson telling her TWICE to change Conners due date from the 10th to the 16th. Now, I don't know about YOUS, but I find that SUSPICIOUS.

snipped



The due date, as determined by Laci's Dr after her sonogram, was Feb 16th. A copy of her medical chart clearly shows that date, therefore, I would not think it was suspicious that Scott was correcting info that was being circulated to the media.

Apparently Laci had not shared with her mother that her due date had been changed. Since the medical records were exhibits in the trial, I am surprised that Sharon did not know the due date and used her lack of knowledge of the actual medical records to infer something deceitful about Scott wanting to set the record straight.

[accordn2me]

The due date, as determined by Laci's Dr after her sonogram, was Feb 16th. A copy of her medical chart clearly shows that date, therefore, I would not think it was suspicious that Scott was correcting info that was being circulated to the media.

Apparently Laci had not shared with her mother that her due date had been changed. Since the medical records were exhibits in the trial, I am surprised that Sharon did not know the due date and used her lack of knowledge of the actual medical records to infer something deceitful about Scott wanting to set the record straight.
Apparently, Laci's husband murdered her before she had time to share the news with her momma.

[accordn2me]

They themselves do not know from one minute to the next. From the infamous experiment we'll just call Monkey still stuck, Kermit gets nudged some more (http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Research&Analysis/field/jetty/071506/field.htm#6) (sounds like part of a script to a low-budget porn flick if you ask me), we have these statements from the conclusion (in the order they appear):


So you tell me, I'm lost.I'm exhausted! Maybe it's just my tired mind...but I quickly glanced over that page from the link....and....I could swear I saw "an experiment" with a stuffed Kermit the Frog animal...that shows Kermit within 4 feet of where Conner's body washed up....yet it concludes that Conner's body could not have washed up because Distaso's theory about the debris line was faulty. :shrug:

I'll look again in the morning.

Aloha, peeps! :seeya:

[JustMyOpinion]

The due date, as determined by Laci's Dr after her sonogram, was Feb 16th. A copy of her medical chart clearly shows that date, therefore, I would not think it was suspicious that Scott was correcting info that was being circulated to the media.

Apparently Laci had not shared with her mother that her due date had been changed. Since the medical records were exhibits in the trial, I am surprised that Sharon did not know the due date and used her lack of knowledge of the actual medical records to infer something deceitful about Scott wanting to set the record straight.

Her due date wasn't "changed."
HARRIS: Now, with regards to the -- the estimated date of delivery -- and I think that's the term that you use in your practice?

TOW-DER: Delivery date. Estimated date of confinement.

HARRIS: And you had two notations in the file, one -- the first one was February 10th?

TOW-DER: Correct.

HARRIS: And that was a gestational measurement based on the last menses, and that's calculated when they first come in?

TOW-DER: Correct.

HARRIS: And then the second date was the February 16th, and you indicated that was based on the second ultrasound?

TOW-DER: Correct.

HARRIS: And that was done by Dr. Yip in your office?

TOW-DER: Correct.

HARRIS: The -- when they're only six days apart, do you change the estimated due dates based on that?

TOW-DER: For clinical purposes we usually base it on the original due date, if it's within seven days. Which in this case was 2/10/03.
HARRIS: So it's really -- there's kind of a window; babies are going to come when they decide to come, and within six days that's pretty close to a normal range for pregnancy?

TOW-DER: Very normal range.

[accordn2me]

They themselves do not know from one minute to the next. From the infamous experiment we'll just call Monkey still stuck, Kermit gets nudged some more (http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Research&Analysis/field/jetty/071506/field.htm#6) (sounds like part of a script to a low-budget porn flick if you ask me), we have these statements from the conclusion (in the order they appear):


So you tell me, I'm lost.Good morning to all!:seeya:

Well, here it is morning...already....I've decided to do my own experiment and have my coffee black - YUCK! - to try and jolt myself awake....while looking at this "experiment" again.

Here's how it looks this morning after half a cup of extremely strong, extremely black coffee.....

Kermit practically landed on top of where Conner's body was found.

However, the experimenter concluded that Conner could not have washed ashore because of Distaso's statement of how the tide washes and deposits debris. :shrug:

I don't know about the debris in her experiment. But the guy who found Conner's body testified in court that there was debris everywhere.

[frydaddy]

I have to admit, I had no idea what the heck everyone was talking about with this Kermit/monkey - business (pun intended). Is this "experiment" scientific? Or is it the result of someone with too much time on their hands and an unhealthy obsession with proving the unprovable?

If we go with the theory that Laci and Conner were planted, where were they kept, for how long, and for what reason? And for those who think they were planted, how did the planters know that placing them where they were found would implicate Peterson and only Peterson? Why did they pick that spot?

[Hey Paula]

Hiya FD! This experiment was not scientific; it was conducted by Marlene. Go take a look - here is the link: http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Research&Analysis/field/jetty/071506/field.htm#6

I wonder if this experiment will be used in Scott's new trial, i.e., if he wins one?

