The ONE reason..

[TuscanDreams]

Please tell the number one reason you feel that Scott Peterson is innocent or guilty.

What helped you formulate your opinion?

This is a circumstantial case and both sides have interesting points to share. Let's here them, what event made your decision for you?

[JustMyOpinion]

Please tell the number one reason you feel that Scott Peterson is innocent or guilty.

What helped you formulate your opinion?

This is a circumstantial case and both sides have interesting points to share. Let's here them, what event made your decision for you?

The bodies washed ashore a few miles from where he was with a boat on the day he reported them missing. For me, this was the most compelling piece of evidence in the case, and there was nothing brought by the defense to contradict or disprove this fact, IMO.

[One2Snoop]

What helped you formulate your opinion?

His fishy fishing story. Laci goes missing the same day.

Please tell the number one reason you feel that Scott Peterson is innocent or guilty.

What clenched it for me was when Laci and Conner washed ashore in the vicinity of where Scott said he went fishing.

JMO

[enlightenme]

The boat cover with gasoline on it.
The 5 trips to the bay, lying about his location.
The bodies of Laci and Conner, in the condition they were, washing ashore after a 2 day storm, 2 miles from his "fishy, fishing alibi".

Those are the biggest ones for me but there are plenty of other pieces of CE that convinced me of his absolute GUILT.

JMO

[Wudge]

Not Guilty.

Insufficient inculpatory evidence to support proof beyond a reasonable doubt for the necessary murder one elements of premeditation, deliberation and willfulness, and insufficient inculpatory evidence to support proof beyond a reasonable doubt for the necessary murder two element of malice aforethought (intent included).

[enlightenme]

If I may take this opportunity to suggest a future topic - since I can't really respond to this one because it doesn't fit me...

I've seen many posters - mostly but not exclusively NGs - that make statements including phrases such as "I will never believe..." or "Nobody will ever convince me..." or "I will never change my mind about...", etc.

I believe Scott is guilty, received a fair trial and a just sentence. However, I do not suffer from tunnel vision and I have an open mind. I could be convinced that Scott is actually innocent if the evidence could be reasonably explained to show that someone else did the crime.

It's not one single piece of evidence that convinces me, it's everything put together. I could rank, say, the top ten items that would have to be shown to be the acts of someone else in order for me to start to change my mind, but there's no single "magic bullet" item that, in isolation, convinced me of Scott's guilt.

To avoid being banned for posting off topic (or getting the dreaded red font admonishment) I will state that the bodies coming ashore where they did, when they did, in the condition they did tops the list.

I agree in principle. IF someone came forward and confessed and had details, crime scene, etc., I could change my mind. I'm human after all.

I think I have said that I will never believe the "bodies planted on the shore" theory. The reason why is that it involves too many unreasonable conclusions. Such as:

Bizarre, undetectable c-section from the top of the uterus.
Conner being preserved either in refrigerator or (sterile) plastic bag.
Body planters deciding on 1 mile apart was reasonable and feasible.
Body planters leaving plastic tape on Conner that served NO purpose.
Body planters waiting until a 2 day storm washed an incredible amount of debris ashore.
Body planters moving Laci's body and suddenly all her appendages fall off but they hide those some place else?

Now, if you were trying to convince me that someone put Laci in the bay shortly after it was discovered where Scott was fishing, I MIGHT think about it. It seems she would have been weighted down by the "real killers" if she didn't wash ashore for almost 4 months though. Why would the "real killers" do that? If they wanted to frame Scott, why not right away?

[Miss Bootsie]

The bodies washing ashore in the vicinity where Scott was boating around on the 24th + the condition of the bodies.
Driving 90 miles to the Bay on Christmas Eve, only to stay for one hour.

The sequence of events that occurred before Scott searched for and purchased the boat.

[Lili007]

... Shall I count the ways?


Scott buys a boat one day after he tells Amber he lost his wife
Scott stores the boat in his warehouse and doesn't want people to know about it
Scott makes several concrete anchors, traces of which are seen in the warehouse
traces of concrete are found in the boat
Scott pours remants of loose concrete in his driveway, thinking it will "set with the rain" and "fix" his driveway without him lifting another finger after sprinkling the concrete dust on
Laci goes "missing" on the day when Scott first takes his boat to Berkely Marina
Scott comes back to empty house, puts his clothes in the drier, takes a shower, eats pizza and then rings Sharon Rocha to enquire after Laci
He then says Laci is "missing"
When LE come around to help look, and ask Scott if they can take a look inside the house, Scott says yes,
During the search, Scott is then observed throwing the searchlight to the ground, outside the window, while using an expletive and the officer said he seemed very annoyed (I can get the literal quotes from transcripts, if anyone likes)
Scott gives a statement to LE but the sound is lost because the tape recorder didn't work - Defense can make anything of that, since the Prosecution can only play the video without sound and testify to what was said
Peterson is released on bail
Peterson makes a point of turning up to the search centre after 9.00 am, for reasons of 'avoiding the press', I believe - please correct me if I'm wrong
Peterson tapes up a note thanking volunteers who were looking for his "missing" wife and signs it "Laci's husband".
While volunteers are walking all around the neighbourhood posting MISSING posters about Laci, Scott is sitting in his SUV in a parking lot nearby talking to Amber on one of his mobiles
Peterson also went searching for his "missing" wife at the Superbowl - guess what? he didn't find her there
Peterson also didn't find Laci in Champs Elysees, or wherever he was celebrating with his pals Francois and Pascal
And he didn't catch any fish during that trip to Alaska just before
He also didn't spend his Christmas holidays in Maine with his family


Laci and baby Conner came to surface in San Francisco Bay, where their faithful and loving husband and father went "fishing" the day they both "disappeared" until they turned up dead.

At that stage, even though Sharon Rocha tries to reach Scott after having it confirmed that forensics had identified the bodies as Laci and Conner, Scott just doesn't return her call.

He knew all too well what it was about.

Instead, he led LE. who were following him, all over the place, and in the end proceeded to Torrey Pines Golfing Course, as though that's where he was heading for the last couple of hours.

In the car, he had camping and survival gear for a trip to Nepal, let alone Mexico. Also some $14,000 in cash, his brother's Driver's Licence, as well as his half-sister's credit card and a car in his mother's name - except of course, when he bought it, he registered it in the name of Jackie Peterson and convinced those people who sold it to them that his name was "Jackie".

Of course, the fact that that car also contained all the camping and survival gear he could need for a very long time, as well as all the change in clothing he would have use for, including shoes, I'm sure that the proximity of the Mexican Border had nothing to do with it. :biggrin:

JMO

[TuscanDreams]

If I may take this opportunity to suggest a future topic - since I can't really respond to this one because it doesn't fit me...
To avoid being banned for posting off topic (or getting the dreaded red font admonishment) I will state that the bodies coming ashore where they did, when they did, in the condition they did tops the list.

You don't get banned for posting off topic here, if that was the case, I'd have been banned a long time ago.

[Otter]

I've been pondering this thread.

I mentioned this on another thread and its always stuck with me because I knew she was dead.

The tv interview, an outtake, his cell went off and he apologized and said he would turn the phone off. The camera panned to the kitchen with the blackboard where Laci wrote "Merry Christmas".

He came back, sat down, apologized again and continued the interview. He had simply turned the phone off.

He knew what happened, he knew what he did and he knew where she was. I knew then too. NO ONE acts like that. NO ONE.

Cold as ice. I can't find a link, not with that part.

[cookiewench]

I knew in my heart on the day after Christmas that Scott had murdered his wife. The fact that he went fishing on Christmas eve (weird) combined with, "Peterson has admitted that no one in his family knew about the boat but himself."

I just knew it. I mean....who has a "secret boat" and just happens to decide to go fishing with it on Christmas eve on the same day that his wife gets "lost".

All of the rest of it - all of the evidence and testimony and facts and Amber tapes - just confirmed to my head what my heart already knew.

Of course - I could have never been on the jury, because I would have told that I believed 100% that Scott was guilty the minute I saw his smug mug and strut on TV.

[JustMyOpinion]

I've been pondering this thread.

I mentioned this on another thread and its always stuck with me because I knew she was dead.

The tv interview, an outtake, his cell went off and he apologized and said he would turn the phone off. The camera panned to the kitchen with the blackboard where Laci wrote "Merry Christmas".

He came back, sat down, apologized again and continued the interview. He had simply turned the phone off.

He knew what happened, he knew what he did and he knew where she was. I knew then too. NO ONE acts like that. NO ONE.

Cold as ice. I can't find a link, not with that part.

Here is a link to transcript of that interview:
http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/docs/gomezinterview.html?page=4

[Wudge]

You don't get banned for posting off topic here, if that was the case, I'd have been banned a long time ago.

Given the comfort of safe harbor for going O/T, I am happy to offer up the real victim in the Duke lacrosse case.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/14/the-daily-show-will-nancy-grace-apologize-to-duke-lacrosse-players/

[accordn2me]

Please tell the number one reason you feel that Scott Peterson is innocent or guilty.

What helped you formulate your opinion?

This is a circumstantial case and both sides have interesting points to share. Let's here them, what event made your decision for you?Finding out Scott foresaw 2 weeks into the future that this would be his first Christmas without Laci whom he had "lost."

[Lili007]

Given the comfort of safe harbor for going O/T, I am happy to offer up the real victim in the Duke lacrosse case.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/14/the-daily-show-will-nancy-grace-apologize-to-duke-lacrosse-players/

This is still the Peterson case. If you choose to opine on lacrosse, you have ample opportunity to do it in this forum:

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/forumdisplay.php?f=359

I suppose you don't bother to post there, because no-one reads it.

JMO

[Anne2719]

This is still the Peterson case. If you choose to opine on lacrosse, you have ample opportunity to do it in this forum:

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/forumdisplay.php?f=359

I suppose you don't bother to post there, because no-one reads it.

JMO
If you had clicked on the link and watched the clip, you might have seen that it was more relevant to this case than you'd think.

[Lili007]

If you had clicked on the link and watched the clip, you might have seen that it was more relevant to this case than you'd think.

I see. It refers to crooks and liars. I should have seen the relationship to Scott Peterson straightaway. My mistake.

JMO

[JustMyOpinion]

Wow. Re-reading that stuff just confirms guilt.

"...at that time it wasn't appropriate to comment about because it's not relevant..."

Hey buddy, your wife is missing, you have ASKED the police and the world to help. When you then decide to LIE because, in your opinion, the TRUTH is "not relevant", you look guilty. And that's because you ARE guilty.

One wonders if Scott was offended that the police were allowed to investigate this case. Maybe he thought he was so clever and superior to these detectives/officers, that he should have been annointed to lead the investigation ( & deciding what information was relevant). When he and his family set-up the alternative tip line, ( and didn't turn over a "tip" to police that might have implicated Scott per Brochinni's testimony at prelim) it became quite obvious to me that Scott wasn't "cooperating" with police, IMO. They were working against the police, and trying to obstruct their investigation, IMO. The conversations detailed between he & Jackie ( in Crier's book) are quite telling as to Scott & Jackie's true feelings about the police. IMO.

[cookiewench]

I got chills reading that again JMO. Lie after lie after lie. Even when he knew others would know he was lying, it didn't "put the brakes" on it, to use his own words. How anyone can listen to his own words and still defend him is just weird to me. Then again, HE'S BEEN ALL THOSE PLACES, so, like, what do I ever know? :tongue:

To some people, those lies are just nothing - or are "normal" lies.

Some of Scott's defenders say that the reason he didn't tell LE about Amber was because he thought that Laci would be back in a few days and so, didn't want to let the cat out of the bag on that one.

But then - Scott himself says that Laci already knew about Amber. Was he lying about that?

[Otter]

To some people, those lies are just nothing - or are "normal" lies.

Some of Scott's defenders say that the reason he didn't tell LE about Amber was because he thought that Laci would be back in a few days and so, didn't want to let the cat out of the bag on that one.

But then - Scott himself says that Laci already knew about Amber. Was he lying about that?

Oh yeah! And she was "okay with it". :rolleyes: We were then cautioned that "no one knew their relationship but them". Gee, that's true. He told us the truth on that didn't he?