[accordn2me]

I wonder if this experiment will be used in Scott's new trial, i.e., if he wins one?
IF so.....it will HELP the state's case (not that they need help)...but this experiment shows, accordn2experimenter :biggrin:

"We have evidence on film that objects relative in size to Conner can make it through the rocks at water levels comparable to the high tides previous to Conner being found on April 13, 2003.

This evidence shows that objects making it through the rocks can end up in the general area where Conner was found."

[frydaddy]

Speaking of mathematical *facts* - I was reading Sharon's book again last night. The last night she saw ISP a free man. He was at her house, and she heard him on the phone with Kim Peterson telling her TWICE to change Conners due date from the 10th to the 16th. Now, I don't know about YOUS, but I find that SUSPICIOUS.

*snipped*



More important in that passage, was Scott's statement to Kim. If completely accurate, I think the statement "Conner was going to be born on the 16th, not the 10th...", was pretty remarkable.

[frydaddy]

Hiya FD! This experiment was not scientific; it was conducted by Marlene. Go take a look - here is the link: http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Research&Analysis/field/jetty/071506/field.htm#6

Probably best to keep my comments and my comedy to myself on this issue. But, thanks eversomuch for the link!! ;)

[accordn2me]

I have to admit, I had no idea what the heck everyone was talking about with this Kermit/monkey - business (pun intended). Is this "experiment" scientific? Or is it the result of someone with too much time on their hands and an unhealthy obsession with proving the unprovable?

If we go with the theory that Laci and Conner were planted, where were they kept, for how long, and for what reason? And for those who think they were planted, how did the planters know that placing them where they were found would implicate Peterson and only Peterson? Why did they pick that spot?hey frydaddy :seeya:

Have ya heard that the bodies were "stored" in the Hoffman Marsh? That's the theory of some SIIs. :rolleyes:

I can't figure out if those SIIs believe the "real killers" stored the bodies in the Hoffman Marsh then went back, retrieved the bodies and planted them where they were finally found - a deliberate, risky move just to frame Scott, even though he was....if not the only suspect at that time...certainly the prime suspect.

Or do they belive the "real killers" planted the bodies in the Hoffman Marsh and the storm moved them to where they were finally found? :shrug:

[frydaddy]

hey frydaddy :seeya:

Have ya heard that the bodies were "stored" in the Hoffman Marsh? That's the theory of some SIIs. :rolleyes:

I can't figure out if those SIIs believe the "real killers" stored the bodies in the Hoffman Marsh then went back, retrieved the bodies and planted them where they were finally found - a deliberate, risky move just to frame Scott, even though he was....if not the only suspect at that time...certainly the prime suspect.

Or do they belive the "real killers" planted the bodies in the Hoffman Marsh and the storm moved them to where they were finally found? :shrug:

Hiya A2M!!! I gotta run out for a bit, perhaps someone will fill in the gaps for us while I am away. If they chose Hoffman Marsh...have they said why this target was chosen, when they placed the bodies there, etc.? TIA

[Hey Paula]

LMAO! Kermit, Doll and Monkey come to testify for DRISP; they talk about their floating experience.

All joking aside, because I know Marlene avidly supports Scott, but experiments such as these are rarely, if ever, allowed as evidence in court because it isn't possible to duplicate the exact prevailing conditions of the day Scott went trolling or the days following. Certainly, because the storm was deemed inordinate, (I call it "The Perfect Storm") those conditions, especially the strong northerly wind which propelled Laci and Conner to shore, can never be duplicated.

IMO

[thinkaboutit]

Speaking of mathematical *facts* - I was reading Sharon's book again last night. The last night she saw ISP a free man. He was at her house, and she heard him on the phone with Kim Peterson telling her TWICE to change Conners due date from the 10th to the 16th. Now, I don't know about YOUS, but I find that SUSPICIOUS.

Rewinding a bit to Ron's remark to ISP about fishing in the afternoon, when Ron made that comment, he was ASSUMING that ISP took the chartered fishing boat out of the BM. At that point he had NO IDEA ISP had his own boat...that he drove 90 miles to get w e t.

TopGunner - could you be more specific as to why you think Scott insisting on the new due date is so suspicious?

I remember that part from Sharon's book regarding the chartered fishing boat. The reason I question this - is that Ron never mentioned anything like this when he testified - he said he was being a "smart behind" and "kidding" and making an "off-handed joke". Those were his words.

[Wudge]

How identical was testing the boat on the trailer in a car park?

You mean buoyancy cannot be tested when a boat rests on dry land! Somebody better tell Greg Beratlis.

(snicker)

[accordn2me]

Nor would one put a dummy without arms and legs in a boat in a parking lot, now.........would one? :mad:

A dummy would.

[JustMyOpinion]

[QUOTE=accordn2me;8853773]hey frydaddy :seeya:

Have ya heard that the bodies were "stored" in the Hoffman Marsh? That's the theory of some SIIs. QUOTE]

An SII that posts here posted their own theory the burglars stored Laci "propped up" in a bathtub, IIRC.

[accordn2me]

[QUOTE=accordn2me;8853773]hey frydaddy :seeya:

Have ya heard that the bodies were "stored" in the Hoffman Marsh? That's the theory of some SIIs. [QUOTE]

An SII that posts here posted their own theory the burglars stored Laci "propped up" in a bathtub, IIRC.Do you remember why, in this...theory....did the burglars "store" Laci propped up? :confused:


4 months, right? And was she alive part of those 4 months....according to said SII's "theory?" :confused:

And I don't remember...did the "theory" have Conner being born alive? Out of the top...the fundus, right? And living for....how long?

[JustMyOpinion]

[QUOTE=JustMyOpinion;8854408][QUOTE=accordn2me;8853773]hey frydaddy :seeya:

Have ya heard that the bodies were "stored" in the Hoffman Marsh? That's the theory of some SIIs. Do you remember why, in this...theory....did the burglars "store" Laci propped up? :confused:


4 months, right? And was she alive part of those 4 months....according to said SII's "theory?" :confused:

And I don't remember...did the "theory" have Conner being born alive? Out of the top...the fundus, right? And living for....how long?

IIRC, according to the OP's theory, the burglars wanted to frame Scott, so they needed to keep Laci's dead body somewhere for awhile, and they thought Laci's upper & lower remains showed different levels of decomposition, so they thought there was water in a bathtub and she was propped up ( partly in, partly out of the water)?? They did think Conner was stored somewhere else. Perhaps the OP will clarify.

[frydaddy]

[QUOTE=accordn2me;8854419][QUOTE=JustMyOpinion;8854408]

IIRC, according to the OP's theory, the burglars wanted to frame Scott, so they needed to keep Laci's dead body somewhere for awhile, and they thought Laci's upper & lower remains showed different levels of decomposition, so they thought there was water in a bathtub and she was propped up ( partly in, partly out of the water)?? They did think Conner was stored somewhere else. Perhaps the OP will clarify.

LMAO - my day will go much, much better if you tell me you are joking. Please type those words in response, okay? Please?

ETA: I did a search of bathtub...you weren't joking!!! Yikes! LMAO

[JustMyOpinion]

[QUOTE=JustMyOpinion;8854423][QUOTE=accordn2me;8854419]

LMAO - my day will go much, much better if you tell me you are joking. Please type those words in response, okay? Please?

LOL. I wish I could oblige. LOL

[frydaddy]

[QUOTE=frydaddy;8854431][QUOTE=JustMyOpinion;8854423]

LOL. I wish I could oblige. LOL

I shall remain on the edge of my seat until the bathing Kermit scientific study comes out. Although frogs, even ones made with fabric, have a very different decomp rate, so I would be slightly skeptical at the results!

Have a great day J-MO the rest of the good people!

[thinkaboutit]

Post deleted

[JustMyOpinion]

[QUOTE=JustMyOpinion;8854435][QUOTE=frydaddy;8854431]

I shall remain on the edge of my seat until the bathing Kermit scientific study comes out. Although frogs, even ones made with fabric, have a very different decomp rate, so I would be slightly skeptical at the results!

Have a great day J-MO the rest of the good people!

ROTFL frydaddy.
Have a great day, yourself. !

[JustMyOpinion]

So did I. "Yikes" is an understatement. "Hey dude, you need more paper in here, and the tub need another inch or two of water. How do you ever expect to frame Scott if you don't pay attention to the details?"

ROTFL, adnoid.

[deputydi]

[QUOTE=JustMyOpinion;8854435][QUOTE=frydaddy;8854431]

I shall remain on the edge of my seat until the bathing Kermit scientific study comes out. Although frogs, even ones made with fabric, have a very different decomp rate, so I would be slightly skeptical at the results!

Have a great day J-MO the rest of the good people!
Weren't some of those experiments a hoot? Many of them had me laughing so hard I couldn't type. And some were so outlandish that I thought they had to be a joke.

[enlightenme]

[QUOTE=frydaddy;8854444][QUOTE=JustMyOpinion;8854435]
Weren't some of those experiments a hoot? Many of them had me laughing so hard I couldn't type. And some were so outlandish that I thought they had to be a joke.


Hilarious! I remember saraliba, a staunch NG, suggesting that the NGs hire 10 boats and get 10 pigs that weighed about what Laci weighed. They would all try to throw the pig overboard in the SF bay without capsizing the boat. The one that could do it would get a prize.

So, she wanted to give a prize to the person who could prove Scott COULD have done it?

Not only would this be incredibly insulting to Laci's family (something she never considers), but no one took her up on her challenge. Surprise.

Sorry, off topic. :D

JMO

[frydaddy]

So did I. "Yikes" is an understatement. "Hey dude, you need more paper in here, and the tub need another inch or two of water. How do you ever expect to frame Scott if you don't pay attention to the details?"

This post brings to mind that word...what is it...oh, yeah...

<chuckle>

:D

[caphill]

Her due date wasn't "changed."
HARRIS: Now, with regards to the -- the estimated date of delivery -- and I think that's the term that you use in your practice?

TOW-DER: Delivery date. Estimated date of confinement.

HARRIS: And you had two notations in the file, one -- the first one was February 10th?

TOW-DER: Correct.