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/docs/sawyerinterview.html?page=3

[Wudge]

If you had clicked on the link and watched the clip, you might have seen that it was more relevant to this case than you'd think.

I totally agree Anne.

Going to a crime forum's archives to review this case (Peterson case) from the beginning will reveal all the rumors, myths, lies, falsehoods, etc., that had been tossed out to the public as fact.

As Nancy did in the Duke Lacrosse case, she (and other "analysts") have done the same thing in the Peterson case and other cases, which is to present to the public uncorroborated rumor, myth, planted lies, etc., as if the defendant(s) need to explain a myth, rumor, falsehood, etc..


Larry King Live 1/20/03

GRACE: I think we are looking at the evidence as it is unfolding before us. However, the danger in this is if it turns up to be some totally unknown perpetrator, all this attention focused on Scott Peterson, a, is detracting the police, and b, can be used as a defense at trial. The real perp can say, look, it was really Scott Peterson, not me. And in fact, the police believe that. Even the cable networks believe it.

So, that's a problem. I was going to follow up on what Candice said. Everybody made a big to do about this $250,000 life insurance policy. I think it is even bigger than that. When you're expecting a new child, I would assume the father would take out an insurance policy on himself. At the same time so he can support the child even after death, but that did not happen. He took it out on her. I'm interested did she sign for that policy? KING: And -- but it is also, true, isn't it, Mark, that some fathers take out insurance on the mother in case of the death in childbirth?

Same show and here's another example of a false assumption being presented as hard fact

GRACE: Right, I agree. Right now I don't think there is enough to go to a grand jury or a jury.

But something interesting, we know forensic evidence was taken out of the home, the car, the boat. We don't know what it is. But I do know this. I know that it was sent to the serology unit of the Department of Justice crime lab. And as Mark can tell you that means bodily fluid that's got to be saliva, semen or blood. That will be a big indicator if that helps the state that could be the evidence they need to go forward.

Same show and here's yet another example of a false assumption (the house had no drapes) being presented as hard fact.

GRACE: It's absolutely possible and I agree with the caller. Now Mark Geragos and I got into an argument about this last week. He says the drape evidence means nothing. But all of you viewers, and, Larry, don't you have a routine every morning? Don't you do the same thing every morning?

Editorial note: I've counted over 80 shows that Larry King had on the Peterson case and trial.

http://www-cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/lkl.html

More than a few times, I've reviewed all of the Larry King Live transcipts that related to the Peterson case. Taken cumulatively, in my mind, the amount of myths, rumors, falsehoods, etc., that were falsely portrayed as hard fact or "evidence" by Nancy (or others) on Larry King's show "alone" is of mind-boggling proportion (is it just me). And the Larry King Live show was but one of many shows and media sources that closely followed the Peterson case.

I think it is safe to say that there were more than a few other sources that did the exact same same thing. Moreover, I consider the Larry King Live show coverage of the Peterson case to be one the more balanced shows.

Of course, by the time the Duke lacrosse case came into the public light, Nancy Grace had her own show (gasping for breath here...why is the room spinning?).

[enlightenme]

I totally agree Anne.

Going to a crime forum's archives to review this case (Peterson case) from the beginning will reveal all the rumors, myths, lies, falsehoods, etc., that had been tossed out to the public as fact.

As Nancy did in the Duke Lacrosse case, she (and other "analysts") have done the same thing in the Peterson case and other cases, which is to present to the public uncorroborated rumor, myth, planted lies, etc., as if the defendant(s) need to explain a myth, rumor, falsehood, etc..


Larry King Live 1/20/03

GRACE: I think we are looking at the evidence as it is unfolding before us. However, the danger in this is if it turns up to be some totally unknown perpetrator, all this attention focused on Scott Peterson, a, is detracting the police, and b, can be used as a defense at trial. The real perp can say, look, it was really Scott Peterson, not me. And in fact, the police believe that. Even the cable networks believe it.

So, that's a problem. I was going to follow up on what Candice said. Everybody made a big to do about this $250,000 life insurance policy. I think it is even bigger than that. When you're expecting a new child, I would assume the father would take out an insurance policy on himself. At the same time so he can support the child even after death, but that did not happen. He took it out on her. I'm interested did she sign for that policy? KING: And -- but it is also, true, isn't it, Mark, that some fathers take out insurance on the mother in case of the death in childbirth?

Same show and here's another example of a false assumption being presented as hard fact

GRACE: Right, I agree. Right now I don't think there is enough to go to a grand jury or a jury.

But something interesting, we know forensic evidence was taken out of the home, the car, the boat. We don't know what it is. But I do know this. I know that it was sent to the serology unit of the Department of Justice crime lab. And as Mark can tell you that means bodily fluid that's got to be saliva, semen or blood. That will be a big indicator if that helps the state that could be the evidence they need to go forward.

Same show and here's yet another example of a false assumption (the house had no drapes) being presented as hard fact.

GRACE: It's absolutely possible and I agree with the caller. Now Mark Geragos and I got into an argument about this last week. He says the drape evidence means nothing. But all of you viewers, and, Larry, don't you have a routine every morning? Don't you do the same thing every morning?

Editorial note: I've counted over 80 shows that Larry King had on the Peterson case and trial.

http://www-cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/lkl.html

More than a few times, I've reviewed all of the Larry King Live transcipts that related to the Peterson case. Taken cumulatively, in my mind, the amount of myths, rumors, falsehoods, etc., that were falsely portrayed as hard fact or "evidence" by Nancy (or others) on Larry King's show "alone" is of mind-boggling proportion (is it just me). And the Larry King Live show was but one of many shows and media sources that closely followed the Peterson case.

I think it is safe to say that there were more than a few other sources that did the exact same same thing. Moreover, I consider the Larry King Live show coverage of the Peterson case to be one the more balanced shows.

Of course, by the time the Duke lacrosse case came into the public light, Nancy Grace had her own show (gasping for breath here...why is the room spinning?).


So what? All of us know what the rumors and false reports were by now.
The media ALWAYS gets things wrong in the beginning of a story. Either they hear a rumor and run with it or they don't check their facts.

In this VT shooting rampage, I've heard dozens and dozens of rumor or mis-statements by the media that later turned out not to be true.

If you think us, or the general public, think Scott is guilty based on the rumors and wrong reporting EARLY on in this case, I think you are mistaken.

JMO

[Lili007]

I totally agree Anne.

snip............

Of course, by the time the Duke lacrosse case came into the public light, Nancy Grace had her own show (gasping for breath here...why is the room spinning?).


Tried breathing, lately?

Oxygen is good for you. :D

Lili

[JustMyOpinion]

So what? All of us know what the rumors and false reports were by now.
The media ALWAYS gets things wrong in the beginning of a story. Either they hear a rumor and run with it or they don't check their facts.

In this VT shooting rampage, I've heard dozens and dozens of rumor or mis-statements by the media that later turned out not to be true.

If you think us, or the general public, think Scott is guilty based on the rumors and wrong reporting EARLY on in this case, I think you are mistaken.

JMO
Media covered both sides in this case, IMO, and I agree with you that rumours had nothing to do with the fact that Scott was suspected, arrested, indicted and convicted, IMO.
I think it would have served Scott better had his family not given interviews to various press/media offering explanations/excuses for his behavior, IMO..and been better for Scott's case had he not given his own media interviews ( which it appears was McCallister's advice). Although it is tempting to utilize the media spotlight to try and manipulate public perception, it is risky, IMO. By the time those media interviews Scott taped were introduced as evidence at trial, they likely proved very "damning" evidence as to Scott's character & state of mind, IMO.

[Anne2719]

Hmmm.

I see. It refers to crooks and liars. I should have seen the relationship to Scott Peterson straightaway. My mistake.

JMO

I take it you still haven't watched the clip.

[Wearing A Halo]

I totally agree Anne.

Going to a crime forum's archives to review this case (Peterson case) from the beginning will reveal all the rumors, myths, lies, falsehoods, etc., that had been tossed out to the public as fact.

As Nancy did in the Duke Lacrosse case, she (and other "analysts") have done the same thing in the Peterson case and other cases, which is to present to the public uncorroborated rumor, myth, planted lies, etc., as if the defendant(s) need to explain a myth, rumor, falsehood, etc..


Larry King Live 1/20/03

GRACE: I think we are looking at the evidence as it is unfolding before us. However, the danger in this is if it turns up to be some totally unknown perpetrator, all this attention focused on Scott Peterson, a, is detracting the police, and b, can be used as a defense at trial. The real perp can say, look, it was really Scott Peterson, not me. And in fact, the police believe that. Even the cable networks believe it.

So, that's a problem. I was going to follow up on what Candice said. Everybody made a big to do about this $250,000 life insurance policy. I think it is even bigger than that. When you're expecting a new child, I would assume the father would take out an insurance policy on himself. At the same time so he can support the child even after death, but that did not happen. He took it out on her. I'm interested did she sign for that policy? KING: And -- but it is also, true, isn't it, Mark, that some fathers take out insurance on the mother in case of the death in childbirth?

Same show and here's another example of a false assumption being presented as hard fact

GRACE: Right, I agree. Right now I don't think there is enough to go to a grand jury or a jury.

But something interesting, we know forensic evidence was taken out of the home, the car, the boat. We don't know what it is. But I do know this. I know that it was sent to the serology unit of the Department of Justice crime lab. And as Mark can tell you that means bodily fluid that's got to be saliva, semen or blood. That will be a big indicator if that helps the state that could be the evidence they need to go forward.

Same show and here's yet another example of a false assumption (the house had no drapes) being presented as hard fact.

GRACE: It's absolutely possible and I agree with the caller. Now Mark Geragos and I got into an argument about this last week. He says the drape evidence means nothing. But all of you viewers, and, Larry, don't you have a routine every morning? Don't you do the same thing every morning?

Editorial note: I've counted over 80 shows that Larry King had on the Peterson case and trial.

http://www-cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/lkl.html

More than a few times, I've reviewed all of the Larry King Live transcipts that related to the Peterson case. Taken cumulatively, in my mind, the amount of myths, rumors, falsehoods, etc., that were falsely portrayed as hard fact or "evidence" by Nancy (or others) on Larry King's show "alone" is of mind-boggling proportion (is it just me). And the Larry King Live show was but one of many shows and media sources that closely followed the Peterson case.

I think it is safe to say that there were more than a few other sources that did the exact same same thing. Moreover, I consider the Larry King Live show coverage of the Peterson case to be one the more balanced shows.

Of course, by the time the Duke lacrosse case came into the public light, Nancy Grace had her own show (gasping for breath here...why is the room spinning?).

Yep, the most glaring example of a "false assumption being presented as hard fact" was Dr. Wecht, "never in a million years." So "obviously" exagerated that he never testified. Go figure.

[Lili007]

Hmmm.



I take it you still haven't watched the clip.

Hmm... I love your doggie pic. We have two of our own. We love them and treat them like our kids. :)

Lili

[TuscanDreams]

Hmm... I love your doggie pic. We have two of our own. We love them and treat them like our kids. :)

Lili

There are times that I prefer my 2 dogs to my children. :D

[Anne2719]

Hmm... I love your doggie pic. We have two of our own. We love them and treat them like our kids. :)

Lili
Thanks! Still working on training (he's 9 months old now), but it's going pretty well. He's a very sweet boy, my Bendix.

[JustMyOpinion]

Thanks! Still working on training (he's 9 months old now), but it's going pretty well. He's a very sweet boy, my Bendix.

Hi Anne
I have a year and a half y/old dobie mix. We're still working on training, too.
He's dominant, pushy, protective, smart and "sweet" for brief moments. LOL.
BTW, I adore boxers. ( we had one when I was a child).

[Anne2719]

Hi Anne
I have a year and a half y/old dobie mix. We're still working on training, too.
He's dominant, pushy, protective, smart and "sweet" for brief moments. LOL.
BTW, I adore boxers. ( we had one when I was a child).
Our dog trainer has a sweet boxer who comes to all the classes (Ben is a yellow Lab). I want to train him as a therapy dog and visit Alzheimer's patients -- he's very sociable and most of the time is calm (not at this moment, though).

Sorry to be O/T!

[accordn2me]

Hey Anne & JMO,

Can't help myself - I have 2 Beagles and 2 Chihuahua's. They are my children and I am their People. They are very controlling, manipulative (we have to spell the "w" word), demanding, and uncivilized. They own me hook, line, and sinker. I am their slave.........I love it. (them too!)The "w" word? Spell it....

[One2Snoop]

Hey Anne & JMO,

Can't help myself - I have 2 Beagles and 2 Chihuahua's. They are my children and I am their People. They are very controlling, manipulative (we have to spell the "w" word), demanding, and uncivilized. They own me hook, line, and sinker. I am their slave.........I love it. (them too!)

Is the "W" word - Walk? If it is, we have to spell it too otherwise our half chihuahua/fox terrier goes crazy until we're out the door. :tongue:

[accordn2me]

Is the "W" word - Walk? If it is, we have to spell it too otherwise our half chihuahua/fox terrier goes crazy until we're out the door. :tongue:
LOL! of course! I would love to see a pic of your dog. Some people say Elmo is part chihuahua/fox terrier. I'm always changing my mind about what I think he is. For a while I told people he was part blood hound because he is so sensitive. He looks absolutely nothing like a blood hound...it's just the sensitive side you understand. Then I watched a show on Carolina dogs and "American dingos." So then, I'm thinking that's what he is but he only weighs about 13 pounds and they weigh about 35+ pounds. He would have to be a "toy" Carolina dog....but he's purely from Hawaii, no doubt about that. He's gotten real picky about his food lately. And these looks he gives me, nearly kill me....

Now I'm thinking he's really a baby trapped in a dog's body.....he's cute as all get out, whatever he is!

[Otter]

Nice to see all mabudis feeling sassy! :tongue:

[One2Snoop]

LOL! of course! I would love to see a pic of your dog. Some people say Elmo is part chihuahua/fox terrier. I'm always changing my mind about what I think he is. For a while I told people he was part blood hound because he is so sensitive. He looks absolutely nothing like a blood hound...it's just the sensitive side you understand. Then I watched a show on Carolina dogs and "American dingos." So then, I'm thinking that's what he is but he only weighs about 13 pounds and they weigh about 35+ pounds. He would have to be a "toy" Carolina dog....but he's purely from Hawaii, no doubt about that. He's gotten real picky about his food lately. And these looks he gives me, nearly kill me....

Now I'm thinking he's really a baby trapped in a dog's body.....he's cute as all get out, whatever he is!

LOL - ours is female - and she's definitely sensitive....

(sorry about the red eyes - we haven't mastered the how not to do that yet)

http://i19.tinypic.com/434izab.jpg

Apologies for the offtopic Tuscan.

[accordn2me]

LOL - ours is female - and she's definitely sensitive....

(sorry about the red eyes - we haven't mastered the how not to do that yet)

http://i19.tinypic.com/434izab.jpg

Apologies for the offtopic Tuscan.OMG! She and Momo would give us beautiful grandbabies! Awwwwwww:rose:

I will try to post a pic when I get back. B/f is eyeing the computer and I'm supposed to get ready to go out for SUSHI!!! LOVE IT!

You've seen a pic of Max on myspace (if you looked at my pics) but it's not a good pic. Elmo looks almost exactly like him.

Here's the link for anyone who's curious:

http://www.myspace.com/samanthajuneisqueen

Never mind my crazy friends and mean azz kid! And I'm 42, not 24...LOL!:seeya:

[One2Snoop]

OMG! She and Momo would give us beautiful grandbabies! Awwwwwww:rose:

I will try to post a pic when I get back. B/f is eyeing the computer and I'm supposed to get ready to go out for SUSHI!!! LOVE IT!

You've seen a pic of Max on myspace (if you looked at my pics) but it's not a good pic. Elmo looks almost exactly like him.

Here's the link for anyone who's curious:

http://www.myspace.com/samanthajuneisqueen

Never mind my crazy friends and mean azz kid! And I'm 42, not 24...LOL!:seeya:

I think I'm blind. I only remember seeing a cat - where's the dog on that Myspace page? LOL

[One2Snoop]

OMG Snoops, she's ALMOST identical to one of my Chihuahua's, the one named SNOOPIE! LMAO!!! My Snoops is 6 pounds (the other is four), but has the exact same features, ears, etc. She looks like a BIG little dog (great dane) and she's all fawn, no white. Sorry no picts., my daughter took all the picture taking gear to college. :(

ChaCha is a year old in people years and weighs about 12 or 13 lbs maybe a little more by now. She's a joy to have but no doubt spoiled rotten. :rose:

[Anne2719]

OMG! She and Momo would give us beautiful grandbabies! Awwwwwww:rose:

I will try to post a pic when I get back. B/f is eyeing the computer and I'm supposed to get ready to go out for SUSHI!!! LOVE IT!

You've seen a pic of Max on myspace (if you looked at my pics) but it's not a good pic. Elmo looks almost exactly like him.

Here's the link for anyone who's curious:

http://www.myspace.com/samanthajuneisqueen

Never mind my crazy friends and mean azz kid! And I'm 42, not 24...LOL!:seeya:
Your cat looks like mine! (My two boy cats have extra thumbs.)
http://www.aha1.com/theslugfest/opposablethumbs.jpg

[Lili007]

Hey Anne & JMO,

Can't help myself - I have 2 Beagles and 2 Chihuahua's. They are my children and I am their People. They are very controlling, manipulative (we have to spell the "w" word), demanding, and uncivilized. They own me hook, line, and sinker. I am their slave.........I love it. (them too!)

It's uncanny! The "W" word is how we refer to it, too LOL!!

As in (trying to keep it quiet) "should we go for a W?" Of course they hear it and maybe just sense it and they love it.

Oh, gosh that makes me laugh. They're asleep with my DH, which is where I should be.:punch:

Love all doggies and everyone who loves doggies. :)

JMO

[JustMyOpinion]

It's uncanny! The "W" word is how we refer to it, too LOL!!

As in (trying to keep it quiet) "should we go for a W?" Of course they hear it and maybe just sense it and they love it.

Oh, gosh that makes me laugh. They're asleep with my DH, which is where I should be.:punch:

Love all doggies and everyone who loves doggies. :)

JMO

I'm laughing too! We also have to spell the "P" word, and the "C" word ( dare I type "PARK" or "CAR", will he sense it ???) ROTFL!

[accordn2me]

Your cat looks like mine! (My two boy cats have extra thumbs.)
http://www.aha1.com/theslugfest/opposablethumbs.jpgThis is one healthy, laid back looking cat! Samantha June (Sam) is quite a bit smaller but she's a spit fire! Or she was until she got sick.....not sure if it was the poisonous food or what. She's at my house is Louisiana. We have Curdy (in Hawaii) who looks just like Sam. Curdy has an extremely high tolerance for Elmo. Momo's always pulling Curdy's tail trying to get him to play chase. Curdy's not interested in chase at all. One thing's for sure, Sam will not tolerate a crooked look from a dog. If she even thinks Elmo is thinking about her she's going to whip him, badly! Poor Momo, you should hear him scream when the neighbor's cat gets him.....animals are the funniest things!

Thanks to everyone for sharing stories and pics!:rose:

[Lili007]

I'm laughing too! We also have to spell the "P" word, and the "C" word ( dare I type "PARK" or "CAR", will he sense it ???) ROTFL!

Oh, YES! Ours are not computer-litterate yet, but then who am I to know?

JMO

[Lili007]

I'm laughing too! We also have to spell the "P" word, and the "C" word ( dare I type "PARK" or "CAR", will he sense it ???) ROTFL!

LOUGH OUT LOUD and there's the icon as well :D

I love your story,

JMO

[Lili007]

If only we could make a life where no-one has to hurt. I guess that's impossible, but I still wish and pray for it.

Peace and love to all.

Lili

[monasan89]

Here's why I think Scott could be innocent:

"Forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden told Good Morning America that the limbs and head were probably removed before Laci was put in the water. "

So, how does Scott, take a body in full rigor (since he supposedly strangled her), to an extrememly public dock (where people saw him), dismember her body.........and not a single drop of blood is found in that boat?

[JustMyOpinion]

Here's why I think Scott could be innocent:

"Forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden told Good Morning America that the limbs and head were probably removed before Laci was put in the water. "

So, how does Scott, take a body in full rigor (since he supposedly strangled her), to an extrememly public dock (where people saw him), dismember her body.........and not a single drop of blood is found in that boat?

When did Michael Baden offer this opinion? Do you have a link to his statement published on GMA? TIA.

[Anne2719]

Here's why I think Scott could be innocent:

"Forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden told Good Morning America that the limbs and head were probably removed before Laci was put in the water. "

So, how does Scott, take a body in full rigor (since he supposedly strangled her), to an extrememly public dock (where people saw him), dismember her body.........and not a single drop of blood is found in that boat?
Baden says a lot of things without knowing enough about the cases, IMO.

[monasan89]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90600&page=1

Then there is this one, it's more detailed: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0305/16/lol.04.html

[Anne2719]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90600&page=1

Then there is this one, it's more detailed: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0305/16/lol.04.html
Interesting. Baden also said. "It does tell us that the baby was in the womb for many months after Laci was in the water and Laci in fact protected the baby until the baby came out shortly before the bodies were found."

In any case, he's stating an opinion based on very little, since he was nowhere near that autopsy, from what I gather.

[Otter]

Here's why I think Scott could be innocent:

"Forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden told Good Morning America that the limbs and head were probably removed before Laci was put in the water. "

So, how does Scott, take a body in full rigor (since he supposedly strangled her), to an extrememly public dock (where people saw him), dismember her body.........and not a single drop of blood is found in that boat?

The ME concluded and stated in a court of law, that Laci was disarticulated, not dismembered. Tool marks would have been evident. There weren't any.

[accordn2me]

Can you point me to a link proving that he said that?
It's in "the Amber tapes" and on this site. While you were away on vacation or where ever you went...One2Snoop posted a snip of the transcript between Scott and Amber where he admits he said that to her.

You have a lot of catching up to do. Especially about the twine. Can you provide a link to "the bombshell?"

[accordn2me]

Here's why I think Scott could be innocent:

"Forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden told Good Morning America that the limbs and head were probably removed before Laci was put in the water. "

So, how does Scott, take a body in full rigor (since he supposedly strangled her), to an extrememly public dock (where people saw him), dismember her body.........and not a single drop of blood is found in that boat?Full rigor? Really? How long does it take for "full rigor" to occur?

[accordn2me]

Link?We were asked a question. This is an answer. What sort of 'link' do you want? Do you not know that twine was double knotted around the baby's neck and had to be cut off?
Here's the deal...I was holding my newly pour glass of wine in my left hand....felt pain....looked...a mosquito was biting me...so I did what any true blonde would do....I slapped it HARD with my right hand! Now I have to go! Catch up reading and you will see. I am right. You are not.

[One2Snoop]

Here's the deal...I was holding my newly pour glass of wine in my left hand....felt pain....looked...a mosquito was biting me...so I did what any true blonde would do....I slapped it HARD with my right hand! Now I have to go! Catch up reading and you will see. I am right. You are not.


http://i17.tinypic.com/2e6bv3k.gif Don't you just hate when that happens - those pesky darn skeeters. http://i12.tinypic.com/3z9bhqr.gif

[attorneywan2be]

Some witnesses have said it would take years for the limbs to separate under water. Others have said it wouldn't. However ISTM that a partly skeletonized body might separate like that if it was roughly handled a day or two before she was dumped and then found.


Yep...Dr. Baden did say that it would take years for limbs to separate in water..

Baden disagreed, saying extremities are known to separate in water -- but not in four months.

In the past two weeks, he has presided over six autopsies of people who drowned or were killed in the winter, and whose bodies floated up as spring temperatures produce more decomposition gases. "None of them was dismembered," he said.
"Usually (a body) stays together pretty good," Baden continued, adding that marine animals normally do not chew through tough ligaments holding bones together. "After a while (separation occurs), yes, but not after four months -- not even after four years."

http://www.modbee.com/reports/laci/story/6830847p-7768347c.html

[Anne2719]

Yep...Dr. Baden did say that it would take years for limbs to separate in water..



http://www.modbee.com/reports/laci/story/6830847p-7768347c.html
I have very little respect for Dr. Baden after seeing him on Greta commenting on Terri Schiavo's "injuries" without knowing anything about the case. Once again, he has given his opinion without being anywhere near the autopsy room.