HARRIS: And that was a gestational measurement based on the last menses, and that's calculated when they first come in?

TOW-DER: Correct.

HARRIS: And then the second date was the February 16th, and you indicated that was based on the second ultrasound?

TOW-DER: Correct.

HARRIS: And that was done by Dr. Yip in your office?

TOW-DER: Correct.

HARRIS: The -- when they're only six days apart, do you change the estimated due dates based on that?

TOW-DER: For clinical purposes we usually base it on the original due date, if it's within seven days. Which in this case was 2/10/03.
HARRIS: So it's really -- there's kind of a window; babies are going to come when they decide to come, and within six days that's pretty close to a normal range for pregnancy?

TOW-DER: Very normal range.



This testimony verifies my previous statement that Laci's medical chart, after the second sonogram, showed her due date as 2-16.

Sharon can make or infer there is some issue in Scott knowing the latest medical info from Laci's DR visits and some will swallow anything she says hook, line and sinker. Just shows how easily facts can be skewed to fit someone's agenda or beliefs.

[JustMyOpinion]

This testimony verifies my previous statement that Laci's medical chart, after the second sonogram, showed her due date as 2-16.

Sharon can make or infer there is some issue in Scott knowing the latest medical info from Laci's DR visits and some will swallow anything she says hook, line and sinker. Just shows how easily facts can be skewed to fit someone's agenda or beliefs.

The testimony does not verify that her due date was changed.
The testimony verifies her EDC was 2/10. The doc testified if the sonogram finding is within 7 days, they base it on the EDC. The ultrasound finding was within 6 days. Her EDC was 2/10.

[frydaddy]

LMAO - My guess is that the doctor told Scott and Laci that her due date is 2-10, but the ultrasound indicates it could happen as late as 2-16. Laci probably stuck with the original date and didn't think it relevant enough to tell Sharon in her short conversation that night. The more important issue, besides that of the "was going to be born", is why he didn't answer her with where he got the information when she asked. More important yet, is why it was so important to him that the information be changed on the flyer. What was changing the due date going to do to help find her? I think if my speculation is accurate on why he wanted it changed, it will only reinforce that Sharon's gut that Scott was involved was dead on the money.

[caphill]

The testimony does not verify that her due date was changed.
The testimony verifies her EDC was 2/10. The doc testified if the sonogram finding is within 7 days, they base it on the EDC. The ultrasound finding was within 6 days. Her EDC was 2/10.


In case there are comprehensive issues in reading the transcript regarding Laci's medical chart and files, copies of these are available for review in the trial exhibits.

The original estimated date on first visit was Feb 10. After second sonogram, Laci's Dr changed her estimated date to Feb 16 as noted on her medical chart.

[JustMyOpinion]

In case there are comprehensive issues in reading the transcript regarding Laci's medical chart and files, copies of these are available for review in the trial exhibits.

The original estimated date on first visit was Feb 10. After second sonogram, Laci's Dr changed her estimated date to Feb 16 as noted on her medical chart.

I've seen the chart. As the doctor testified, they were using the EDC of 2/10.

[caphill]

I've seen the chart. As the doctor testified, they were using the EDC of 2/10.


Who is they? A nurse practitioner saw Laci and opened a chart for her using the first day of her last period to estimate due date. Laci returned on July 16th and a nurse practitioner performed the first sonogram. It was Sept 24th that Laci first saw Dr. Yip. On that date Dr. Yip performed the second sonogram of the fetus and noted on Laci's chart a estimated due date of Feb 16th. That is factural info acccording to the medical charts and the testimony of the Drs.

What is speculation and conjecture is why Laci had not shared with her mother the progress of her pregnancy and that after Dr Yip's sonogram her new date of Feb 16th was clearly noted on her chart. From Sept 24th until Laci's disappearance did Laci and her mother not talk about her Dr visits? Did she not tell Sharon her due date was estimated by her Dr to be a week later that originally estimated by the nursing staff?

Since the medical charts were exhibits in the trial, one can only speculated why Sharon would make an "issue" about Scott giving the due date as the 16th. Is this the best she could do to try to find something nefarious in everything Scott ever said.

[frydaddy]

Who is they? A nurse practitioner saw Laci and opened a chart for her using the first day of her last period to estimate due date. Laci returned on July 16th and a nurse practitioner performed the first sonogram. It was Sept 24th that Laci first saw Dr. Yip. On that date Dr. Yip performed the second sonogram of the fetus and noted on Laci's chart a estimated due date of Feb 16th. That is factural info acccording to the medical charts and the testimony of the Drs.

What is speculation and conjecture is why Laci had not shared with her mother the progress of her pregnancy and that after Dr Yip's sonogram her new date of Feb 16th was clearly noted on her chart. From Sept 24th until Laci's disappearance did Laci and her mother not talk about her Dr visits? Did she not tell Sharon her due date was estimated by her Dr to be a week later that originally estimated by the nursing staff?

Since the medical charts were exhibits in the trial, one can only speculated why Sharon would make an "issue" about Scott giving the due date as the 16th. Is this the best she could do to try to find something nefarious in everything Scott ever said.

What are you on and on about with this? I know repetition is a trademark of the advocates, but for the love, no one is arguing that the date of 2-16-03 is on the medical records as the adjusted EDC.

FACT: Laci's medical records state an adjusted EDC of 2-16-03. (twice actually)

FACT: Testimony states that for clinical purposes, if the adjusted EDC is within a week of the original EDC, they usually use the original.

SPECULATION ON YOUR PART: That the doctor told Laci on 9-24 that the new due date was 2-16. This is based solely on two notations on the medical report. There is no testimony, is there, that supports that this was discussed with Laci on 9-24?

SPECULATION ON JMO's PART: Per testimony, the 2-16 date was referred to as a "notation". Per testimony, if the dates are within a week, they go with the original for clinical purposes. So the speculation, to reasonable people, is that on 9-24, there was no conversation about a new date of 2-16.

FACT: Sharon had not been told about the 2-16 date. This actually supports JMO, not you. It corroborates the testimony. Which is better than speculation over speculation, which is what your theory is.

SPECULATION ON MY PART: Based on Scott's subsequent comments, the most likely scenario is that there was some conversation on 12-23 regarding the window between 2-10 and 2-16 for the baby's due date and that Laci, that night, probably didn't deem it worthy of mentioning to Sharon.

Now, rather than repeat what has been conceded regarding the notations on the medical report...how about answering a couple questions.

1. Why was it important to have the due date changed on the flyers/posters? And please, generalizations over setting the record straight doesn't explain how the changed date would be beneficial to finding Laci.

2. Why didn't Scott answer Sharon with a) Laci was told on 9-24 or b) we were told on 12/23? He didn't answer at all, he glazed over.

Oh - one more thing. As far as Sharon's book exerpt, she was giving a play by play of a conversation with Scott from January of 2003. She had no medical records during that conversation as it happened. She made the issue of it when the conversation took place. She wrote about it, after the trial. I think it is beyond ridiculous to expect her to examine her mindset as this tragedy unfolded, using trial testimony and exhibits to prove or disprove the accuracy of her suspicions, after the fact.

[frydaddy]

Sharon bashing. It gets old.

Especially when it's not accurate or relevant!

[accordn2me]

Sharon bashing. It gets old.It makes me sick - when NGs bash the victims' family.

[One2Snoop]

I hope that no one is bashing the family because its against TOS. Are we still discussing "Common Ground" on this thread?

[Rachel Cory]

In case there are comprehensive issues in reading the transcript regarding Laci's medical chart and files, copies of these are available for review in the trial exhibits.

The original estimated date on first visit was Feb 10. After second sonogram, Laci's Dr changed her estimated date to Feb 16 as noted on her medical chart.
Thank you, caphill. I get it. This change would mean that on December 23, the baby was actually one week younger, and that the fetus found along the path, ABOVE the debris line was actually more developed than Conner could have possibly been on the 23rd. Therefore, Scott is innocent.

PS: It's good to see you.

[accordn2me]

Thank you, caphill. I get it. This change would mean that on December 23, the baby was actually one week younger, and that the fetus found along the path, ABOVE the debris line was actually more developed than Conner could have possibly been on the 23rd. Therefore, Scott is innocent.

PS: It's good to see you.What? :confused: Could you explain this?

[Otter]

Thank you, caphill. I get it. This change would mean that on December 23, the baby was actually one week younger, and that the fetus found along the path, ABOVE the debris line was actually more developed than Conner could have possibly been on the 23rd. Therefore, Scott is innocent.

PS: It's good to see you.

Rachel, in all due respect, the term "fetus" for a essentialy a full term, can breathe on his own baby is offensive to me. I would appreciate you not refer to him as a fetus again. Thanks in advance.

[accordn2me]

My cousin gave birth to a baby 3 months prematurely. She's a beautiful walking, talking 2 year old now. You are SO RIGHT ON Otter, calling Conner a fetus is just another back door, completely disrespectful, DIG. I second your "knock it off".I'm thirding it!

The only "developing" Conner had left to do was putting on weight.

[caphill]

Thank you, caphill. I get it. This change would mean that on December 23, the baby was actually one week younger, and that the fetus found along the path, ABOVE the debris line was actually more developed than Conner could have possibly been on the 23rd. Therefore, Scott is innocent.

PS: It's good to see you.


Thanks for the welcome. Look at the size of the uterus on Dec 23rd and the size of the uterus when the remains were found in April and spare me the emotional bullcrap about Scott and his whittling down his horns with the likes of Amber Frey.

I would like to see a medical and scientific discussion of the remains of the 19 to 191/2 inch baby found on the shore and less about whether Scott had glass of wine wth dinner after his wife was discovered missing.

[One2Snoop]

Thanks for the welcome. Look at the size of the uterus on Dec 23rd and the size of the uterus when the remains were found in April and spare me the emotional bullcrap about Scott and his whittling down his horns with the likes of Amber Frey.

I would like to see a medical and scientific discussion of the remains of the 19 to 191/2 inch baby found on the shore and less about whether Scott had glass of wine wth dinner after his wife was discovered missing.