[attorneywan2be]

I have very little respect for Dr. Baden after seeing him on Greta commenting on Terri Schiavo's "injuries" without knowing anything about the case. Once again, he has given his opinion without being anywhere near the autopsy room.

But his opinion was based on his experience with bodies that drowned in Winter and surfaced in Spring..according to him, none of those bodies was dismembered..so one would wonder why was Laci's body dismembered??

[Anne2719]

But his opinion was based on his experience with bodies that drowned in Winter and surfaced in Spring..according to him, none of those bodies was dismembered..so one would wonder why was Laci's body dismembered??
Bodies that drowned and weren't weighted down. Apples/oranges.

[Anne2719]

It seems he's not alone:

Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), a renowned heart surgeon before becoming Senate majority leader, went to the floor late Thursday night for the second time in 12 hours to argue that Florida doctors had erred in saying Terri Schiavo is in a "persistent vegetative state."


"I question it based on a review of the video footage which I spent an hour or so looking at last night in my office," he said in a lengthy speech in which he quoted medical texts and standards. "She certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli."

His comments raised eyebrows in medical and political circles alike. It is not every day that a high-profile physician relies on family videotapes to challenge the diagnosis of doctors who examined a severely brain-damaged patient in person.
Bill Frist, huh. Yeah, I don't remember hearing about him being at an autopsy, either -- he spent "an hour or so" looking at that heavily-edited video footage, and that makes him an expert on the case? Give me a break. Frist was so politically motivated, IMO, he wasn't willing to look at the real facts of that case.

[attorneywan2be]

Bodies that drowned and weren't weighted down. Apples/oranges.

As far as I remember, there was ZERO evidence her body was weighted down...in addition:

From a daily news article by Richard Cole:

"Stephens told me in his opinion that 30 pounds would not likely be enough to cause a female of that weight, especially wrapped in plastic causing additional buoyancy from air trapped in the plastic, to go immediately to the bottom," Grogan wrote after his interview with the medical examiner.

"Stephens said he had cases previously where bodies had bloated with decomposition and pulled as much as 80 pounds of weight up with the body surfacing in the bay," the detective wrote.

[Anne2719]

Laci wasn't weighted down either:

No mold was ever found
The weight suggested (32 lb) was insufficient
No one makes weights ahead of time
The cement Scott bought was all accounted for
Scott had no extra rebar
No weights were ever found
In your opinion, she wasn't. In my opinion, she was. And the weights are still down there somewhere, with her arms, legs, and head attached. Who says he made them? Cement blocks can be found at any construction site.

[One2Snoop]

But his opinion was based on his experience with bodies that drowned in Winter and surfaced in Spring..according to him, none of those bodies was dismembered..so one would wonder why was Laci's body dismembered??

There's also the Evelyn Hernandez case. She disappeared May 1 2002 and her torso surfaced in the bay late July.


Authorities had already suspected that Hernandez and her son Alex met with foul play when her wallet was found in South San Francisco, two blocks from where Aguilera worked at a limousine company, Pera said. Then, in late July, a portion of her torso -- still clad in maternity clothes -- washed up on the Embarcadero.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/04/21/MN275651.DTL

Autopsy report for EH.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/docs/autopsy.html

Page 5
FINDINGS
1. Severly decomposed, Near Skeletonized Remains, Consisting of Lower Lumbar, Vertabrae, Pelvis, Femurs and Right Tibia and Fibula.

2. No Evidence of Sharp or Blunt Force Injuries Noted.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/docs/autopsy.html?page=5

If there are no indications of cut marks on EH either then how does one explain the condition of her remains after being in the bay for only 2 months?

[attorneywan2be]

In your opinion, she wasn't. In my opinion, she was. And the weights are still down there somewhere, with her arms, legs, and head attached. Who says he made them? Cement blocks can be found at any construction site.

We are discussing a factual case..it is not a matter of opinion that there was no evidence presented in this case to prove beyond a reasonable doubt she was weighted down...there was no evidence Scott got Cement blocks from any construction site..that's your own theory..

[One2Snoop]

How indeed? EH was in the water for a max of 84 days and was completely skeletonized (no uterus or fetus). Laci was in for 111 days (allegedly) and yet was in much much better condition. Only conclusion? Scott is eliminated and therefore innocent.

Uhhhh no, good try though. Heavy Marine Life Preditation was evident on EH's body. The area her body was found in is also infested with Sealions.

[Anne2719]

We are discussing a factual case..it is not a matter of opinion that there was no evidence presented in this case to prove beyond a reasonable doubt she was weighted down...there was no evidence Scott got Cement blocks from any construction site..that's your own theory..
I thought it was obvious that was my own theory.

[attorneywan2be]

There's also the Evelyn Hernandez case. She disappeared May 1 2002 and her torso surfaced in the bay late July.


Authorities had already suspected that Hernandez and her son Alex met with foul play when her wallet was found in South San Francisco, two blocks from where Aguilera worked at a limousine company, Pera said. Then, in late July, a portion of her torso -- still clad in maternity clothes -- washed up on the Embarcadero.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/04/21/MN275651.DTL

Autopsy report for EH.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/docs/autopsy.html


http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/docs/autopsy.html?page=5

If there are no indications of cut marks on EH either then how does one explain the condition of her remains after being in the bay for only 2 months?

That's a good question...however, I'm not clear as to what they were referring to in EH's autopsy as to "no evidence of sharp or blunt force injuries noted"..I think they were referring to stab wounds..blunt force as in being beaten with a heavy object..I don't think they looked for tool marks on her bones to determine whether or not she was dismembered...I might be wrong..IMO, she was dismembered, I think due to decomposition the evidence of tool marks might not be detectable, anyhow, Laci's body was in a better condition than EH whose body was in the water for less than 3 months, and according to the prosecution's theory, Laci's body was supposedly in the water for a little less than 4 months..

[attorneywan2be]

I thought it was obvious that was my own theory.

That was not the point of my post..I was saying that the lack of evidence that Laci's body was weighted down is a fact and not an opinion..did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Laci's body was weighted down? ---> NO

[Anne2719]

That was not the point of my post..I was saying that the lack of evidence that Laci's body was weighted down is a fact and not an opinion..did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Laci's body was weighted down? ---> NO
Sorry. I was under the impression we were allowed to state our own opinions and theories here.

[accordn2me]

Rigor mortis is one of the recognizable signs of death (Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) mors, mortis) that is caused by a chemical change in the muscles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle) after death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death), causing the limbs of the corpse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_body) to become stiff (Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) rigor) and difficult to move or manipulate. Assuming mild temperatures, rigor usually sets in about 3-4 hours after clinical death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_death), with full rigor being in effect at about 12 hours, and eventually subsiding to relaxation at about 36 hours. Times for the onset of rigor mortis can vary from a few minutes to several hours depending on the ambient temperature. Factors influencing rigor mortis include the age and condition of the body, as well as the mode of death and the surroundings. For example, rigor mortis will tend to set in faster in those who were active immediately prior to death.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigor_mortis)

Thanks for proving my point about the time it takes rigor to begin and full rigor to come into effect.

Laci was in the bay probably before rigor began but certainly well before "full rigor" set in, IMBEO.

[thinkaboutit]

I've been pondering this thread.

I mentioned this on another thread and its always stuck with me because I knew she was dead.

The tv interview, an outtake, his cell went off and he apologized and said he would turn the phone off. The camera panned to the kitchen with the blackboard where Laci wrote "Merry Christmas".

He came back, sat down, apologized again and continued the interview. He had simply turned the phone off.

He knew what happened, he knew what he did and he knew where she was. I knew then too. NO ONE acts like that. NO ONE.

Cold as ice. I can't find a link, not with that part.

Didn't Sharon Rocha turn her phone off too? What conclusion do you draw from that?

As for Scott, what does it matter? He wanted to find Laci, the TV interview might have helped. If the cops had found her do you think the world wouldn't have know about it because he turned is phone off for an hour and missed the only message? Do you remember what happened when they found Jennifer Wilbanks (a.k.a. "The Runaway Bride")?

I agree Jim Jones - that interview where Scott turned off his cell phone was done at the end of January. Sharon Rocha had closed the volunteer center two weeks earlier. Both could be interpreted as signs of losing hope - but I don't agree that it was a sign that he had killed his wife.

[Anne2719]

There's no good reason for the difference in the condition of the bodies EXCEPT that Laci was never in the water for even 84 days.

If either had been predated by sea lions or similar there would have only been broken bits of bone left - no body would be found.
That's your opinion, and not a fact about the length of time she was in the water.

Remember also that there were different water conditions and temperatures. EH was found at the height of the summer. Laci was found after several cold months. EH didn't even go into the water until it was warmer. I don't find it surprising that there were different rates of decomposition, and the locations of the bodies could well dictate a difference in what kind of feeding activity might have gone one.

[JustMyOpinion]

That was not the point of my post..I was saying that the lack of evidence that Laci's body was weighted down is a fact and not an opinion..did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Laci's body was weighted down? ---> NO

They proved it beyond my own reasonable doubt, it appears they didn't do so beyond yours. JMO

[JustMyOpinion]

How indeed? EH was in the water for a max of 84 days and was completely skeletonized (no uterus or fetus). Laci was in for 111 days (allegedly) and yet was in much much better condition. Only conclusion? Scott is eliminated and therefore innocent.

This is your only conclusion based on your own comparison of two autopsy reports. Based on evidence at trial ( ME's testimony, Forensic Anthro testimony, Criminalist Testimony, Hydrologist testimony, Petrographer testimony) it is my conclusion Scott weighted Laci's body with concrete anchors, put her in the Bay, Conner was expelled via tidal movement, animal feeing, decomposition, after a storm in April, their bodies washed ashore. JMO

[enlightenme]

Sea water temperatures don't vary by much summer or winter. SF Bay is always cold - otherwise people would have escaped Alcatraz in summer by swimming. We don't know when EH achieved complete skeletonization - it might hove only taken 60 days. We do know that in 111 days (to believe the prosecution) Laci was still far from complete skeletonization. That makes Scott innocent.

IMO, NOTHING will ever prove or make Scott innocent.

So now EH has become the new benchmark for how long a body has been in the SF bay? Tell that to the Medical Examiner's office. They won't have to "estimate" anymore. :rolleyes:

[thinkaboutit]

Sea water temperatures don't vary by much summer or winter. SF Bay is always cold - otherwise people would have escaped Alcatraz in summer by swimming. We don't know when EH achieved complete skeletonization - it might hove only taken 60 days. We do know that in 111 days (to believe the prosecution) Laci was still far from complete skeletonization. That makes Scott innocent.

True - here is a link for average water temps - the date range is 1982 - 2001

http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/images/climplot/46026_st.jpg

http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_history.php?station=46026

Looks like the average sea temperature range for when Laci would have been in the bay is 52 degrees - 53 degrees (fahrenheit) - for EH it would have been 52 - 59 - if I am calculating correctly (EH was last seen May 1st and body found July 24th)

[accordn2me]

IMO, NOTHING will ever prove or make Scott innocent.

So now EH has become the new benchmark for how long a body has been in the SF bay? Tell that to the Medical Examiner's office. They won't have to "estimate" anymore. enlightenme, can you see the picture of the twine/tape? If I'm not confusing posters again...it is you who first posted them. This is what I've concluded after looking at the pictures of the twine/tape while reading and cross-referencing the testimony of Drs. Peterson & Kyo (was Kyo a Dr....no matter). I would read a little testimony...go look at the pics....read a little more testimony....look at the pics. After doing this several times....you know what I've decided? You might not know I learned this...and I want to tell you so I can properly thank you for pointing me in the right direction of true testimony and pictures because if I would have taken some NGs at their word.....I might have so incorrectly believed the twine/tape was exonerating evidence!:eek: Now I can see with my own two eyes......:read:

The tight knot was in the string of twine/tape, I believe, before the twine/tape ever looped around Conner's neck. The tight knot that was already in the twine/tape that wound around Conner's neck had absolutely nothing to do with, and no relation to, the loose bow-like formation that was starting to form after the twine/tape with the tight knot (that was already there) woundaround Conner's neck. That tight knot never held the twine/tape in an enclosed circle or loop. I forgot to say...I don't believe the twine/tape went over Conner's head. The testimony clearly uses the word around.