Please be respectful of the rules on this forum - using the words "emotional bullcrap" is inappropriate.

And

How can a living Laci's uterus be compared to what was found (of her remains) 4 months later? Unreal, there's no comparing IMO. We are not the doctors - and if you are please forgive me if you are. I hope you won't mind forwarding those credentials to Freshwater for verification.
Whose to say Conner may not have grown beyond that 19 1/2 inches had Laci lived? Having a baby is not an exact science nor are the measurements, weight or due date. I know that all of you who are mothers (like myself) know this - why try to make this into more than it is? And after reading about the condition of Conner's poor little body which was examined by professional ME's, I just don't get the opposition and I don't think I ever will. :confused:

[enlightenme]

Thanks for the welcome. Look at the size of the uterus on Dec 23rd and the size of the uterus when the remains were found in April and spare me the emotional bullcrap about Scott and his whittling down his horns with the likes of Amber Frey.

I would like to see a medical and scientific discussion of the remains of the 19 to 191/2 inch baby found on the shore and less about whether Scott had glass of wine wth dinner after his wife was discovered missing.


Well then, we'd better invite some doctors and scientists to this board.

[JustMyOpinion]

I would like to see a medical and scientific discussion of the remains of the 19 to 191/2 inch baby found on the shore and less about whether Scott had glass of wine wth dinner after his wife was discovered missing.

The baby was identified, he has a name, Conner Peterson. Are you a forensic pathologist, fetal medicine specialist, pediatrician, or some kind of scientist? There is a thread on this board devoted to the topic of Conner's gestational age, it is clearly marked.

[enlightenme]

The baby was identified, he has a name, Conner Peterson. Are you a forensic pathologist, fetal medicine specialist, pediatrician, or some kind of scientist? There is a thread on this board devoted to the topic of Conner's gestational age, it is clearly marked.


You would think that some doctors would be speaking out about this if there was such a glaring difference in the uterus measurements.

So far, NO ONE with any clout or influence has been an advocate for Scott's innocence at all.

[Rachel Cory]

Please be respectful of the rules on this forum - using the words "emotional bullcrap" is inappropriate.

And

How can a living Laci's uterus be compared to what was found (of her remains) 4 months later? Unreal, there's no comparing IMO. We are not the doctors - and if you are please forgive me if you are. I hope you won't mind forwarding those credentials to Freshwater for verification.
Whose to say Conner may not have grown beyond that 19 1/2 inches had Laci lived? Having a baby is not an exact science nor are the measurements, weight or due date. I know that all of you who are mothers (like myself) know this - why try to make this into more than it is? And after reading about the condition of Conner's poor little body which was examined by professional ME's, I just don't get the opposition and I don't think I ever will. :confused:

I'm not to say that Conner would not have grown beyond 19 and 1/2 inches had Laci lived. I will say, however, that at 28 weeks, (December 23) he was probably a little smaller. The baby (and don't ever accuse me of being insensitive to that boy, because I believe he was delivered and CRIED), was, IMO, at least 2 and 1/2 weeks past 28 when he was delivered. Explain, if you will, the dry, crumbly, 1/4 inch umbilicus. Explain.

[attorneywan2be]

I'm not to say that Conner would not have grown beyond 19 and 1/2 inches had Laci lived. I will say, however, that at 28 weeks, (December 23) he was probably a little smaller. The baby (and don't ever accuse me of being insensitive to that boy, because I believe he was delivered and CRIED), was, IMO, at least 2 and 1/2 weeks past 28 when he was delivered. Explain, if you will, the dry, crumbly, 1/4 inch umbilicus. Explain.

According to the evidence, Conner's gestational age was 32 weeks and 6 days on Dec 23rd..not 28 weeks..with that said, I also believe that Laci lived for several weeks after her disappearance, and I also believe that Conner was born alive..

[enlightenme]

I'm not to say that Conner would not have grown beyond 19 and 1/2 inches had Laci lived. I will say, however, that at 28 weeks, (December 23) he was probably a little smaller. The baby (and don't ever accuse me of being insensitive to that boy, because I believe he was delivered and CRIED), was, IMO, at least 2 and 1/2 weeks past 28 when he was delivered. Explain, if you will, the dry, crumbly, 1/4 inch umbilicus. Explain.


Was this one of your visions? Just curious.

[ekg]

Nor would one put a dummy without arms and legs in a boat in a parking lot, now.........would one? :mad:

why wouldn't one?

I've never understood this issue.... was it the disrespect b/c he didn't cover it up that P'd everyone off? or that he did it to begin with?

[attorneywan2be]

Drs. Lee and Wecht disagree with you. The stated in their book that it was their joint opinion that Conner had been out of the uterus and in the water for 2 - 5 days before washing ashore, which explains why his remains were considerably less decomposed than Laci's. They found no evidence of a vaginal birth or a c-section.

I didn't read the books you are referring to....Dr. Wecht said this on "On the Record"..

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, let me ask you some questions about it. Let me ask you the real heart of the matter. What is your opinion? Is your opinion that Conner was born dead or alive? Was Conner born alive, sir?