So thank you very much for helping clear this up for me. :beer:

[thinkaboutit]

enlightenme, can you see the picture of the twine/tape? If I'm not confusing posters again...it is you who first posted them. This is what I've concluded after looking at the pictures of the twine/tape while reading and cross-referencing the testimony of Drs. Peterson & Kyo (was Kyo a Dr....no matter). I would read a little testimony...go look at the pics....read a little more testimony....look at the pics. After doing this several times....you know what I've decided? You might not know I learned this...and I want to tell you so I can properly thank you for pointing me in the right direction of true testimony and pictures because if I would have taken some NGs at their word.....I might have so incorrectly believed the twine/tape was exonerating evidence!:eek: Now I can see with my own two eyes......:read:

The tight knot was in the string of twine/tape, I believe, before the twine/tape ever looped around Conner's neck. The tight knot that was already in the twine/tape that wound around Conner's neck had absolutely nothing to do with, and no relation to, the loose bow-like formation that was starting to form after the twine/tape with the tight knot (that was already there) woundaround Conner's neck. That tight knot never held the twine/tape in an enclosed circle or loop. I forgot to say...I don't believe the twine/tape went over Conner's head. The testimony clearly uses the word around.

So thank you very much for helping clear this up for me. :beer:

Accordn2me - than what is your opinion of why Dr. Peterson testified at pre-lim that he was of the opinion that the loop went over Conner's head?

[accordn2me]

Accordn2me - than what is your opinion of why Dr. Peterson testified at pre-lim that he was of the opinion that the loop went over Conner's head?

I'm going to guess that Dr. P said something to the effect of, "one explanation could be....."

He also had some theory about the "mineralized stones" on Laci's pants that I put zero weight on as soon as he said in essence that he was no geologist (mineral expert).

Dr. P did the autopsy. Tidal action, barnacles, twine/tape....these things are not his forte'. And since the defense did not present an expert, IMO, because they couldn't find one to say what they needed the jury to hear..., I have to look at the pictures and read the testimony and come to an educated opinion.

[accordn2me]

If she was killed the night before?I thought she got up, curled her hair with the curling iron, and went shopping on the computer for a scarf and umbrella stand on the morning of the 24th. Scott killed Laci after she did all that, but before she put her shirt on. It's doubtful that rigor had begun at all before he dumped her and Conner in the bay.

[Rachel Cory]

I thought she got up, curled her hair with the curling iron, and went shopping on the computer for a scarf and umbrella stand on the morning of the 24th. Scott killed Laci after she did all that, but before she put her shirt on. It's doubtful that rigor had begun at all before he dumped her and Conner in the bay.
What a cool character he is. Outside, chatting with Kristen Dempewolf, loading umbrellas in the back of his truck, on top of Laci's body, probably, calmly driving to his warehouse and fiddling around, not a bit troubled that his wife is lying dead nearby. It's too ridiculous to consider.

[JustMyOpinion]

What a cool character he is. Outside, chatting with Kristen Dempewolf, loading umbrellas in the back of his truck, on top of Laci's body, probably, calmly driving to his warehouse and fiddling around, not a bit troubled that his wife is lying dead nearby. It's too ridiculous to consider.

I don't think he's a cool character. I think he's a sociopath, JMO.

[accordn2me]

What a cool character he is. Outside, chatting with Kristen Dempewolf, loading umbrellas in the back of his truck, on top of Laci's body, probably, calmly driving to his warehouse and fiddling around, not a bit troubled that his wife is lying dead nearby. It's too ridiculous to consider.
Kristen Dempewolf? Is she the one that couldn't testify to this alleged cool conversation? What time do the SIIs claim Laci logged off the computer that morning? Did this questionable cool chat with Kristen take place before or after that?

[One2Snoop]

Kristen Dempewolf? Is she the one that couldn't testify to this alleged cool conversation? What time do the SIIs claim Laci logged off the computer that morning? Did this questionable cool chat with Kristen take place before or after that?

According to Scott Peterson, he awakens about 8:00 a.m. and sees that Laci Peterson is already awake—he will later say that she probably woke up at about 7:00 a.m. He showers and eats a bowl of cereal (he will later say, "I think they were the Cinnamon Puffins from Trader Joe's"), the same breakfast he reports that she had. At 8:40 a.m. (by some accounts, at 8:54 a.m.), someone logs onto his laptop computer for about 5 minutes, checking weather in San Jose, visiting a Yahoo! shopping site and reading mail from the slpete1@msn.com address. Sometime before 9:00 a.m. (by some accounts, 8:44 a.m.), Scott Peterson loads something large, wrapped in a blue tarp, into the back of his pickup truck. He is witnessed by a neighbor. He later states that he loaded "market umbrellas"

Times aren't listed as specific

http://www.crimenews2000.com/lacipeterson/when/when0202.htm

[accordn2me]

According to Scott Peterson, he awakens about 8:00 a.m. and sees that Laci Peterson is already awake—he will later say that she probably woke up at about 7:00 a.m. He showers and eats a bowl of cereal (he will later say, "I think they were the Cinnamon Puffins from Trader Joe's"), the same breakfast he reports that she had. At 8:40 a.m. (by some accounts, at 8:54 a.m.), someone logs onto his laptop computer for about 5 minutes, checking weather in San Jose, visiting a Yahoo! shopping site and reading mail from the slpete1@msn.com address. Sometime before 9:00 a.m. (by some accounts, 8:44 a.m.), Scott Peterson loads something large, wrapped in a blue tarp, into the back of his pickup truck. He is witnessed by a neighbor. He later states that he loaded "market umbrellas"

Times aren't listed as specific

http://www.crimenews2000.com/lacipeterson/when/when0202.htmUmmm, what are you doing? Did you read all that? Well, I have wine that needs drinking! And that's LONG, real long. And you can see half of it ain't right! It's a comprehensive compilation, kudos to whoever did it. And thank you for posting it just for me :rose: I almost stopped reading as soon as I read "According to Scott Peterson...":no:

But...I didn't see one dang thing about a cool chat with Kristen D or KRISTEN REED who said she saw both cars at home around 9:39...there about.....

Guess I'll have to chalk the alleged converstation with a girl named Kristen up to more SII strongly asserted, but not necessarily factual, information claimed to be evidence.

[One2Snoop]

Ummm, what are you doing? Did you read all that? Well, I have wine that needs drinking! And that's LONG, real long. And you can see half of it ain't right! It's a comprehensive compilation, kudos to whoever did it. And thank you for posting it just for me I almost stopped reading as soon as I read "According to Scott Peterson...":no:

But...I didn't see one dang thing about a cool chat with Kristen D or KRISTEN REED who said she saw both cars at home around 9:39...there about.....

Guess I'll have to chalk the alleged converstation with a girl named Kristen up to more SII strongly asserted, but not necessarily factual, information claimed to be evidence.

LOL - http://i13.tinypic.com/65zq2co.jpg That was just a synopsis of the morning events on Dec. 24th. Sorry I didn't have time to do more in-depth searching for ya. Maybe tomorrow. :seeya:

[accordn2me]

LOL - http://i13.tinypic.com/65zq2co.jpg That was just a synopsis of the morning events on Dec. 24th. Sorry I didn't have time to do more in-depth searching for ya. Maybe tomorrow. :seeya:DUH! I deleted my reply to you....

I think I just said don't spoil me more than I am already.

The poster doing the claiming should post the proof....isn't that "the rule?"

If you want to be nice....give me your dog. Momo needs a sister.

[One2Snoop]

DUH! I deleted my reply to you....

I think I just said don't spoil me more than I am already.

The poster doing the claiming should post the proof....isn't that "the rule?"

If you want to be nice....give me your dog. Momo needs a sister.

Oh yes, you're correct, my bad. :punch:

I can still be nice to ya but sorry, no dog included! LOL. Maybe Momo and ChaCha can be '"friends"? ;)

[frydaddy]

Had no idea there was an SP board here in Crime Library with a great deal of discussion still ongoing. Looks like some are still as fervent as ever!!!

The ONE reason? Next to impossible to narrow it down to just one. But a few things stand out...

Mock Cross w/Cardoza - How can an innocent man look so terribly guilty in his actions and words, that he cannot possibly pass as a credible witness in his own defense? Unable to provide a single redeeming moment in testimony to help himself? Of course, we know he had the legal right not to testify. What a lucky "someone else" to have found THE perfect fall guy?!!

Connect the dots - If you take each and every one of the individual alternate arguments for SP's innocence or non-guilt and lay them out as has been done with guilt, I don't see how anyone could be so unfortunate as SP to be framed or conspired against in such a perfect and clever manner. If you believe SP is guilty, you believe every piece fits that he did the crime. If you don't, you must believe every piece fits the perfect frame/conspiracy. How's that even possible? What motive was there? Why Scott and Laci?

Mark Geragos - Even if you buy LE corruption or ineptitude, how tough is it for an expeienced high price defense attorney to bear this out to the point of an acquittal? Gergaos and Harris could not accomplish what message board posters feel they have adequately done in cyberspace? The witnesses that weren't called was mind boggling, IF they could have provided exculpatory or exhonerating evidence. I don't think MG is a poor defense attorney per se. I think he was hired as the best chance to schmooze a jury into believing SP didn't do this. He was Hollywood...a circus act...trying to make a guilty man LOOK innocent using smoke and mirrors. He had nothing to work with. What gain was there for MG to lose this case with an inadequate defense? I think MG knows something that many SNG/SII people don't. That being that these witnesses, these alternate arguments, these examples that supposedly prove it wasn't SP...they are hopeful fantasies and nothing more.

At any rate...good to see some of you again. :seeya:

[enlightenme]

Accordn2me - than what is your opinion of why Dr. Peterson testified at pre-lim that he was of the opinion that the loop went over Conner's head?

JMO, but the pre-lim is NOT the actual trial.

:read:

[enlightenme]

Had no idea there was an SP board here in Crime Library with a great deal of discussion still ongoing. Looks like some are still as fervent as ever!!!

The ONE reason? Next to impossible to narrow it down to just one. But a few things stand out...

Mock Cross w/Cardoza - How can an innocent man look so terribly guilty in his actions and words, that he cannot possibly pass as a credible witness in his own defense? Unable to provide a single redeeming moment in testimony to help himself? Of course, we know he had the legal right not to testify. What a lucky "someone else" to have found THE perfect fall guy?!!

Connect the dots - If you take each and every one of the individual alternate arguments for SP's innocence or non-guilt and lay them out as has been done with guilt, I don't see how anyone could be so unfortunate as SP to be framed or conspired against in such a perfect and clever manner. If you believe SP is guilty, you believe every piece fits that he did the crime. If you don't, you must believe every piece fits the perfect frame/conspiracy. How's that even possible? What motive was there? Why Scott and Laci?

Mark Geragos - Even if you buy LE corruption or ineptitude, how tough is it for an expeienced high price defense attorney to bear this out to the point of an acquittal? Gergaos and Harris could not accomplish what message board posters feel they have adequately done in cyberspace? The witnesses that weren't called was mind boggling, IF they could have provided exculpatory or exhonerating evidence. I don't think MG is a poor defense attorney per se. I think he was hired as the best chance to schmooze a jury into believing SP didn't do this. He was Hollywood...a circus act...trying to make a guilty man LOOK innocent using smoke and mirrors. He had nothing to work with. What gain was there for MG to lose this case with an inadequate defense? I think MG knows something that many SNG/SII people don't. That being that these witnesses, these alternate arguments, these examples that supposedly prove it wasn't SP...they are hopeful fantasies and nothing more.

At any rate...good to see some of you again. :seeya:

:seeya: frydaddy! Always good to see you!

[accordn2me]

Had no idea there was an SP board here in Crime Library with a great deal of discussion still ongoing. Looks like some are still as fervent as ever!!!

The ONE reason? Next to impossible to narrow it down to just one. But a few things stand out...

Mock Cross w/Cardoza - How can an innocent man look so terribly guilty in his actions and words, that he cannot possibly pass as a credible witness in his own defense? Unable to provide a single redeeming moment in testimony to help himself? Of course, we know he had the legal right not to testify. What a lucky "someone else" to have found THE perfect fall guy?!!

Connect the dots - If you take each and every one of the individual alternate arguments for SP's innocence or non-guilt and lay them out as has been done with guilt, I don't see how anyone could be so unfortunate as SP to be framed or conspired against in such a perfect and clever manner. If you believe SP is guilty, you believe every piece fits that he did the crime. If you don't, you must believe every piece fits the perfect frame/conspiracy. How's that even possible? What motive was there? Why Scott and Laci?

Mark Geragos - Even if you buy LE corruption or ineptitude, how tough is it for an expeienced high price defense attorney to bear this out to the point of an acquittal? Gergaos and Harris could not accomplish what message board posters feel they have adequately done in cyberspace? The witnesses that weren't called was mind boggling, IF they could have provided exculpatory or exhonerating evidence. I don't think MG is a poor defense attorney per se. I think he was hired as the best chance to schmooze a jury into believing SP didn't do this. He was Hollywood...a circus act...trying to make a guilty man LOOK innocent using smoke and mirrors. He had nothing to work with. What gain was there for MG to lose this case with an inadequate defense? I think MG knows something that many SNG/SII people don't. That being that these witnesses, these alternate arguments, these examples that supposedly prove it wasn't SP...they are hopeful fantasies and nothing more.

At any rate...good to see some of you again. :seeya:Hey frydaddy :seeya: I would love to know more about this mock cross w/Cardoza. Do you have a link, transcript....ANYTHING? That would be great!

[JustMyOpinion]

Hey frydaddy :seeya: I would love to know more about this mock cross w/Cardoza. Do you have a link, transcript....ANYTHING? That would be great!
http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/101804_ctv.html
Also Monday, Delucchi expanded a gag order to include defense lawyer Michael Cardoza, a legal commentator who appears frequently on Larry King Live and the Today show.

Cardoza acknowledged Monday that he had participated in a mock cross-examination of Peterson last week. Cardoza, who generally offers commentary favorable to the defense, said he was approached by defense lawyer Mark Geragos last week and agreed to help the defense for free.

He said he met with Peterson and his lawyers in the San Mateo County jail twice — once Sunday and once last week — and cross-examined him for "hours."

He refused to describe how Peterson held up under the questioning and said he did not give Geragos his opinion about whether his client should testify.

"There's nothing unethical about it. It happens in every major trial," he said, singling out the O.J. Simpson case.

Asked why he would agree to work for free and risk his career as a legal commentator, Cardoza shrugged and smiling slightly, said, "It was an opportunity to cross-examine Scott Peterson."

Cardoza said he is not barred from discussing the case generally, just his cross-examination of Peterson.

http://crime.about.com/b/a/120030.htm
Scott Peterson has taken part in mock cross-examinations by a former California prosecutor in an apparent attempt to determine if he should testify in his on defense in his double-murder trial for the deaths of his pregnant wife, Laci Peterson.
Michael Cardoza, a former Alameda County prosecutor, told The Modesto Bee that he twice conducted mock cross-examinations of Peterson last week in the San Mateo County jail in sessions that lasted for hours.

Lead attorney Mark Geragos observed the sessions, but did not ask for a recommendation on whether Peterson should testify, Cardoza said. "I’m not recommending anything," Cardoza said.

[One2Snoop]

Has Cardoza made any additional comments about this since the trials been over?

[Otter]

Has Cardoza made any additional comments about this since the trials been over?

I think he'd still be bound by attorney/client privilege, even though he didn't get paid. I always thought it was shady that MG got all his leaks out through Cardoza, sidestepping ever so slickly the gag order.

Okay, Gloria Allred did the basically the same thing regarding AF, so don't hit me, I'll do that myself. :punch:

[frydaddy]

:seeya: frydaddy! Always good to see you!

And it's always good to be seen by you! ;)

[frydaddy]

Hey frydaddy :seeya: I would love to know more about this mock cross w/Cardoza. Do you have a link, transcript....ANYTHING? That would be great!

As others have deftly pointed out, we may never know the substance of the mock cross. No links or tranny for the mock, as it was not for public consumption. However, isn't it obvious that it didn't go well? What does it say when they are supposedly considering letting him testify, then they do not let him? Did he fail a pass/fail test? Anyone out of Camp Peterson could have said it went fantastic, but they decided against doing it. I do not recall any ringing endorsements of SP around that time.

[accordn2me]

Thank you for those links! I can always count on you for information. Your knowledge of this case is impressive, as is that of several other posters on this board. However, it's your analysis and educated conclusions and polite, diplomatic defense of such that makes you, extra special! :rose:

[JustMyOpinion]

Thank you for those links! I can always count on you for information. Your knowledge of this case is impressive, as is that of several other posters on this board. However, it's your analysis and educated conclusions and polite, diplomatic defense of such that makes you, extra special! :rose:

You are very welcome, A2M. Thanks for the kind words and the rose.

[enlightenme]

As others have deftly pointed out, we may never know the substance of the mock cross. No links or tranny for the mock, as it was not for public consumption. However, isn't it obvious that it didn't go well? What does it say when they are supposedly considering letting him testify, then they do not let him? Did he fail a pass/fail test? Anyone out of Camp Peterson could have said it went fantastic, but they decided against doing it. I do not recall any ringing endorsements of SP around that time.


Actually, I remember Cordoza on some show being asked how it went and he answered something like, "Well, he didn't testify so you have your answer."

Beth even said that word was that it didn't go well.

[frydaddy]

It has been suggested, and reasonably so, that Distaso could have spent hours beating Scott up over Frey and the affair even though he himself gave up on her as any sort of motive. Few defendants do well on cross, and too many who insisted on testifying against advice of counsel lose their cases. Anything Scott said could also be used against him in appeals and in any possible retrial so all in all this is one point where Geragos did well. Too bad the jury ignored the judge's instructions and judged Scott not on the evidence, but on their 'skilled' analysis of his behavior at the defense table. I wouldn't let any of them choose my lunch, my clothes, or my next vacation. I sure wouldn't want them judging my life!

There was plenty more to quiz Peterson on than Frey and his affair. You say few defendants do well on cross and that too many insisted on testifying and lost...care to cite the "too many" examples of innocent defendants who testified and lost? Somewhat backwards logic, isn't it? That anything Scott said could be used against him in appeals and retrials...if he's innocent and all, it makes zero sense to NOT testify for fear of appeals and retrials that may never be needed. As for your judgment of the jurors...ironic to judge them by their actions, words, and behaviors. Isn't that what has the I's up in arms? Guess it's the result...scorn of the I's versus what will most likely be life behind bars for SP...that allows for the two separate standards.

[frydaddy]

Actually, I remember Cordoza on some show being asked how it went and he answered something like, "Well, he didn't testify so you have your answer."

Beth even said that word was that it didn't go well.

The fact the MC seemed to disappear said plenty. Your recall is likely better than mine, but I can think of no one who thought the mock cross had favorable results back then.

[thinkaboutit]

Actually, I remember Cordoza on some show being asked how it went and he answered something like, "Well, he didn't testify so you have your answer."

Beth even said that word was that it didn't go well.

Hmmm....not calling you a liar - but that doesn't sound like something Cardoza would say. Here is an example of how he typically answered that question:


Cardoza on Nancy Grace – July 2006



GRACE: You prepped him for cross-examination at his trial. Why didn`t he take the stand?

CARDOZA: I did. Got to ask Mark Geragos and Pat Harris that. I have no idea. When I went in to talk -- listen, when I went to in to talk with him, I went in, I introduced myself. I sat down. I began to cross-examine him. I did it for about three hours. When that was over, I got up and I left. All decisions were up to Harris and Geragos after listening to that cross. You should ask them that question. I really wasn`t privy to anything but my questions and his answers.


http://www-cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0607/21/ng.01.html

[Hey Paula]

Please tell the number one reason you feel that Scott Peterson is innocent or guilty.

What helped you formulate your opinion?

This is a circumstantial case and both sides have interesting points to share. Let's here them, what event made your decision for you?

Although there is an overwhelming amount of CE in this case, for me the singlemost damning CE is the bodies of Laci and Conner washing up where Scott Peterson went trolling, 90 miles from home, on the day Laci disappeared.

I have a long list of evidence against Scott Peterson,

IMO

[accordn2me]

<snip> You say few defendants do well on cross and that too many insisted on testifying and lost...care to cite the "too many" examples of innocent defendants who testified and lost? Somewhat backwards logic, isn't it? <snip>.OT...

Sorry about snipping the best parts of your post...but I want to address this small part because the "backwards logic" perked my ears up [that's irrelavant]. I think I know a couple of examples of defendants who might be factually innocent, they testified in their own defense, they were found guilty: 1. Darlie Routier 2. Cynthia Sommer

k, that's all.....:seeya:

[Rachel Cory]

Hmmm....not calling you a liar - but that doesn't sound like something Cardoza would say. Here is an example of how he typically answered that question:




http://www-cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0607/21/ng.01.html

Thank you, thinkaboutit. I saw this.

[accordn2me]

Thank you, thinkaboutit. I saw this.

So, Rachel Cory, in your opinion, why didn't Scott Lee Peterson testify after practicing with Cardoza?

[accordn2me]

IMO, Scott would have been destroyed on cross-examination. If he just once got caught lying while on the stand, the case would have been over.
Well....it couldn't have turned out much worse for Scott, now could it? Even if the jury would have returned murder one on both counts....

[accordn2me]

You are right about that, A2Me.
:seeya: I'mSun

Ya know....there is one thing I think Scott could have done to help himself...regardless of what the results were....IMO it would have helped him tremendously had he taken a polygraph. All kinds of excuses could have been made for "bad" results.....a "shows deception" reading, let's say. However, just the fact that he stepped up to the plate and took the darn thing would have gone a long way....accordn2me.

[One2Snoop]

:seeya: I'mSun

Ya know....there is one thing I think Scott could have done to help himself...regardless of what the results were....IMO it would have helped him tremendously had he taken a polygraph. All kinds of excuses could have been made for "bad" results.....a "shows deception" reading, let's say. However, just the fact that he stepped up to the plate and took the darn thing would have gone a long way....accordn2me.

I'm not so sure it would've helped him. I just have a really hard time getting those smug grins of his out of my mind. I know, looks can't convict but I do believe ones actions can be very damaging. And he never acted right IMO. :seeya:

[accordn2me]

I'm not so sure it would've helped him. I just have a really hard time getting those smug grins of his out of my mind. I know, looks can't convict but I do believe ones actions can be very damaging. And he never acted right IMO. :seeya:
He ain't right! You right! That boy ain't right! He did not act right.

Not takin' 'at test show ain't right!

How you been? :seeya:

[accordn2me]

That infamous smirk. Absolutely ones actions can be damaging. I think that is one of the things that did Scott in - his demeanor right from the start, along with his laid-back attitude and lies. He did it himself.
:seeya: One2Snoop and Accordn2meHe did it alone. He needed a boat. He miscalculated and got caught.

Oh, guess what? Brian's buying a boat tomorrow. A 14' one too! :eek:

[One2Snoop]

Hey to the both of you - I've been doing good - still reading everyday although I may not post. I'm right here with you. :beer:

[One2Snoop]

He did it alone. He needed a boat. He miscalculated and got caught.

Oh, guess what? Brian's buying a boat tomorrow. A 14' one too! :eek:

:eek: I'm sure that went over well - not. Just watch your back - I'm sure Momo would be more than willing to help too! http://i16.tinypic.com/4z41c03.gif

[One2Snoop]

Thank you for letting us know that, Snoop. Glad to hear you are on top of things and watching out for us.

Now, does your hubby plan on buying a 14' fishing boat??? ;)

uhhhhh no! :punch: LOL! It was bad enough I let him buy the car he wanted which is about to put us into bankruptcy (not really) but it sure feels like it, but a boat? No way! I can't see him buying a boat - never , notta, ever. I guess I shouldn't say that. One never knows! :eek:

[One2Snoop]

O/T Last night was so cold and tonight is so darn warm. Just thought I'd share that with you... :D

LOL, I hear ya - I think I may need to use the fan tonight. :cool: Whats up with this weather? One day its freezing and the next day its in the upper 80's.