WECHT: I'm unable to give a definitive opinion. The organs and tissues were so decomposed that microscopic examination did not yield the answer. If we have a body that is reasonably fresh, then we can make that kind of determination. But there is no way to say that that baby definitely was born dead.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Can you estimate when Conner died?

WECHT: No, I can't, for the same reason. There was meconium (search), so the baby probably died within 48 hours, did not have to die right away. Let me say that there is no way to defensively state that that baby could not have been removed from the uterus. And the idea that, as one of your panelists who's not with you this evening has wildly explained as bizarre and so on — Jeffrey Dahmer was bizarre and Robert Berdella (search) was bizarre. And there's a lot of things that are bizarre, and especially in the state of California. So to remove a baby and to keep it alive for a short while, the baby dies, for whatever reason.

And you know that twine around the neck and over the shoulder, on the arm? How about if there is some kind of a bag that is over the baby that is held in place with that tape, and the bag dissolves and breaks apart in the water and the tape remains? There are a lot of explanations. The baby's head was 28 centimeters circumference. I measured 20 centimeters around the neck. You talk about something coming over the head, the body's floating in the water? You couldn't do that in a million years.

There's lot of things that are inexplicable in this case, and the idea that, Oh, it's absolutely definite — you can talk all you want about Amber Frey and you can talk all you want about what a cad he is and his dyed hair and his money in the wallet, the fundamental things apply, as they say in that song, Greta. And where was the death? When was the death? What was the mechanism of the death? Where's all the biological forensic evidence in this case? Where is it? Where is it?

VAN SUSTEREN: Let me ask you a scientific question. Maybe you can answer this, maybe you can't. But there has been some suggestion that the baby was in the water for a short period of time. Could you validate that assertion or not?

WECHT: Yes, I would agree. The dead baby was not in the water for three-and-a-half months. No way. The baby was in the water two days, three days, four days, something like this. There's no question about that.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136952,00.html

[ekg]

[QUOTE=frydaddy;8854444][QUOTE=JustMyOpinion;8854435]
Weren't some of those experiments a hoot? Many of them had me laughing so hard I couldn't type. And some were so outlandish that I thought they had to be a joke.

I know what you mean...Chang's exercises with the weightless drifters and not being able to determine where Laci was dumped and then saying in his email to LE that one reason could have been b/c the bodies were put in the bay separately, had me smiling...:tongue:

but seriously.... while some experiments may be funny or ridiculous, You've atleast got to give them a 'kudo' for actually doing something to try and prove their theories..

[ekg]

[QUOTE=deputydi;8854608][QUOTE=frydaddy;8854444]


Hilarious! I remember saraliba, a staunch NG, suggesting that the NGs hire 10 boats and get 10 pigs that weighed about what Laci weighed. They would all try to throw the pig overboard in the SF bay without capsizing the boat. The one that could do it would get a prize.

So, she wanted to give a prize to the person who could prove Scott COULD have done it?

Not only would this be incredibly insulting to Laci's family (something she never considers), but no one took her up on her challenge. Surprise.

Sorry, off topic. :D

JMO

again, I don't understand this.... why does it have to be insulting to the family?

why is asking a family member questions insulting?

wouldn't you want to be insulted if it found your child? or your child's killer?

[Otter]

[QUOTE=deputydi;8854608][QUOTE=frydaddy;8854444]

I know what you mean...Chang's exercises with the weightless drifters and not being able to determine where Laci was dumped and then saying in his email to LE that one reason could have been b/c the bodies were put in the bay separately, had me smiling...:tongue:

but seriously.... while some experiments may be funny or ridiculous, You've atleast got to give them a 'kudo' for actually doing something to try and prove their theories..

So what you're saying, in this "battle of the experts", that you give more weight (no pun intended) to a secretary tossing plush toys than you do to a man who has a PhD in the field. The link below is Dr. Cheng's CV, sorry its a pdf.

http://sfports.wr.usgs.gov/~rtcheng/vita.pdf

I just want to clarify so that I understand your basis of comparison.

[enlightenme]

[QUOTE=enlightenme;8854651][QUOTE=deputydi;8854608]

again, I don't understand this.... why does it have to be insulting to the family?

why is asking a family member questions insulting?

wouldn't you want to be insulted if it found your child? or your child's killer?


The Rochas already KNOW that their child's killer has been found. He's been tried, convicted, and is serving his sentence.

Are you kidding? You don't think throwing pigs, representing Laci, off of boats would not be insulting to Laci's family?

:shrug:

[ekg]

[QUOTE=ekg;8856015][QUOTE=deputydi;8854608]

So what you're saying, in this "battle of the experts", that you give more weight (no pun intended) to a secretary tossing plush toys than you do to a man who has a PhD in the field. The link below is Dr. Cheng's CV, sorry its a pdf.

http://sfports.wr.usgs.gov/~rtcheng/vita.pdf

I just want to clarify so that I understand your basis of comparison.

no, you didn't understand... I said nothing about a battle of experts..