[accordn2me]

:eek: I'm sure that went over well - not. Just watch your back - I'm sure Momo would be more than willing to help too! http://i16.tinypic.com/4z41c03.gif
Brian put Momo on the surfboard today! Momo doesn't like waves. I took him fishing the other day but it was too rough in the boat for him...had to hold him the whole time. Was afraid he'd bounce overboard. It would be soooo hard to see anything out there...even a body......much less a little shark-morsel like Momo. He's a good swimmer though.

Did I tell you he attacked a pitbull the other day? Freaked me out! A friend found this dog abandoned at the beach. We went to check her out because he said he found a puppy....well, she was a puppy...but still over 2x Momo's size. She was walking up to me and Momo went berserk and bit her throat! Thank God she is still a scaredy cat and didn't fight back. One bite with a couple of good shakes and we be sayin' bye bye Momo...:eek:

He won't do a thing when I pretend Brian is hurting me though. Not even a warning. Maybe he knows we are playing....but I think he truly fears Brian. Just like McKenzie probably did with Scott.....

[tv]

Snoops, if we even look in the direction of the leashes all h*ll breaks loose, and if we accidently slip and say it, we're doomed. There's no going back...rain, shine, snow.....out we go!This made me laugh out loud! We also have to spell walk. It's a forbidden word in our house and if you accidentally touch the leash it's a done deal...you're going for a walk!

[Chocoholic]

Please tell the number one reason you feel that Scott Peterson is innocent or guilty.

What helped you formulate your opinion?

This is a circumstantial case and both sides have interesting points to share. Let's here them, what event made your decision for you?

Scott had motive. He IMO didn't wish to be tied down to a wife with child and the financial burden should he wish to lead a life of his own that included other women. It was too costly.

[tv]

It wasn't just one thing that convinced me of his guilt but on the top of my list is telling Amber that he had lost his wife. That's too much of a coincidence for me.

Also, not picking up the fruit basket for Laci's grandfather and changing his plans to go golfing. The sudden change in plans makes me think that even though it was likely premeditated it wasn't necessarily in his mind to do it that day. :)

[deputydi]

Location, location, location. That's the ONE thing that can't be explained away.

[RaeDawn]

It wasn't just one thing that convinced me of his guilt but on the top of my list is telling Amber that he had lost his wife. That's too much of a coincidence for me.

Also, not picking up the fruit basket for Laci's grandfather and changing his plans to go golfing. The sudden change in plans makes me think that even though it was likely premeditated it wasn't necessarily in his mind to do it that day. :)

I agree there are many reasons for my believing he is guilty. I've wondered if he had planned to murder her after Christmas, but something made him act out sooner. :shrug:

[Hey Paula]

I agree there are many reasons for my believing he is guilty. I've wondered if he had planned to murder her after Christmas, but something made him act out sooner. :shrug:

Once Scott told Amber that he'd lost his wife and Christmas would be his first holiday without her, he planned to make that a reality, and IMO wasn't going to wait until after Christmas to do it.

Liars blend truths within their lies, as it helps them remember details of the lie they told, in addition to lending an air of credibility to their lies.

IMO

[frydaddy]

I've always wondered if the doctor appointment that morning had something to do with the timing of Scott's plan. Perhaps that appointment confirmed Scott's nightmare was going to become reality...hearing and seeing it in person had to spook the bejeezus out of him. IMO

[RaeDawn]

Once Scott told Amber that he'd lost his wife and Christmas would be his first holiday without her, he planned to make that a reality, and IMO wasn't going to wait until after Christmas to do it.

Liars blend truths within their lies, as it helps them remember details of the lie they told, in addition to lending an air of credibility to their lies.

IMO

Your post makes sense to me. I couldn't believe that he was actually romancing AF by phone during a vigil and search for his pregnant missing wife. I didn't follow this case as closely as many of you posters here, but with so much media coverage couldn't missing hearing the gist of it. Didn't someone mention that Scott had questions that becoming a parent could affect his libido? :confused: We know he was obsessed with sex. I don't think, however, it was because of Amber that he killed Laci. This guy wanted to play the rich, good looking playboy for the rest of his life, I suppose. What a shame...moo ...he had it all...a lovely wife and an unborn son on the way. I don't get it. moo

[Hey Paula]

Your post makes sense to me. I couldn't believe that he was actually romancing AF by phone during a vigil and search for his pregnant missing wife. I didn't follow this case as closely as many of you posters here, but with so much media coverage couldn't missing hearing the gist of it. Didn't someone mention that Scott had questions that becoming a parent could affect his libido? :confused: We know he was obsessed with sex. I don't think, however, it was because of Amber that he killed Laci. This guy wanted to play the rich, good looking playboy for the rest of his life, I suppose. What a shame...moo ...he had it all...a lovely wife and an unborn son on the way. I don't get it. moo

I don't think Scott killed Laci because of Amber, herself, but more the free lifestyle she represented. That Scott didn't want to father children with any woman is clear, as he had openly expressed this to more than one woman, including Amber. I can expound re my own opinion of why I believe Scott felt this way, but will refrain from doing so, at the risk of being called an armchair psychoanalyst. :D

One of the traits of a sociopath is often obsessive compulsive behavior, including obsessive sexual behavior, which Scott exhibited.

IMO

[Sturgeon_Moon]

I don't think Scott killed Laci because of Amber, herself, but more the free lifestyle she represented. That Scott didn't want to father children with any woman is clear, as he had openly expressed this to more than one woman, including Amber. I can expound re my own opinion of why I believe Scott felt this way, but will refrain from doing so, at the risk of being called an armchair psychoanalyst. :D

One of the traits of a sociopath is often obsessive compulsive behavior, including obsessive sexual behavior, which Scott exhibited.

IMO

Absolutely!

imo

[sonoma]

does anyone have an opinion on why someone who doesnt want to be tied down with a wife or child etc would get married to begin with??? Why not be a player??? why tie yourself down if you didnt love the person? just play the field and not have a family at all? just seems like alot of work?? Seems like you'd have to have a reason to get married? like that sort of stability? alot of men get married to have the normal married life but still cheat for the fun of it? I really dont think he "didnt love" laci? and him telling women like Amber he didnt want any kids? wouldnt or couldnt that just be because he already had the "wife and kid on the way" and he didnt plan on making any of these flings permanant so might as well tell them right off the bat to "not make any baby plans" so they dont get any ideas of anything further? nothing permanent? that in his mind he was not going to leave his wife? Also, telling Amber he lost his wife and this would be the frist Xmas without her? if his intention was to murder his wife wouldnt that be quite a coincidence when Amber and Scott are with family or something, wouldnt she figure it out when she found out from them or anyone that he was married but she was murdered? or abducted? whatever Scott wanted everyone to think? Wouldnt he have realized that she might remember that statement? kind of like telling her he was doing it or did it? just seems like if he was really planning on doing that that would be the absolute wrong thing to tell Amber. He could have just said, "yeah, Im married but we dont love eachother, blah blah blah" I just think he said that for sympathy to get her to keep sleeping with him until he was bored with her. Makes me think she was never going to be anything more and that once he had to be around home with wife and baby another lie would have been told to her and he could break it off. I really think he was just telling her what she wanted to hear. Men do, do that when they are cheating on their wives. Truth is not really an option.

[accordn2me]

does anyone have an opinion on why someone who doesnt want to be tied down with a wife or child etc would get married to begin with??? Why not be a player??? why tie yourself down if you didnt love the person? just play the field and not have a family at all? just seems like alot of work?? Seems like you'd have to have a reason to get married? like that sort of stability? alot of men get married to have the normal married life but still cheat for the fun of it? I really dont think he "didnt love" laci? and him telling women like Amber he didnt want any kids? wouldnt or couldnt that just be because he already had the "wife and kid on the way" and he didnt plan on making any of these flings permanant so might as well tell them right off the bat to "not make any baby plans" so they dont get any ideas of anything further? nothing permanent? that in his mind he was not going to leave his wife? Also, telling Amber he lost his wife and this would be the frist Xmas without her? if his intention was to murder his wife wouldnt that be quite a coincidence when Amber and Scott are with family or something, wouldnt she figure it out when she found out from them or anyone that he was married but she was murdered? or abducted? whatever Scott wanted everyone to think? Wouldnt he have realized that she might remember that statement? kind of like telling her he was doing it or did it? just seems like if he was really planning on doing that that would be the absolute wrong thing to tell Amber. He could have just said, "yeah, Im married but we dont love eachother, blah blah blah" I just think he said that for sympathy to get her to keep sleeping with him until he was bored with her. Makes me think she was never going to be anything more and that once he had to be around home with wife and baby another lie would have been told to her and he could break it off. I really think he was just telling her what she wanted to hear. Men do, do that when they are cheating on their wives. Truth is not really an option.
Truth is always an option.

Like women who prefer to marry men on death row, there are women who prefer to date married men. Scott could have found one of those.

Scott married Laci possibly because he knew she had some female problem and becoming pregnant would be more difficult for her. Also, being married afforded Scott "free access" to sex....and we all see what happened when that free access was cut off due to the pregnancy.

[thinkaboutit]

does anyone have an opinion on why someone who doesnt want to be tied down with a wife or child etc would get married to begin with??? Why not be a player??? why tie yourself down if you didnt love the person? just play the field and not have a family at all? just seems like alot of work?? Seems like you'd have to have a reason to get married? like that sort of stability? alot of men get married to have the normal married life but still cheat for the fun of it? I really dont think he "didnt love" laci? and him telling women like Amber he didnt want any kids? wouldnt or couldnt that just be because he already had the "wife and kid on the way" and he didnt plan on making any of these flings permanant so might as well tell them right off the bat to "not make any baby plans" so they dont get any ideas of anything further? nothing permanent? that in his mind he was not going to leave his wife? Also, telling Amber he lost his wife and this would be the frist Xmas without her? if his intention was to murder his wife wouldnt that be quite a coincidence when Amber and Scott are with family or something, wouldnt she figure it out when she found out from them or anyone that he was married but she was murdered? or abducted? whatever Scott wanted everyone to think? Wouldnt he have realized that she might remember that statement? kind of like telling her he was doing it or did it? just seems like if he was really planning on doing that that would be the absolute wrong thing to tell Amber. He could have just said, "yeah, Im married but we dont love eachother, blah blah blah" I just think he said that for sympathy to get her to keep sleeping with him until he was bored with her. Makes me think she was never going to be anything more and that once he had to be around home with wife and baby another lie would have been told to her and he could break it off. I really think he was just telling her what she wanted to hear. Men do, do that when they are cheating on their wives. Truth is not really an option.


Welcome to the board Sonoma - great post!!

[TuscanDreams]

Good post, Sonoma, welcome!

I think that Scott got married because he was expected to. His parents wanted him to marry Laci and he did. He got a job that he probably didn't like...because that is what he was expected to do.

As strange as this sounds, Scott was a people pleaser. He wanted to tell everyone what they wanted to hear, because he wanted to be loved by all.

[sonoma]

thanks for welcoming me!!! I was hoping I wouldnt get someone telling me, you idiot what a stupid post! I am just talking outloud I guess? nobody I know personally wants to hear me vent about this case and to be honest nobody can understand why I still want to talk about it after all this time and actually.......... I dont know why either???? all I know is this doesnt feel right and hasnt from the beginning. I just dont see it happening the way they say it did? there are just to many what if's for me to let this go. Maybe after talking to Amber he felt like he couldnt say he was married still even if he lied and said he was unhappy, unfullfilled all the BS men usually say maybe he realized if he wanted a fling with this one he was going to have to play the sympathy card because she wouldnt tolerate it if he was married at all? maybe she told him already about previous relationships she had? in fact if I recall??? I think she did tell him about a married man she was seeing so naturally he had to make something else up? maybe thats just the first stupid thing that came to his mind and he never thought he would have to deal with anything further??? who knows?? I have a very close friend who's husband cheated on her and I said to him what's the matter with you? you love her and she loves you, why the hell do you do this? he was also a very self centered narcissest by the way, and he said "I just do it to see if I still can and for the challenge" he reminds me of Scott in alot of ways. So what Im saying is Scott could have totally just used Amber as a "challenge" and told her what she wanted to hear? I just cant see him telling her "I lost my wife, this will be the first Xmas without her" line if he was planning on killing her! that just doesnt make sense? I think he was just using the holiday sympathy card and never dreamed anything would happen like this. Bad luck? too much of a coincidence? maybe........... but stranger things have happened to people!

[accordn2me]

Hi A2M,

It's more common than you think - men killing their pregnant wives. ISP showed his true feelings about Conner. In fact, in conversations with Amber he said "Laci and her baby" and refused to acknowledge he was the father. I mean, WTH?

Anyhow - I found this to be interesting and believable:

In 2001, Cheng and Dr. Isabelle Horon conducted a study in Maryland to determine the leading cause of death among pregnant women from 1993 to 1998.

Of the 247 women who died while pregnant, homicide was found to be the leading cause of death, accounting for about 20 percent of the cases.

"Women tend to think pregnancy is a safety zone, especially if they are already in an abusive relationship," Cheng said. "But what we're seeing is that no woman is safe from domestic violence or its most severe consequences."

Fear of fatherhood

As more statistics on pregnancy-related mortality become available, experts are beginning to see pregnancy as an aggravating factor that increases a woman's risk of being murdered.

"Pregnancy is obviously a big, life-changing event, especially for a man. The emotional and financial responsibilities involved are huge stones around their necks," said Pat Brown, a criminal profiler and president of the Sexual Homicide Exchange.

However, Brown said, if something happens to the wife and child, those responsibilities disappear.

"If he doesn't want the child, why doesn't he just leave her?" she said. "He can do that, but that doesn't eliminate the responsibilities: child support, alimony, then as they get older, the kids want to see you. It never ends."

"We already know that 42 percent of murdered women are killed by their intimate partners. What remains to be established is the link between spousal or intimate partner homicide and pregnancy," Brown said. "The rate of women being murdered by their husbands and boyfriends because of the pregnancy is a lot higher than the statistics could possibly prove."Excellent post, TG! :seeya:

This part: "If he doesn't want the child, why doesn't he just leave her?" she said. "He can do that, but that doesn't eliminate the responsibilities: child support, alimony, then as they get older, the kids want to see you. It never ends." really nails why divorce was not a suitable option in SLP's twisted mind.

in my opinion ;)

[tv]

I agree there are many reasons for my believing he is guilty. I've wondered if he had planned to murder her after Christmas, but something made him act out sooner. :shrug:
I've also wondered if he had actually set a date but then she confronted him about Amber or something else happened to cause him to do it sooner. I've also thought that maybe it was more of a fantasy that he relived so many times that he decided to carry it out.

[tv]

Good post, Sonoma, welcome!

I think that Scott got married because he was expected to. His parents wanted him to marry Laci and he did. He got a job that he probably didn't like...because that is what he was expected to do.

As strange as this sounds, Scott was a people pleaser. He wanted to tell everyone what they wanted to hear, because he wanted to be loved by all.

That's an intriguing angle on the reason he married Laci. It's very hard to find anyone who has anything bad to say about him before Laci's disappearance. I wonder if killing her was more acceptable to him because that way he would be the grieving husband but if they divorced it would make him seem less than perfect. Interesting.

[attorneywan2be]

thanks for welcoming me!!! I was hoping I wouldnt get someone telling me, you idiot what a stupid post! I am just talking outloud I guess? nobody I know personally wants to hear me vent about this case and to be honest nobody can understand why I still want to talk about it after all this time and actually.......... I dont know why either???? all I know is this doesnt feel right and hasnt from the beginning. I just dont see it happening the way they say it did? there are just to many what if's for me to let this go. Maybe after talking to Amber he felt like he couldnt say he was married still even if he lied and said he was unhappy, unfullfilled all the BS men usually say maybe he realized if he wanted a fling with this one he was going to have to play the sympathy card because she wouldnt tolerate it if he was married at all? maybe she told him already about previous relationships she had? in fact if I recall??? I think she did tell him about a married man she was seeing so naturally he had to make something else up? maybe thats just the first stupid thing that came to his mind and he never thought he would have to deal with anything further??? who knows?? I have a very close friend who's husband cheated on her and I said to him what's the matter with you? you love her and she loves you, why the hell do you do this? he was also a very self centered narcissest by the way, and he said "I just do it to see if I still can and for the challenge" he reminds me of Scott in alot of ways. So what Im saying is Scott could have totally just used Amber as a "challenge" and told her what she wanted to hear? I just cant see him telling her "I lost my wife, this will be the first Xmas without her" line if he was planning on killing her! that just doesnt make sense? I think he was just using the holiday sympathy card and never dreamed anything would happen like this. Bad luck? too much of a coincidence? maybe........... but stranger things have happened to people!


Welcome aboard sonoma! :seeya:

I agree... Scott would not have used "I lost my wife" line if he had plans to kill his wife..he would not have taken any picture with Amber to document the affair..he would not have attended two parties with Amber full of POTENTIAL witnesses...

David Harris: What happens at the party?
Judge Delucchi: Can you be a little more specific? They could say We had punch and cake, or something. So...
David Harris: Do you, do you go in and socialize?
Amber Frey: Yes.
David Harris: Does the defendant?
Amber Frey: Yes.
David Harris: Did, from your knowledge or what it appeared, did the defendant know anybody other than you, Ayiana, and Shawn Sibley?
Amber Frey: No.
David Harris: So the group of people that were there, were these more your friends than his?
Amber Frey: Yes.
David Harris: Did you watch how he interacted with your friends?
Amber Frey: Yes.
David Harris: And how was his interaction?
Amber Frey: I, friendly. He had different conversations with different people at the party. He was very outgoing, very personable with people.
David Harris: At some point in time did you have some photographs that you were looking at?
Amber Frey: Yes.
David Harris: Did you show those to the defendant?
Amber Frey: Yes.
David Harris: Do you know if somebody else actually took a picture of you?
Amber Frey: Yes.
David Harris: I'm going to show you what's been marked as People's number 95. Do you recognize who is in this photograph?
Amber Frey: Yes.
David Harris: Who's in the photograph?
Amber Frey: There's several different people in the photograph I recognize.
David Harris: Do you see yourself?
Amber Frey: Yes.
David Harris: Do you see the defendant?
Amber Frey: Yes.

[cookiewench]

Any man who's dumb enough to have numerous photos taken of himself with the woman he's cheating with (while being introduced to all her friends by his real name) is also dumb enough to say he'd lost his wife while he was planning to murder her.

He thought he was invulnerable and omnipotent.

Yep. A real dummy.

[Otter]

That's an intriguing angle on the reason he married Laci. It's very hard to find anyone who has anything bad to say about him before Laci's disappearance. I wonder if killing her was more acceptable to him because that way he would be the grieving husband but if they divorced it would make him seem less than perfect. Interesting.

I'm biased in regard to his mental health, so I have to agree with you. IMO, he doesn't comprehend "normal" behavior, and divorce = wrong, so murder her and his unborn son. End of problem in his twisted head. Too bad that he forgot to grieve.

I'm convinced that he believed that after a week or so they'd call off the search and forget all about Laci and Conner, just like he did. (See phone call with AF.)

He strived to be perfect. Nothing less was expected. IMO.

[Otter]

The Sawyer interview:

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/docs/sawyerinterview.html?page=12

Scroll down to the bottom -- its in a format that I can't C&P.

"What had you get her for Christmas?"

"Oh... A Louis Vuitton wallet."

Now, CC's book, page 7:

"The officers quickly inventoried the presents piled under the tree. One large box wrapped in deep blue paper was addressed from Scott to Laci; another gift, a Louis Vuitton wallet, was nestled in an open bag. Intitial reports assumed that this was Scott's gift to his wife. However, a credit card receipt show that Laci had purchased the wallet during a trip to Carmel the previous week, although whether it was for herself or someone else was never established."

Hmmmm. Think fast SP, you didn't even buy her a gift since you knew she wouldn't be around to open it.

There isn't ONE thing. Its too many to choose from, but this was a big one for me.

[Jadedblueeyes]

I just dropped by to tell all the oldies and the newbies Hello!

I posted daily on the Scott Peterson CTV Board from beginning to end but once the sentencing phase ended I moved on.

It is fasinating and interesting to see so many still here debating this case.

My position on Scott's guilt has never changed and I see that many hold onto their steadfast opinions too after all these years no matter what it may be.

Enjoy and again........nice to see so many here that I havent seen in a very long time.:seeya:

imoo

Ocean

[enlightenme]

I just dropped by to tell all the oldies and the newbies Hello!

I posted daily on the Scott Peterson CTV Board from beginning to end but once the sentencing phase ended I moved on.

It is fasinating and interesting to see so many still here debating this case.

My position on Scott's guilt has never changed and I see that many hold onto their steadfast opinions too after all these years no matter what it may be.

Enjoy and again........nice to see so many here that I havent seen in a very long time.:seeya:

imoo

Ocean


:seeya: Hi Ocean! Always glad to see you!

Is there any particular case or trial that has your attention now?

[accordn2me]

I must chime in on this one. ISP proved, by words and actions that he is beyond dumb. The things he did and said are mind blowing, considering his situation. His BELIEF that he's "not just smart, but REAL smart" is what dug his hole so deep, he passed China.

No doubt in my mind he'd tell Amber he lost his wife, before he murdered her. He thought he was too smart to get caught, in his warped mind, she'd never even know about Laci - let alone the murder.
You are classic, TG! :seeya: :lol: :beer:

[deputydi]

I must chime in on this one. ISP proved, by words and actions that he is beyond dumb. The things he did and said are mind blowing, considering his situation. His BELIEF that he's "not just smart, but REAL smart" is what dug his hole so deep, he passed China.

No doubt in my mind he'd tell Amber he lost his wife, before he murdered her. He thought he was too smart to get caught, in his warped mind, she'd never even know about Laci - let alone the murder.
ITA. Scott, IMO, is a classic narcissist. He totally believed he would never be considered a viable suspect. He totally believed he could charm everyone into believing in his innocence. He totally believed he was "unapproachable" (sic).

[deputydi]

I just dropped by to tell all the oldies and the newbies Hello!

I posted daily on the Scott Peterson CTV Board from beginning to end but once the sentencing phase ended I moved on.

It is fasinating and interesting to see so many still here debating this case.

My position on Scott's guilt has never changed and I see that many hold onto their steadfast opinions too after all these years no matter what it may be.

Enjoy and again........nice to see so many here that I havent seen in a very long time.:seeya:

imoo

Ocean
Hi Ocean :seeya:

I'm enjoying this board even more than the old one. Tempers only flare occasionally and, then, very mildly. I'd love to see you come back.

[TuscanDreams]

I just dropped by to tell all the oldies and the newbies Hello!

I posted daily on the Scott Peterson CTV Board from beginning to end but once the sentencing phase ended I moved on.

It is fasinating and interesting to see so many still here debating this case.

My position on Scott's guilt has never changed and I see that many hold onto their steadfast opinions too after all these years no matter what it may be.

Enjoy and again........nice to see so many here that I havent seen in a very long time.:seeya:

imoo

Ocean

:seeya: Hi Ocean, I hope all is well with you.

[concernedperson]

:seeya: Hi Ocean, I hope all is well with you.

Me, too. I love Ocean and it is comforting to see her anywhere. Kinda like the big guns are watching your back. Seriously, Ocean, you are loved.

[Luke Davis]

ITA. Scott, IMO, is a classic narcissist. He totally believed he would never be considered a viable suspect. He totally believed he could charm everyone into believing in his innocence. He totally believed he was "unapproachable" (sic).ITA:patriot:

[adnoid]

ITA:patriot:

Me too. Great post! :beer:

[I'mSun]

*snipped*
Hmmmm. Think fast SP, you didn't even buy her a gift since you knew she wouldn't be around to open it.

There isn't ONE thing. Its too many to choose from, but this was a big one for me.Way too many, Otter. So many things point to Scott's guilt. If I had to pick only one, it would be where the bodies were found. However, it really takes looking at the whole picture to know BARD Scott killed Laci and Conner.