I was just using Tongue-in-cheek humor kinda like the post I was replying to was all about.... ya know, how funny those experiments were, so funny the op could barely type...I just added my own 'humorous' experiment..

and what does his CV have to do with anything? he even said he wasn't an expert in bodies in water...even said he'd never done an experiment with a body before

[ekg]

[QUOTE=ekg;8856018][QUOTE=enlightenme;8854651]


The Rochas already KNOW that their child's killer has been found. He's been tried, convicted, and is serving his sentence.

Are you kidding? You don't think throwing pigs, representing Laci, off of boats would not be insulting to Laci's family?

:shrug:


no I really don't.

they could just as easily be representing E. Hernadez or any person who had been dumped/thrown in the bay.. Experiments are done to find facts. Autopsy's are construed as insulting in some religions, do you agree with that are they insulting?

IMO anything that helps explain why something is or happens isn't a personal insult.

[enlightenme]

[QUOTE=enlightenme;8856028][QUOTE=ekg;8856018]



EnL - just the fact that this questions HAS to be asked is twisted. Of course it's insulting, but even more insulting IMO is defending that murderer by victimizing the true victims. I've never understood that, but glad that I don't.
If I was able to wrap my mind around that kind of thinking, I'd have some serious concerns about my own character.

Hard to believe another Mother's Day is here for Sharon to deal with. I believe it would have been Laci's fourth Mother's Day. Too bad Conner's own Daddy made sure Laci never even got one.

I can't grasp the reasoning myself. Saraliba is always saying she's angry at Sharon because she doesn't want to know who the "real killer" of Laci is.

Duh! Why can't people believe that Sharon, Ron, us, many, many, in fact, the majority of folks already KNOW who the real killer is? Is it a form of egotism?

JMO

[ekg]

[QUOTE=enlightenme;8856028][QUOTE=ekg;8856018]



EnL - just the fact that this questions HAS to be asked is twisted. Of course it's insulting, but even more insulting IMO is defending that murderer by victimizing the true victims. I've never understood that, but glad that I don't.
If I was able to wrap my mind around that kind of thinking, I'd have some serious concerns about my own character.

Hard to believe another Mother's Day is here for Sharon to deal with. I believe it would have been Laci's fourth Mother's Day. Too bad Conner's own Daddy made sure Laci never even got one.

show me where I victimized anyone...

My opinion that experimenting with pigs or dolls or anything else as a valid form of investigation if far from mainstream. It's moo that 'body farms', while 'insulting' to some, are also a needed tool to help investigators.


I have not said Ron is guilty, Sharon is guilty or implied in anyway shape or form that they are not suffering for their loss. I have not trashed them or even come close to the line 'trashing them'...And I am getting tired of my character being calling into question just b/c I, a NG, say their names..:no:

[Otter]

[QUOTE=Otter;8856021][QUOTE=ekg;8856015]

no, you didn't understand... I said nothing about a battle of experts..

I was just using Tongue-in-cheek humor kinda like the post I was replying to was all about.... ya know, how funny those experiments were, so funny the op could barely type...I just added my own 'humorous' experiment..

and what does his CV have to do with anything? he even said he wasn't an expert in bodies in water...even said he'd never done an experiment with a body before

You mean by an expert in tidal activity? Versus Marlene? You brought up Dr. Cheng in comparison. That wasn't humorous to me, it was "dead" serious. He didn't need to have had experience with bodies. His expertise is how water in a bay moves and subsequently moves things in said water. So what are Marlene's credientials?

His CV was to show that he is an expert. The court accepted him as one based on his credentials. I like to provide a link to backup my opinion. :)

Anyone have Marlene's CV? Does she have one?

[accordn2me]

[QUOTE=enlightenme;8856028][QUOTE=ekg;8856018]


no I really don't.

they could just as easily be representing E. Hernadez or any person who had been dumped/thrown in the bay.. Experiments are done to find facts. Autopsy's are construed as insulting in some religions, do you agree with that are they insulting?

IMO anything that helps explain why something is or happens isn't a personal insult.My mother was a vain person. I don't mean that in a negative way toward her. But she was always concerned with her looks, looking good, etc. When she was murdered, I called the coroner and asked him to please not open her skull to examine or remove her brain. To do so causes sagging in the facial muscles. I knew my mom would hate that. She would have been insulted. My request was honored. Were it not, I would have been insulted.

[ekg]

[QUOTE=TopGunner;8856039][QUOTE=enlightenme;8856028]

I can't grasp the reasoning myself. Saraliba is always saying she's angry at Sharon because she doesn't want to know who the "real killer" of Laci is.

Duh! Why can't people believe that Sharon, Ron, us, many, many, in fact, the majority of folks already KNOW who the real killer is? Is it a form of egotism?

JMO

if we all did believe as you did, who would you argue with?

and what are we doing here if we can't have our doubts?

if you are set in you surety of who killed Laci, why are you still here? (I'm not asking in any rude tone, since I'm typing you can't tell, but unless I use a mean smiley, My 'tone' is most always respectful but questioning..) I'm totally wondering what would keep someone here if there weren't anymore questions left for them. I know if I had all of them I'd be gone and on to something else...

and you're not saying t hat to question is a form of egotism? are you?:confused: