Switching Sides!

[TuscanDreams]

Ok, let's get critical thinking going on here and try this:

If you believe Scott is guilty, post why he isn't.
If you believe Scott is innocent, post why he's guilty.

Put yourself on the other side. I've done this in many cases involving my career and I've learned a lot about why others feel that way.

[TuscanDreams]

I'll start. I'm neutral, so I'll be posting on both ends.

If I believe Scott is guilty, here's my swap out response:

Scott is absolutely innocent. He was convicted upon evidence that was circumstantial, such as these:

1. Amber Frey was his mistress. If every married person killed their spouse after cheating, there'd be an awful lot of deaths.

2. People saw Laci on December 24th, 2002

3. A lady pawned a Corton watch several days after Laci went missing.

4. The tape found wound around and on Conner: WECHT: And you know that twine around the neck and over the shoulder, on the arm? How about if there is some kind of a bag that is over the baby that is held in place with that tape, and the bag dissolves and breaks apart in the water and the tape remains? There are a lot of explanations. The baby's head was 28 centimeters circumference. I measured 20 centimeters around the neck. You talk about something coming over the head, the body's floating in the water? You couldn't do that in a million years.

Other side: Posting that Scott is guilty if I believe he's innocent:

1. Scott fished in the exact location where the bodies were found. It appears he could have been setting up a defense that Laci followed him to the marina and never made it to see him, due to someone else killing her.

2. Scott spoke of Laci in the past tense when he mentioned her, prior to the body being found.

3. Scott's psychological state could indicate that he has a personality disorder, as his parents have admitted that they never told him no. When Laci flat said, "No more affairs, Scott", he killed her in a fit of rage.

4. He didn't really look for Laci.

Switch Sides- You learn a lot this way!

[Otter]

TD, great thread idea.

When I really follow a trial, as I did this one, too much in fact since I was and continue to be immersed, I put myself on the jury. I don't go as far as deliberating with myself, but I'd stand firm in his guilt.

There's nothing that would change my mind -- at this point in time. What Wecht says on a TV show doesn't mean anything to me, not just him, any of them. I only care about sworn testimony -- the same thing the jury hears.

Now, if someone came forward with solid evidence for his innocence, sure. Then I'd fall back on SP being the unluckiest person who ever walked the earth. And I'd apologize and cry from the rooftops for his release.

Ain't gonna happen.

You're rare TD, you're neutral. That's not me, I made up my mind years ago.

[accordn2me]

Scott maintains his innocence.

This crime, if committed by Laci's husband, was betrayal of the worst kind. It would mean Scott slaughtered not only his wife, but his son as well. Scott has no history of cruelty of this magnitude. Furthermore, if Scott slaughtered his wife and son, he is presently willfully and knowingly driving his aging parents to an early grave, not to mention bankruptcy. Scott must be innocent. If not, it would rank him right up there with the cruelest of cruel monsters. There is nothing in Scott's past indicating he is capable of such evil.

[JustMyOpinion]

Ok, let's get critical thinking going on here and try this:

If you believe Scott is guilty, post why he isn't.
If you believe Scott is innocent, post why he's guilty.

Put yourself on the other side. I've done this in many cases involving my career and I've learned a lot about why others feel that way.

I can't think of any evidence to utilize showing Scott is innocent. The burglars weren't proven to have access, opportunity or motive, nobody showed any evidence that the Croton watch a woman pawned belonged to Laci, and there was no testimony disputing the findings of the ME, criminalist, hydrologist, petrographer, forensic anthropologist.

[TuscanDreams]

You all are awesome, at least you tried to swap places! :seeya: :beer:

[deputydi]

You all are awesome, at least you tried to swap places! :seeya: :beer:
Honest, I've tried to swap places, but when I think of something that could point to his innocence I find several reasons that it just doesn't make sense.

For instance:
Scott has no history of domestic violence. But -- neither did many other convicted murderers. That isn't necessarily a prerequisite for being guilty of killing your spouse. There are many others, but the one that comes to mind immediately is Charles Stewart.

Scott's demeanor immediately before and immediately following the report that Laci was missing. Knowing he was expected to pick up the fruit basket and not calling Amy or returning her calls to him could have been forgetfulness and/or rudeness. That doesn't mean he killed his wife. His reluctance to make eye contact with Sharon that night could have been simply because he felt guilty about leaving Laci alone that day. I don't have a problem believing he would have called Laci first when he realized he wasn't going to be able to pick up the fruit basket, but when he couldn't reach her why didn't he then call Amy? Could he have been THAT thoughtless?

The boat. He told no one (we'll never know if Laci knew) about the boat. Not even when he had a conversation with his father apparently when he was on the boat. He never told anyone he was fishing and he never told anyone he was putting his new boat in the water to see if it was seaworthy. The first anyone knew of this was that night when he volunteered the marina ticket.

Did anyone actually see Laci after Scott left for Berkely? Several people claimed to have seen her walking McKenzie that morning. If all of them were correct, Laci had to have been an Olympic class sprinter. She couldn't have been everywhere she was seen at the times they claim to have seen her. Maybe one or two of them actually did see her and the others saw someone who looked like her. If these witnesses were so reliable why didn't any of them testify? They would have been the defense's best witnesses.

The New Years Eve conversation with Amber. Men cheat on their wives all the time. Not a nice thing to do, but it doesn't necessarily mean they plan to kill her. Scott's affair all by itself doesn't mean much to me, personally. The continued contact he had with Amber while the search was going on for his "beloved" wife could have been rationalized away for many reasons -- except for that Dec 31 conversation. What man would have the presence of mind to make up an elaborate lie like the one Scott told Amber that night? And, DURING a candlelight vigil for Laci.

And, last but not least, there's that little problem of the bodies washing ashore (coincidentally?) almost exactly where Scott had spent the afternoon. This one is the biggie that I just could never get past nor could I find any rational explanation for.

[Wearing A Halo]

Hmmm, but,

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than have to have a frontal lobotomy.

Anyways, DRISP's innocent 'cause:

Scotty's so hottie!

He is the internation man of mystery!

He doesn't cheat on his girlfriends!

He only lies with exceptions!

He only wants to kill dogs that bark too loud!

This ordeal would kill his mother!

Otherwise Laci would never had existed!

He is the golden child!

He lost his muscular build he had since high school!

He forgot to call his sweetie right before leaving the warehouse on his way to 90+ miles/1.5+hours away!

Mackenzie "ran" to Karen Servas!

Ron called and left a message for him (and him only) to bring whipped cream!

He can't drive 55 with a trailer hitched!

His mortiser is "yeah big!"

He forgot to tell LE that Laci was on the computer the morn' of the 24th!

He was homeless and living like a nomad out of his car!

He and the Ps are shiny happy people!

Since DRISP was investigated, suspected, arrrested, incarcerated, charged, indicted, tried, convicted, condemned and sooner or later executed, it can happen to you and me. Although I am still waiting, are you?

[JustMyOpinion]

You all are awesome, at least you tried to swap places! :seeya: :beer:

I have never understood why Geragos made the statements he did prior to taking the case, and then claimed Scott's parents had turned his head around and then declared his new belief that Scott was factually innocent. Does anyone seriously believe Geragos allowed the emotions/denial of his client's parents to inform his own opinion and become the basis for a defense strategy in a capital case?( i.e. proving factual innocence, promising a jury he would prove he was stone, cold innocent)?? Was Geragos representing Jackie & Lee, or..was he representing Scott?

[JustMyOpinion]

I $erio$ly $u$pect the $ource of Gerago$'$ $ignificant $witch of po$ition wa$ $omething $ignificantly $eperate from his di$cu$ion$ with the Peter$on$.

LOL, Adnoid, I agree. $eriously. Mr Hollywood was pursuing his own fame & fortune, IMO. Scott would have fared better with a public defender, IMO.

[Hey Paula]

I think this is a great thread idea! It is something I always do when getting involved in discussing these tragedies.

Sadly, in this case, I cannot find anything positive to say which might present Scott in an innocent light. I think his jury also tried to do this, but was unsuccessful. In reading their book, "We the Jury...", they did not want to believe Scott was capable of this heinous crime. There is simply too much evidence for me to view Scott as anything but guilty BARD. Hence, I agree with the jury's verdict.

IMO

[packy]

Good thread

If it was true that her curtains were still closed that day and she habitually opened them, then it's hard to believe she went for a walk before opening them.

On the other hand, several people saying they saw her and it was not totally clear how they all got it wrong besides I do think Vivian Mitchell was credible about knowing what day it was, so I tend to think she did take a walk.

[ekg]

Great idea for a topic....

I've never been afraid to talk about the things that weren't right.. or felt the need excuse everything that came out against 'my' side...

IMO, the bodies being in the bay are a huge obstacle . Sure there are other suspects, but this is a hard fact to get over at 1st blush.

Eurotrip... I will never understand it..

Selling the car. Ok, I can see both sides here..... but it just doesn't look right IMO.. at the very least he shouldn't have done it for appearance sake.

Amber played no part at all in any of this other than emotion.. why ppl credit her with anything more than that I'll never know...But Scott should have been upfront about her in his 1st conversations with LE...maybe not with the family, but definitely LE.

the 4 full glasses of water on the counter.... did 'dirty and skeeter' get thirsty?

Not being more visible in the beginnning.. I think he didn't want Amber to see him and come forward..b/c it would have looked bad and Laci wouldn't have liked it if she was found and Amber was publicly exposed. But he should have been out in public more regardless b/c it was just the right thing to do.

I'm sure theres more... but thats my start...it'll be interesting to see how some of the others play in your thread...

[attorneywan2be]

IMO, the bodies being in the bay are a huge obstacle . Sure there are other suspects, but this is a hard fact to get over at 1st blush.

IMO, the evidence surrounding the bodies tells us that the point of origin was not the same for both bodies..which indicates they were possibly placed separately...in addition, IMO, the twine around Conner's neck could not have been a debris...the ME testified that the mineral deposits that were on Laci's pants were due to repeated cycles of wetting and drying , how could that have occurred if she was at the bottom of the bay?..

Eurotrip... I will never understand it..

Scott told Amber on Nov 19th, the day he met her, that he was going to be in Europe in January..IMO, he lied to Amber about that because he knew he was not going to be able to see her during the holidays, and he realized that he was going to stay closer to Laci as the due date was getting closer..

Selling the car. Ok, I can see both sides here..... but it just doesn't look right IMO.. at the very least he shouldn't have done it for appearance sake.

As you know he needed a truck for his work..IMO, the fact that he didn't care about how it was going to look is an indication of consciousness of innocence...

Amber played no part at all in any of this other than emotion.. why ppl credit her with anything more than that I'll never know...But Scott should have been upfront about her in his 1st conversations with LE...maybe not with the family, but definitely LE.

I agree..I think Scott should have told LE about Amber from the beginning..

the 4 full glasses of water on the counter.... did 'dirty and skeeter' get thirsty?

I personally do not think that this story has any merit..

Not being more visible in the beginnning.. I think he didn't want Amber to see him and come forward..b/c it would have looked bad and Laci wouldn't have liked it if she was found and Amber was publicly exposed. But he should have been out in public more regardless b/c it was just the right thing to do.

I definitely can see your point..and I also can see his point..IMO, he was afraid that if the affair would come to light, the media would start talking about it rather than focusing on Laci being missing...in fact, that's exactly what happened, if I remember correctly, people stopped searching for Laci..and the MPD was looking for Laci's body...!

[accordn2me]

LOL, Adnoid, I agree. $eriously. Mr Hollywood was pursuing his own fame & fortune, IMO. Scott would have fared better with a public defender, IMO.
What do you believe they could have/would have done differently or better than Hollywood Mark?

[JustMyOpinion]

What do you believe they could have/would have done differently or better than Hollywood Mark?

For starters, they would have launched a thorough and exhaustive mitigation investigation, IMO.

[ekg]

IMO, the evidence surrounding the bodies tells us that the point of origin was not the same for both bodies..which indicates they were possibly placed separately...in addition, IMO, the twine around Conner's neck could not have been a debris...the ME testified that the mineral deposits that were on Laci's pants were due to repeated cycles of wetting and drying , how could that have occurred if she was at the bottom of the bay?..



Scott told Amber on Nov 19th, the day he met her, that he was going to be in Europe in January..IMO, he lied to Amber about that because he knew he was not going to be able to see her during the holidays, and he realized that he was going to stay closer to Laci as the due date was getting closer..



As you know he needed a truck for his work..IMO, the fact that he didn't care about how it was going to look is an indication of consciousness of innocence...



I agree..I think Scott should have told LE about Amber from the beginning..



I personally do not think that this story has any merit..



I definitely can see your point..and I also can see his point..IMO, he was afraid that if the affair would come to light, the media would start talking about it rather than focusing on Laci being missing...in fact, that's exactly what happened, if I remember correctly, people stopped searching for Laci..and the MPD was looking for Laci's body...!


I agree with everything you've brought up... but I'm playing a 'G' remember--LOL ... and the things I listed will always be troublesome until they are resolved in court.

I don't buy the 'dirty/skeeter' thing either...... but the 4 full glasses of water had to be for someone... so thinking like a 'g' I pulled whoever I could out of my head to 'give' them too.:tongue:

no, the 'Eurotrip' I mean is the barking dog, falling down in Paris call... that was whacked and I don't think any explanation other than "I was stupid" would explain it...

and I also think that 95% of everything he did, shows consciousness of innocence...he went about like he wasn't afraid of anything...If he had the capability of being a cold blooded,brutal killer without any emotion, I think it would have presented itself sometime in his life before that Christmas eve... and since it didn't I'm left with only assuming he wasn't pure evil and acted the way he did b/c he was innocent and he had faith that the innocent don't go to jail....

[attorneywan2be]

I agree with everything you've brought up... but I'm playing a 'G' remember--LOL ... and the things I listed will always be troublesome until they are resolved in court.

I don't buy the 'dirty/skeeter' thing either...... but the 4 full glasses of water had to be for someone... so thinking like a 'g' I pulled whoever I could out of my head to 'give' them too.:tongue:

no, the 'Eurotrip' I mean is the barking dog, falling down in Paris call... that was whacked and I don't think any explanation other than "I was stupid" would explain it...

and I also think that 95% of everything he did, shows consciousness of innocence...he went about like he wasn't afraid of anything...If he had the capability of being a cold blooded,brutal killer without any emotion, I think it would have presented itself sometime in his life before that Christmas eve... and since it didn't I'm left with only assuming he wasn't pure evil and acted the way he did b/c he was innocent and he had faith that the innocent don't go to jail....


Oops..I forgot you were playing a "G"...lol

All I'm saying is that the lie about Europe started as far back as Nov 19th, before Laci went missing...

I agree..IMO, his actions = consciousness of innocence

[thinkaboutit]

Oops..I forgot you were playing a "G"...lol

All I'm saying is that the lie about Europe started as far back as Nov 19th, before Laci went missing...

I agree..IMO, his actions = consciousness of innocence

LOL! She did good - didn't she?!!! EKG gets an A for effort!! :beer:

I'll just second what EKG said - especially the part about the bodies turning up where they did.

[accordn2me]

I agree with everything you've brought up... but I'm playing a 'G' remember--LOL ... and the things I listed will always be troublesome until they are resolved in court.

I don't buy the 'dirty/skeeter' thing either...... but the 4 full glasses of water had to be for someone... so thinking like a 'g' I pulled whoever I could out of my head to 'give' them too.:tongue:

no, the 'Eurotrip' I mean is the barking dog, falling down in Paris call... that was whacked and I don't think any explanation other than "I was stupid" would explain it...

and I also think that 95% of everything he did, shows consciousness of innocence...he went about like he wasn't afraid of anything...If he had the capability of being a cold blooded,brutal killer without any emotion, I think it would have presented itself sometime in his life before that Christmas eve... and since it didn't I'm left with only assuming he wasn't pure evil and acted the way he did b/c he was innocent and he had faith that the innocent don't go to jail....
(my bold)

For my switching side argument, I used this "nothing in his past to indicate evil." But since you brought it up and are supposed to be giving a guilty argument, I have to point out...things I'm sure you are well aware of...;)

pardon my starting with a question - how old was Scott 12/24/02? about 30, right? Many people don't really get their feet off the ground until their 30s.

The reason nothing in his past indicates evil of this magnitude.....he had no reason to kill someone. Nothing had gotten in his way or threatened to rob him of the Jack Cadillac lifestyle he wanted.

[ekg]

(my bold)

For my switching side argument, I used this "nothing in his past to indicate evil." But since you brought it up and are supposed to be giving a guilty argument, I have to point out...things I'm sure you are well aware of...;)

pardon my starting with a question - how old was Scott 12/24/02? about 30, right? Many people don't really get their feet off the ground until their 30s.

The reason nothing in his past indicates evil of this magnitude.....he had no reason to kill someone. Nothing had gotten in his way or threatened to rob him of the Jack Cadillac lifestyle he wanted.

/removing guilty hat :biggrin:


I think somewhere down the line someone... a school playmate, an ex-girlfriend, a crabby neighbor that always finds something wrong with the neighborhood kids.. someone or some kind of issue would have showed up...IIRC the DA couldn't find anyone(other than uncle harvey) who had anything bad to say about Scott...

I find that odd for a man who was to have supposedly done what they said he did, not to show some kind of anger somewhere in his lifetime... spoiled or not, he had to have been told NO by someone before the age of 30.

and who says he was told NO anyway? it's speculation that she put her foot down this time.... Their history indicates that she would have been pissed about it, but would have gotten over it and stayed with him....so what indicates this time was any different?

[accordn2me]

/removing guilty hat :biggrin:


I think somewhere down the line someone... a school playmate, an ex-girlfriend, a crabby neighbor that always finds something wrong with the neighborhood kids.. someone or some kind of issue would have showed up...IIRC the DA couldn't find anyone(other than uncle harvey) who had anything bad to say about Scott...

I find that odd for a man who was to have supposedly done what they said he did, not to show some kind of anger somewhere in his lifetime... spoiled or not, he had to have been told NO by someone before the age of 30.

and who says he was told NO anyway? it's speculation that she put her foot down this time.... Their history indicates that she would have been pissed about it, but would have gotten over it and stayed with him....so what indicates this time was any different?You jusssst about lost me, sistah.....

I'm not saying anything about the affair....NO! :no: I believe Scott killed Laci because he got a serious, abnormal case of "cold feet" about being a daddy. Divorce her? Still a daddy. He didn't want Conner - the responsibility - morally or financially. He was still getting money from his parents for things...he wasn't ready for a child, period.

imo

[TuscanDreams]

I have never understood why Geragos made the statements he did prior to taking the case, and then claimed Scott's parents had turned his head around and then declared his new belief that Scott was factually innocent. Does anyone seriously believe Geragos allowed the emotions/denial of his client's parents to inform his own opinion and become the basis for a defense strategy in a capital case?( i.e. proving factual innocence, promising a jury he would prove he was stone, cold innocent)?? Was Geragos representing Jackie & Lee, or..was he representing Scott?

IMO, Geragos took on this case because he'd looked like a horses pattot in the Ryder trial and the other high profile cases he lost. I think he took the Peterson's money and figured he'd do the best he could and not worry about the rest.

My thoughts are that Geragos knows Peterson is guilty and wanted to represent him for the media coverage and the financial gain he received.

[ekg]

You jusssst about lost me, sistah.....

I'm not saying anything about the affair....NO! :no: I believe Scott killed Laci because he got a serious, abnormal case of "cold feet" about being a daddy. Divorce her? Still a daddy. He didn't want Conner - the responsibility - morally or financially. He was still getting money from his parents for things...he wasn't ready for a child, period.

imo

oh, sorry I misunderstood....:o

and since I'm supposed to be a 'guilty' I'm not going to argue with you.......... BUT, I don't agree..:tongue:

[TuscanDreams]

You jusssst about lost me, sistah.....

I'm not saying anything about the affair....NO! :no: I believe Scott killed Laci because he got a serious, abnormal case of "cold feet" about being a daddy. Divorce her? Still a daddy. He didn't want Conner - the responsibility - morally or financially. He was still getting money from his parents for things...he wasn't ready for a child, period.

imo

I heard a theory on why Scott killed Laci. Scott was never told no as a child- by admission of his parents.

Laci had always tolerated Scott's affairs in the past. So, when she became pregnant, she became one big "NO" to Scott and he killed her, because he is narcisstic and refused to be told no.

[accordn2me]

I heard a theory on why Scott killed Laci. Scott was never told no as a child- by admission of his parents.

Laci had always tolerated Scott's affairs in the past. So, when she became pregnant, she became one big "NO" to Scott and he killed her, because he is narcisstic and refused to be told no.
Interesting way of looking at it.

Did you hear some story about 4-year old Scott punching Lee in the stomach over something? Was that a NO? :no:


I have no idea where this story came from either. It must be something I'm recalling from my friends who were into the case when it was a current news item.

[Wearing A Halo]

Great idea for a topic....

I've never been afraid to talk about the things that weren't right.. or felt the need excuse everything that came out against 'my' side...

IMO, the bodies being in the bay are a huge obstacle . Sure there are other suspects, but this is a hard fact to get over at 1st blush.

Eurotrip... I will never understand it..

Selling the car. Ok, I can see both sides here..... but it just doesn't look right IMO.. at the very least he shouldn't have done it for appearance sake.

Amber played no part at all in any of this other than emotion.. why ppl credit her with anything more than that I'll never know...But Scott should have been upfront about her in his 1st conversations with LE...maybe not with the family, but definitely LE.

the 4 full glasses of water on the counter.... did 'dirty and skeeter' get thirsty?

Not being more visible in the beginnning.. I think he didn't want Amber to see him and come forward..b/c it would have looked bad and Laci wouldn't have liked it if she was found and Amber was publicly exposed. But he should have been out in public more regardless b/c it was just the right thing to do.

I'm sure theres more... but thats my start...it'll be interesting to see how some of the others play in your thread...

"Laci wouldn't have liked it if she was found."

Just what do you mean by this statement? Are you saying this as an NG or G?

[ekg]

Interesting way of looking at it.

Did you hear some story about 4-year old Scott punching Lee in the stomach over something? Was that a NO? :no:


I have no idea where this story came from either. It must be something I'm recalling from my friends who were into the case when it was a current news item.
:)

when my 15yro was 2 or 3 she got mad and hauled off and kicked me in the shin.....

should I lock her in the nuthouse now?
:tongue:

[JustMyOpinion]

:)

when my 15yro was 2 or 3 she got mad and hauled off and kicked me in the shin.....

should I lock her in the nuthouse now?
:tongue:

The OP wondered if the punch was in response to being told "no". IIRC, John told the story, and it was in response to getting a spank from Lee. John never said what happened after Scott punched Lee in the stomach.

[cookiewench]

Oops..I forgot you were playing a "G"...lol

All I'm saying is that the lie about Europe started as far back as Nov 19th, before Laci went missing...

I agree..IMO, his actions = consciousness of innocence

Don't you find it strange and creepy that, (even if the Nov. 19th lie wasn't part of "the plan") he didn't miss a beat when his wife and child went missing and were possibly/probably murdered?

Scott was always a slime, even before he was a murderer. His history with women is just sickening. Was there even one he was honest with or faithful to?

[deputydi]

<snipped because of length>
I think you missed the point of this thread. You were supposed to take the "other" side. For you, that means list any points that COULD show his guilt.

[accordn2me]

:)

when my 15yro was 2 or 3 she got mad and hauled off and kicked me in the shin.....

should I lock her in the nuthouse now?
:tongue:ut oh! you're in trouble now if you've waited this long! :punch:

what did you do?

[JustMyOpinion]

I heard a theory on why Scott killed Laci. Scott was never told no as a child- by admission of his parents.

Laci had always tolerated Scott's affairs in the past. So, when she became pregnant, she became one big "NO" to Scott and he killed her, because he is narcisstic and refused to be told no.

Profiler Sharon Hagen suggested Peterson is a narcissist. If this is so, he essentially may have killed Laci because she no longer reflected the image he desired to see ( Laci was just a mirror) In part, Scott needed a new source of narcissistic supply, a new mirror.. which became Amber Frey. With her, he could sucessfully project the golden image for awhile ( single, successful, wealthy, romantic, charming, perfect) I thought it was telling when Scott told Amber he needed to see her, to look into her eyes.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/081704_ctv.html
But Peterson continued pressing for a meeting. He told her he desperately needed to look into her eyes.

"What would my eyes do for you?" a skeptical Frey asked.

"I think they'd do so much ... I guess they'd either hurt really bad or they'd do so much," he said.

[ekg]

ut oh! you're in trouble now if you've waited this long! :punch:

what did you do?


I don't remember exactly what I said to her... something like "HEY,NO, You don't ever do something like that to someone" but probably alot meaner , ... then I picked her up, carried her into her room and put her to bed..

(then went to my room and laughed out loud,but quietly b/c the look on her face when she did it was hilarious:tongue: )

never had another problem tho...never had to deal with a tantrum and never had to deal with the 'grocery store syndrome'

:shrug:

[accordn2me]

I don't remember exactly what I said to her... something like "HEY,NO, You don't ever do something like that to someone" but probably alot meaner , ... then I picked her up, carried her into her room and put her to bed..

(then went to my room and laughed out loud,but quietly b/c the look on her face when she did it was hilarious:tongue: )
never had another problem tho...never had to deal with a tantrum and never had to deal with the 'grocery store syndrome'

:shrug:hmmmm.....sounds like what LP would have done :cool:

just kiddin' ya! seriously....all of these "after the deed" opinions of SLP and what he is....it's too bad these experts can't see it coming, isn't it. but you can't. because many people have it so much worse and so much better and they don't kill their spouses or anyone. i'm not a person that believes killers are made without a genetic predisposition. when it comes to the nature/nurture argument, i believe it's both.

[ekg]

never had another problem tho...never had to deal with a tantrum and never had to deal with the 'grocery store syndrome'

:shrug:

well, with the exception of tantrums of the.... 'but why can't I can't I date until I'm 17, all my friends do and they're younger than me' or 'it's not fair that all my friends can talk on the phone until 11 during the week and I can't' variety these days....LOL:lol:

[ekg]

hmmmm.....sounds like what LP would have done :cool:

just kiddin' ya! seriously....all of these "after the deed" opinions of SLP and what he is....it's too bad these experts can't see it coming, isn't it. but you can't. because many people have it so much worse and so much better and they don't kill their spouses or anyone. i'm not a person that believes killers are made without a genetic predisposition. when it comes to the nature/nurture argument, i believe it's both.

yes, it would be nice if they could.... but then again, a 'minority report' world would be just as scary.. b/c as you say, just b/c they may be inclined to do it b/c of nature/nurture.....doesn't mean they will..

I believe in both also.... a good kid can be turned into something evil...... just as a child can be born truly evill.. I hate to think it...but if there's good being born and raised in the world then there has to be evil being born and raised also....

g'night A2M .. it's time for 24 :seeya:

[accordn2me]

yes, it would be nice if they could.... but then again, a 'minority report' world would be just as scary.. b/c as you say, just b/c they may be inclined to do it b/c of nature/nurture.....doesn't mean they will..

I believe in both also.... a good kid can be turned into something evil...... just as a child can be born truly evill.. I hate to think it...but if there's good being born and raised in the world then there has to be evil being born and raised also....

g'night A2M .. it's time for 24 :seeya:
g'night...still 4 more hours for me to wait....i hope they don't "Jump the shark" as Anne says. :beer:

[attorneywan2be]

I think you missed the point of this thread. You were supposed to take the "other" side. For you, that means list any points that COULD show his guilt.

No, I didn't miss the point of this thread..I simply cannot find one thing that would point to guilt...believe me, I tried...!

[deputydi]

No, I didn't miss the point of this thread..I simply cannot find one thing that would point to guilt...believe me, I tried...!
LOL. As I posted earlier on this thread, I tried and tried to go along with the game and find reasons he was innocent. I couldn't do that either.

[attorneywan2be]

LOL. As I posted earlier on this thread, I tried and tried to go along with the game and find reasons he was innocent. I couldn't do that either.


LOL...how can two people look at the same thing and be so far apart...it's amazing..!

[One2Snoop]

LOL...how can two people look at the same thing and be so far apart...it's amazing..!


LOL - so true - how is that? :shrug: I've been reading this thread since TD started it and I honestly have to say I can't think of anything worthwhile I could add to SP being innocent - everytime I try it turns to guilt. (Rumplestiltskin) I want to spin it into gold but it remains wheat no matter what. Maybe I don't have an open mind - but I like to think I do. Just my 2 cents.

[attorneywan2be]

LOL - so true - how is that? :shrug: I've been reading this thread since TD started it and I honestly have to say I can't think of anything worthwhile I could add to SP being innocent - everytime I try it turns to guilt. (Rumplestiltskin) I want to spin it into gold but it remains wheat no matter what. Maybe I don't have an open mind - but I like to think I do. Just my 2 cents.


Ok..can you give these a try..? please...lol

1- He didn't exaggerate his grief to the public..his smiles during the vigil are an indication of "consciousness of innocence" not the other way around...consciousness of guilt means that the person is fully aware of his guilt and is afraid of others discovering it, so he would try to make himself look innocent by exaggerating his grief...

2-Scott didn't ask for a search warrant on Dec 24th..he practically gave the police carte blanche to do whatever they want in his house and warehouse....

3-On Dec 24th, he went to the warehouse with Brocchini and Evers to show them the boat .

4- On Dec 24th, he left his house unattended as the police was taking pictures..collecting evidence ...etc..etc...meanwhile, he went with Brocchini to the warehouse then later to the police station to be interviewed..never once did he ask for his attorney to be present..

5-On Dec 24th, he told the police the exact place where he went fishing..in fact, the prosecution accepted it to be the truth..so the question is, would anyone use the same place where he supposedly dumped a body as his alibi?? keep in mind that he did purchase an ocean rod and a two-day fishing license before he was seen at the bay..

6-The man who sold the boat to Scott, Bruce Peterson (no relation), testified that he asked Scott to pay in cash, he also testified that Scott gave him his correct name and his correct home address as they were completing DMV forms to release liability to Scott. The seller submitted those documents to the DMV, by law he had to do that within 5 days of the transaction, and Scott was fully aware of that..in addition, a witness saw Laci at the warehouse where the boat was stored, just few days before her disappearance...the boat was no secret..

7- Susan Aquino, Sharon Rocha's sister, testified that on Dec 25th, when she was at Scott's house, two police officers came to the door, they informed Scott that there were two witnesses down at the park saying that they saw Laci walking over at the walking bridge, according to her, Scott said that it could not be Laci because that was not her route.
If Scott was the killer, he would have been quick to accept those witnesses accounts..would anyone kill someone then turn around and reject witnesses report about seeing his victim alive?? He was trying to be accurate because he was seriously looking for Laci..

[One2Snoop]

Ok..can you give these a try..? please...lol

1- He didn't exaggerate his grief to the public..his smiles during the vigil are an indication of "consciousness of innocence" not the other way around...consciousness of guilt means that the person is fully aware of his guilt and is afraid of others discovering it, so he would try to make himself look innocent by exaggerating his grief...

2-Scott didn't ask for a search warrant on Dec 24th..he practically gave the police carte blanche to do whatever they want in his house and warehouse....

3-On Dec 24th, he went to the warehouse with Brocchini and Evers to show them the boat .

4- On Dec 24th, he left his house unattended as the police was taking pictures..collecting evidence ...etc..etc...meanwhile, he went with Brocchini to the warehouse then later to the police station to be interviewed..never once did he ask for his attorney to be present..

5-On Dec 24th, he told the police the exact place where he went fishing..in fact, the prosecution accepted it to be the truth..so the question is, would anyone use the same place where he supposedly dumped a body as his alibi?? keep in mind that he did purchase an ocean rod and a two-day fishing license before he was seen at the bay..

6-The man who sold the boat to Scott, Bruce Peterson (no relation), testified that he asked Scott to pay in cash, he also testified that Scott gave him his correct name and his correct home address as they were completing DMV forms to release liability to Scott. The seller submitted those documents to the DMV, by law he had to do that within 5 days of the transaction, and Scott was fully aware of that..in addition, a witness saw Laci at the warehouse where the boat was stored, just few days before her disappearance...the boat was no secret..

7- Susan Aquino, Sharon Rocha's sister, testified that on Dec 25th, when she was at Scott's house, two police officers came to the door, they informed Scott that there were two witnesses down at the park saying that they saw Laci walking over at the walking bridge, according to her, Scott said that it could not be Laci because that was not her route.
If Scott was the killer, he would have been quick to accept those witnesses accounts..would anyone kill someone then turn around and reject witnesses report about seeing his victim alive?? He was trying to be accurate because he was seriously looking for Laci..

I'll certainly give this some more thought with an open mind of course, although I'm already asking myself, but, but, but, particularly on question 7. I went down that trail from the end of covena over to the walking bridge. I don't see how Laci could make it down that path being in her condition with a dog in tow. Now if she chose to walk the longer route maybe, but I still don't see that happening in her condition.

As an example - I have a cousin whose a very avid runner - marathon runner who said even in her eighth month she had to stop everything. She would've kept running if permitted. She's a very determined person, probably a Type A personality - I couldn't discount her thoughts after I made my walk down that path. I've been a runner/avid walker and couldn't make it around the block in my eighth month either. With some of this stuff I can't help but add in practicle life experiences. Maybe they don't count for anything, but I can't help but weigh them in on the big scheme of things. JMO, IMO.

[attorneywan2be]

I'll certainly give this some more thought with an open mind of course, although I'm already asking myself, but, but, but, particularly on question 7. I went down that trail from the end of covena over to the walking bridge. I don't see how Laci could make it down that path being in her condition with a dog in tow. Now if she chose to walk the longer route maybe, but I still don't see that happening in her condition.

As an example - I have a cousin whose a very avid runner - marathon runner who said even in her eighth month she had to stop everything. She would've kept running if permitted. She's a very determined person, probably a Type A personality - I couldn't discount her thoughts after I made my walk down that path. I've been a runner/avid walker and couldn't make it around the block in my eighth month either. With some of this stuff I can't help but add in practicle life experiences. Maybe they don't count for anything, but I can't help but weigh them in on the big scheme of things. JMO, IMO.


I understand your point..but the point I was making is that a killer would not turn down "EXONERATING" evidence under any circumstances---> 2 witnesses telling the police they saw his victim alive after he was long gone..!

[One2Snoop]

I understand your point..but the point I was making is that a killer would not turn down "EXONERATING" evidence under any circumstances---> 2 witnesses telling the police they saw his victim alive after he was long gone..!

I have to respectfully disagree with you on this - I know this isn't the thread for it,but I disagree.

Question 1 - why didn't Geragos bring those people to the stand and testify to what they saw???? I have a really hard time getting that out of my mind - "Why didn't Geragos do what he was supposed to do as a defense attorney?"

Scott says he went fishing in the bay but in the initial investigation of Laci's disappearance he told a neighbor he went golfing. He then tells LE he went fishing in the bay - gave time, location, shows fishing permit, parking permit from Berkley Marina. Although I then ask, "What did Scott have to lose by telling the truth?" Nothing as long as the bodies never surfaced. This is the only reason I believe he told LE the truth about his whereabouts, otherwise I think he'd of stuck with the golfing story. The other reason I believe he went with the bay story is because someone actually saw him loading/or unloading his boat at the Marina.

It's late - time for bed....
O2S

[JustMyOpinion]

yes, it would be nice if they could.... but then again, a 'minority report' world would be just as scary.. b/c as you say, just b/c they may be inclined to do it b/c of nature/nurture.....doesn't mean they will..

I believe in both also.... a good kid can be turned into something evil...... just as a child can be born truly evill.. I hate to think it...but if there's good being born and raised in the world then there has to be evil being born and raised also....

g'night A2M .. it's time for 24 :seeya:

I disagree that there is a baby anywhere that came into the world "evil". Conscience is developed via socialization. Some would say SP is "evil", I would say he did an evil thing, and has shown he is capable of violating all social norms and that he has no regard for the rights & feelings of others. People are objects to Scott, IMO.. they are useful only if they serve his own interests. When they cease to serve, they become disposable. Scott found a way to dispose of Laci/Conner that he thought would serve him..IMO. He could regain his "freedom", keep all financial assets for himself, and bask in the sympathy and generosity of his parents while he "grieved" his terrible loss.
JMO

[frydaddy]

Ok..can you give these a try..? please...lol

1- He didn't exaggerate his grief to the public..his smiles during the vigil are an indication of "consciousness of innocence" not the other way around...consciousness of guilt means that the person is fully aware of his guilt and is afraid of others discovering it, so he would try to make himself look innocent by exaggerating his grief...

2-Scott didn't ask for a search warrant on Dec 24th..he practically gave the police carte blanche to do whatever they want in his house and warehouse....

3-On Dec 24th, he went to the warehouse with Brocchini and Evers to show them the boat .

4- On Dec 24th, he left his house unattended as the police was taking pictures..collecting evidence ...etc..etc...meanwhile, he went with Brocchini to the warehouse then later to the police station to be interviewed..never once did he ask for his attorney to be present..

5-On Dec 24th, he told the police the exact place where he went fishing..in fact, the prosecution accepted it to be the truth..so the question is, would anyone use the same place where he supposedly dumped a body as his alibi?? keep in mind that he did purchase an ocean rod and a two-day fishing license before he was seen at the bay..

6-The man who sold the boat to Scott, Bruce Peterson (no relation), testified that he asked Scott to pay in cash, he also testified that Scott gave him his correct name and his correct home address as they were completing DMV forms to release liability to Scott. The seller submitted those documents to the DMV, by law he had to do that within 5 days of the transaction, and Scott was fully aware of that..in addition, a witness saw Laci at the warehouse where the boat was stored, just few days before her disappearance...the boat was no secret..

7- Susan Aquino, Sharon Rocha's sister, testified that on Dec 25th, when she was at Scott's house, two police officers came to the door, they informed Scott that there were two witnesses down at the park saying that they saw Laci walking over at the walking bridge, according to her, Scott said that it could not be Laci because that was not her route.
If Scott was the killer, he would have been quick to accept those witnesses accounts..would anyone kill someone then turn around and reject witnesses report about seeing his victim alive?? He was trying to be accurate because he was seriously looking for Laci..

1. That big ole grin, regardless of COG or COI, could not come from a person who's pregnant wife is missing. Where's the worry, where's the grief? No one speaks of a missing person in the past tense or reminisces about the good times after a week. Nothing could be said to me to elicit a grin like that if my wife is missing. Compare the picture of him to Sharon that night...the difference between someone who lost a daughter and grandson and someone who just solved his problems. IMO

2-4. What choice did he have? Asking for a warrant would only add to the suspicion. And, he lied at the warehouse about the electricity. Why? I think this was more about his confidence he would get away with this, more than COI. His whole story unraveled when he thought he was spotted at the marina, proven by telling Ms. Venable and Ms. Krigbaum that he was golfing.

5. I agree with this to a degree. But I can think of at least three plausible reasons he could have told this to Brocchini. He thought Laci would drift out of the bay via the shipping channel, rather than back into the bay. He dumped Laci far enough from the island that he didn't think the two sites would allow LE to find her. Or, he thought those that saw him might have been able to track his position to the spot he gave up to Brocchini.

6. So the boat was registered by Bruce P. with the state. Doesn't mean it wasn't a secret to anyone but a clerk at the DMV. Had Laci drifted out to sea and LE not jumped on this so quick, the boat could have been irrelevant. Especially if the golfing story help up. The witness didn't testify - don't you think Laci being aware of the boat was an important enough detail to bring in the witness to testify? That she didn't makes her story very suspect.

7. Agree with this a little. However, how could he be sure what her route was in the late stages of pregnancy? Maybe she adjusted her route due to her health or her lack of time due to all the preparations that day. Maybe something caused her to adjust. Why would he respond at all as to whether it could have been her or not? She was missing and he had no idea what she did, only what he said she was planning to do...at that moment..."couldn't have been" should not have been a thought so easily arrived at.

So, two points you made are somewhat relevant. But, when considered in context, they are meaningless in going down the road of potential innocence. There's simply too much other stuff that makes innocent explanations believable. IMO, of course!

[accordn2me]

1. That big ole grin, regardless of COG or COI, could not come from a person who's pregnant wife is missing. Where's the worry, where's the grief? No one speaks of a missing person in the past tense or reminisces about the good times after a week. Nothing could be said to me to elicit a grin like that if my wife is missing. Compare the picture of him to Sharon that night...the difference between someone who lost a daughter and grandson and someone who just solved his problems. IMO

2-4. What choice did he have? Asking for a warrant would only add to the suspicion. And, he lied at the warehouse about the electricity. Why? I think this was more about his confidence he would get away with this, more than COI. His whole story unraveled when he thought he was spotted at the marina, proven by telling Ms. Venable and Ms. Krigbaum that he was golfing.

5. I agree with this to a degree. But I can think of at least three plausible reasons he could have told this to Brocchini. He thought Laci would drift out of the bay via the shipping channel, rather than back into the bay. He dumped Laci far enough from the island that he didn't think the two sites would allow LE to find her. Or, he thought those that saw him might have been able to track his position to the spot he gave up to Brocchini.

6. So the boat was registered by Bruce P. with the state. Doesn't mean it wasn't a secret to anyone but a clerk at the DMV. Had Laci drifted out to sea and LE not jumped on this so quick, the boat could have been irrelevant. Especially if the golfing story help up. The witness didn't testify - don't you think Laci being aware of the boat was an important enough detail to bring in the witness to testify? That she didn't makes her story very suspect.

7. Agree with this a little. However, how could he be sure what her route was in the late stages of pregnancy? Maybe she adjusted her route due to her health or her lack of time due to all the preparations that day. Maybe something caused her to adjust. Why would he respond at all as to whether it could have been her or not? She was missing and he had no idea what she did, only what he said she was planning to do...at that moment..."couldn't have been" should not have been a thought so easily arrived at.

So, two points you made are somewhat relevant. But, when considered in context, they are meaningless in going down the road of potential innocence. There's simply too much other stuff that makes innocent explanations believable. IMO, of course!Excellent point-by-point counter, frydaddy! :beer:

To add just a little to your point #5.....Scott told Brocchini (or some LE) he saw a couple of guys out there and exchanged a "catch any fish" brief conversation. This is totally plausible. Just because they didn't come forward....doesn't mean the conversation didn't happen. IF the conversation DID happen, Scott wouldn't have known whether or not they would come forward and he would not want to risk that they would and his story not match. I believe that's why he fessed up.

[Hey Paula]

Excellent point-by-point counter, frydaddy! :beer:

<<<<<<<<<<Respectfully Snipped>>>>>>>>>

I second that emotion! Frydaddy's post was terrific, as usual!

[frydaddy]

Either

A) The actual story the witness could have told on the stand would not back up the story that Laci was there and saw the boat (which I believe)

or

B) Geragos is incompetent!

While any of the three (your two and the one Sun added) are possible, I can only get behind A. As stated previously, you don't deftly discover the alleged witness as a potential hole through which to poke doubt, then leave it hanging as a huge "maybe" via incompetence. I think MG sat in the strategy session and said "find me as many possible alternate stories, then I'll get them in without getting them in, so that maybe one piece of doubt sticks to the cabinet between some gullible juror's ears."

[frydaddy]

Excellent point-by-point counter, frydaddy! :beer:

To add just a little to your point #5.....Scott told Brocchini (or some LE) he saw a couple of guys out there and exchanged a "catch any fish" brief conversation. This is totally plausible. Just because they didn't come forward....doesn't mean the conversation didn't happen. IF the conversation DID happen, Scott wouldn't have known whether or not they would come forward and he would not want to risk that they would and his story not match. I believe that's why he fessed up.


Thanks, but you and Sweet P gotta stop, gonna have to get my hats (and doorways) resized! LOL I do appreciate it though! ;)

Excellent addendum...nicely done and totally on the button!

[ekg]

I disagree that there is a baby anywhere that came into the world "evil". snipped
JMO

we'll have to agree/disagree...

I think the 'anti-Christ' would be evil even if he had the best parents in the world...

I believe in good..... and b/c of that I cannot for a second believe that in the history of mankind a child hasn't ever been born evil....

so like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree....:beer:

[accordn2me]

we'll have to agree/disagree...

I think the 'anti-Christ' would be evil even if he had the best parents in the world...

I believe in good..... and b/c of that I cannot for a second believe that in the history of mankind a child hasn't ever been born evil....

so like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree....:beer:I know what you're saying. I was thinking about it while reading the Children Who Murder thread a bit ago. Seeing how I don't believe in an age limit for the death penalty....I have to go with "bad seeds" and say: old enough to do the crime = old enough to pay the penalty.

[ekg]

I know what you're saying. I was thinking about it while reading the Children Who Murder thread a bit ago. Seeing how I don't believe in an age limit for the death penalty....I have to go with "bad seeds" and say: old enough to do the crime = old enough to pay the penalty.

It's harsh.. and it's unpopular.. but what else can you do with a 10yro murderer? I have a 10 yro also and she knows the difference b/t right/wrong when it comes killing someone..

we have a local thing going on now where a 10 yro was tried and convicted for bludgeoning a homeless man.... didn't kill him but messed him up for life. He's looking at jail until he's 21...

its a wasted life.. but what else are you going to do?

now, we should probably get back on topic.....LOL..

I'd put the Guilty hat back on :hat: but I think I've spent my list..... lol

[accordn2me]

It's harsh.. and it's unpopular.. but what else can you do with a 10yro murderer? I have a 10 yro also and she knows the difference b/t right/wrong when it comes killing someone..

we have a local thing going on now where a 10 yro was tried and convicted for bludgeoning a homeless man.... didn't kill him but messed him up for life. He's looking at jail until he's 21...

its a wasted life.. but what else are you going to do?

now, we should probably get back on topic.....LOL..

I'd put the Guilty hat back on :hat: but I think I've spent my list..... lol

The only thing I can think of to argue towards innocence is "nothing in his past," which I believe is meaningless. But it's the best I can do with nothing to work with.

That said, I hope it's not being taken by you NG's that I'm stepping on toes or insulting your intelligence....Some of you seem to have a very high standard for guilty which you feel should be met in order for a person to be convicted. Y'all seem like the true optimists sometimes - refusing to believe something so horrendous without a red-handed, 'without-a-doubt' piece of proof.

Everytime I look at Wudge's list of "inculpatory" evidence that could be used to show premeditation, deliberation, intent, and malice aforethought....all I see is direct evidence. CE is troublesome to a lot of people. I understand that. It's just in Scott's case....I don't see a reasonable explanation for the location of Laci/Conner after looking at Scott's prediction, boat, and research for tides/currents as well as other locations. The one he decided on is where the bodies washed up! Proof enough for me.

[deputydi]

Ok..can you give these a try..? please...lol

1- He didn't exaggerate his grief to the public..his smiles during the vigil are an indication of "consciousness of innocence" not the other way around...consciousness of guilt means that the person is fully aware of his guilt and is afraid of others discovering it, so he would try to make himself look innocent by exaggerating his grief...

2-Scott didn't ask for a search warrant on Dec 24th..he practically gave the police carte blanche to do whatever they want in his house and warehouse....

3-On Dec 24th, he went to the warehouse with Brocchini and Evers to show them the boat .

4- On Dec 24th, he left his house unattended as the police was taking pictures..collecting evidence ...etc..etc...meanwhile, he went with Brocchini to the warehouse then later to the police station to be interviewed..never once did he ask for his attorney to be present..

5-On Dec 24th, he told the police the exact place where he went fishing..in fact, the prosecution accepted it to be the truth..so the question is, would anyone use the same place where he supposedly dumped a body as his alibi?? keep in mind that he did purchase an ocean rod and a two-day fishing license before he was seen at the bay..

6-The man who sold the boat to Scott, Bruce Peterson (no relation), testified that he asked Scott to pay in cash, he also testified that Scott gave him his correct name and his correct home address as they were completing DMV forms to release liability to Scott. The seller submitted those documents to the DMV, by law he had to do that within 5 days of the transaction, and Scott was fully aware of that..in addition, a witness saw Laci at the warehouse where the boat was stored, just few days before her disappearance...the boat was no secret..

7- Susan Aquino, Sharon Rocha's sister, testified that on Dec 25th, when she was at Scott's house, two police officers came to the door, they informed Scott that there were two witnesses down at the park saying that they saw Laci walking over at the walking bridge, according to her, Scott said that it could not be Laci because that was not her route.
If Scott was the killer, he would have been quick to accept those witnesses accounts..would anyone kill someone then turn around and reject witnesses report about seeing his victim alive?? He was trying to be accurate because he was seriously looking for Laci..
Frydaddy's post was great, but I'd like to add my 2 cents also. I have a slightly different take on your points.

1. IMO Scott did try to feign grief during the Diane Sawyer interview. That one tear that he didn't try to wipe away has always bugged me. Obviously, I don't know Scott, but the men I know would be mortified to show tears on national tv. He never tried to dry his eyes -- he wanted the world to see that single tear. Laci's father, on the other hand, completely broke down and couldn't even speak during their press conference. That was worry and unbearable grief to the max. The grin at the vigil didn't sway me one way or another. That was just one brief moment when Scott thought no one was looking and a photographer got lucky.

2. Why not allow LE entrance to the home? Scott knew there was no blood, no physical evidence and Laci's and his DNA would be expected to be found inside their home. If he had refused, it would have made him look like he had something to hide.

3. What choice did he have and why did he lie about the electricity?

4. It probably never occurred to him he would need an attorney. He wasn't under arrest, he had not been mirandized and I don't think he ever believed he was seriously being looked at as a suspect at that time.

5. This one I can't really explain. In the beginning I believed his original plan was to go golfing but something happened that morning that changed that. There are holes (both pro and con) in every scenario I can conjure up. It is pretty obvious he planned to go golfing initially (why else tell Amy that?). I don't know why he changed his mind. I still don't buy the weather excuse or that he just had the urge to put his new boat in the water. I also can't figure out why he didn't mention it to Lee when they were on the phone if his trip was so innocent. I kind of believe he planned on telling no one where he had been and he was going to stick with the golfing alibi. Maybe he did see those guys he talked about and was afraid they would come forward. Problem is, no one would have seen him golfing (not a good alibi if no one can vouch for you) and also there is that pesky thing with the fishing license.

6. We will never know if Laci knew about the boat. IIRC the witness saw Laci at the warehouse, but not inside. She came over to her area to use the bathroom. No one can place Laci inside the warehouse.

7. You may be right about #7. It does seem pretty stupid to dismiss any reported sighting of Laci ------- unless he just didn't think through his response. He knew she was dead and, therefore, couldn't have been seen walking. That may have been one of those spontaneous responses that he wanted to take back, but it was too late.

Your points are all very good, but none of them are the reasons I believe he is guilty. There are pro and con sides to each and every point, but as someone said a long time ago "either he's the unluckiest man alive, or he's dead-on guilty." When I put all the CE together, it paints a very guilty picture.

[attorneywan2be]

1. That big ole grin, regardless of COG or COI, could not come from a person who's pregnant wife is missing. Where's the worry, where's the grief? No one speaks of a missing person in the past tense or reminisces about the good times after a week. Nothing could be said to me to elicit a grin like that if my wife is missing. Compare the picture of him to Sharon that night...the difference between someone who lost a daughter and grandson and someone who just solved his problems. IMO

-They say a picture is worth a thousand words..unfortunately, the media chose to focus on the picture of Scott smiling at the vigil..even so he did cry at the vigil..please note the picture of Scott holding his niece, if you would enlarge the picture you would see that Scott had his eyes closed, to me he looks like he was praying and crying...

"Peterson's husband, Scott, who told police that he last saw his wife at 9:30 a.m. Christmas Eve when he left for a fishing trip, attended the vigil but did not sit with other family on the stage. He did not address the audience.

He tearfully greeted friends and family after the ceremony but declined an interview with The Bee."

http://www.modbee.com/reports/laci/story/5764546p-6734912c.html

-As to Scott referring to Laci in past tense...

From a Modbee article published Dec 27, 2002

"Since then, family and friends have hoped for the best and feared the worst. No one knows exactly what to think. When they talk about Laci Peterson, their words slip between past and present tense."

http://www.modbee.com/local/story/5721883p-6694768c.html


2-4. What choice did he have? Asking for a warrant would only add to the suspicion. And, he lied at the warehouse about the electricity. Why? I think this was more about his confidence he would get away with this, more than COI. His whole story unraveled when he thought he was spotted at the marina, proven by telling Ms. Venable and Ms. Krigbaum that he was golfing.

He could have asked for a search warrant..he could have refused that the police collect evidence or take pictures..rather, he left them in his house UNSUPERVISED doing whatever they wanted to...IMO, he had nothing to hide..he also accepted to be interviewed on tape with asking for his attorney to be present..he gave his cell phone to Brocchini to examine as well as Laci's


5. I agree with this to a degree. But I can think of at least three plausible reasons he could have told this to Brocchini. He thought Laci would drift out of the bay via the shipping channel, rather than back into the bay. He dumped Laci far enough from the island that he didn't think the two sites would allow LE to find her. Or, he thought those that saw him might have been able to track his position to the spot he gave up to Brocchini.

He had purchased an ocean rod and two-day fishing license..was he documenting his plan as to where he was going to dump Laci's body?..at that point, he had no reason to create a paper trail that would indicate that he was going to go fishing...in addition, no one saw him there that knew him personally, he could have lied to the police about his whereabouts...he could have taken his chance that the people who saw him BRIEFLY would not recognize him, thus would not come forward..the MPD had no reason to search the bay (90 miles away from Modesto) except for his statement to them...IMO, he had nothing to hide..he stored his boat at his warehouse..in addition, the people saw him after he was done fishing..so I would say they had no way of knowing his exact spot....
You stated that he thought the body would drift out to the ocean..but IMO, there is no way for him to have thought that the body that he supposedly dumped in a shallow area would have drifted out to the ocean in few hours...so why not wait to see if someone would come forward to tell the police that they saw him at the bay...at least to give time for the body to drift out to the ocean...what would have been the benefit to come clean as to where he went if the police would find the body in the next few hours?...think about it...with that said, if the people who saw him came forward, he could have said that they were mistaken..

6. So the boat was registered by Bruce P. with the state. Doesn't mean it wasn't a secret to anyone but a clerk at the DMV. Had Laci drifted out to sea and LE not jumped on this so quick, the boat could have been irrelevant. Especially if the golfing story help up. The witness didn't testify - don't you think Laci being aware of the boat was an important enough detail to bring in the witness to testify? That she didn't makes her story very suspect.

If Scott had planned to use the boat to dump Laci's body as you contend..then..
-why didn't he get an unregistered boat where there was no need for him to give his name and home address? (he did find such a boat but chose to buy a registered one)
-why didn't he rent a secret storage closer to the bay where no one knew him to store the boat to keep it a secret so to speak? his actions point to consciousness of innocence..he stored his boat at the warehouse where people knew him...
BTW..it was the seller who insisted on getting cash

7. Agree with this a little. However, how could he be sure what her route was in the late stages of pregnancy? Maybe she adjusted her route due to her health or her lack of time due to all the preparations that day. Maybe something caused her to adjust. Why would he respond at all as to whether it could have been her or not? She was missing and he had no idea what she did, only what he said she was planning to do...at that moment..."couldn't have been" should not have been a thought so easily arrived at.

The point is, why would a killer turn down exonerating evidence under any circumstances? I mean 2 witnesses reported seeing Laci alive after he had left his house...just picture this scenario..police officers tell A killer that two witnesses saw his victim alive..can you imagine him saying " nope..they must be mistaken.. it could not be her"!!

[ekg]

The only thing I can think of to argue towards innocence is "nothing in his past," which I believe is meaningless. But it's the best I can do with nothing to work with.

That said, I hope it's not being taken by you NG's that I'm stepping on toes or insulting your intelligence....Some of you seem to have a very high standard for guilty which you feel should be met in order for a person to be convicted. Y'all seem like the true optimists sometimes - refusing to believe something so horrendous without a red-handed, 'without-a-doubt' piece of proof.

Everytime I look at Wudge's list of "inculpatory" evidence that could be used to show premeditation, deliberation, intent, and malice aforethought....all I see is direct evidence. CE is troublesome to a lot of people. I understand that. It's just in Scott's case....I don't see a reasonable explanation for the location of Laci/Conner after looking at Scott's prediction, boat, and research for tides/currents as well as other locations. The one he decided on is where the bodies washed up! Proof enough for me.

If you're talking to me, you've been nothing but cool with me...... I can't comment on how you've been with others tho...

It's not that I have a high standard for guilt...I think I have the same standard as you.. I just don't see the things you call proof of guilt as proof of anything..

what you see as overwhelming I see a inconsequential. You say the bodies,boat,research of tides/currents are proof enough for you. The 5 forensically free crime scenes are enough doubt for me. Since you are sure in your opinion every single shred is another mark in the guilt column.Since I see doubt in the crime scenes, I see doubt in other areas..

it's a perception thing....and perception is reality... your reality is there's more than enough there to prove he's guilty without a doubt. My reality is there isn't..

AW2B touch on this earlier....and she's right it is odd that 2 ppl can look at the same picture and come away with different opinions...:seeya:

[TuscanDreams]

By all accounts, Scott was a spoiled brat. No one has ever said anything differently, including his parents. Correct me on that if I'm wrong.

That stated, I wonder how Scott would have turned out if his parents had enforced a few rules? :shrug:

[ekg]

By all accounts, Scott was a spoiled brat. No one has ever said anything differently, including his parents. Correct me on that if I'm wrong.

That stated, I wonder how Scott would have turned out if his parents had enforced a few rules? :shrug:

his parents called him a spoiled brat?

[enlightenme]

his parents called him a spoiled brat?


No, you are right. His parents called him a perfect son, a wonderful person, and that they were proud to be his parents.

I disagree with them but I can understand their belief and support.

[Wearing A Halo]

*Snip*

7- Susan Aquino, Sharon Rocha's sister, testified that on Dec 25th, when she was at Scott's house, two police officers came to the door, they informed Scott that there were two witnesses down at the park saying that they saw Laci walking over at the walking bridge, according to her, Scott said that it could not be Laci because that was not her route.
If Scott was the killer, he would have been quick to accept those witnesses accounts..would anyone kill someone then turn around and reject witnesses report about seeing his victim alive?? He was trying to be accurate because he was seriously looking for Laci..

This is my statement from the Common Ground thread (#828) to which you never responded to.

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

[accordn2me]

If you're talking to me, you've been nothing but cool with me...... I can't comment on how you've been with others tho...

It's not that I have a high standard for guilt...I think I have the same standard as you.. I just don't see the things you call proof of guilt as proof of anything..

what you see as overwhelming I see a inconsequential. You say the bodies,boat,research of tides/currents are proof enough for you. The 5 forensically free crime scenes are enough doubt for me. Since you are sure in your opinion every single shred is another mark in the guilt column.Since I see doubt in the crime scenes, I see doubt in other areas..

it's a perception thing....and perception is reality... your reality is there's more than enough there to prove he's guilty without a doubt. My reality is there isn't..

AW2B touch on this earlier....and she's right it is odd that 2 ppl can look at the same picture and come away with different opinions...:seeya:Any explanation for the hair in the pliers found in the boat?

Bodies, boat, research of tide/currents and that ominous prediction.....yep. It's enough.

[cookiewench]

-why didn't he get an unregistered boat where there was no need for him to give his name and home address? (he did find such a boat but chose to buy a registered one)
-why didn't he rent a secret storage closer to the bay where no one knew him to store the boat to keep it a secret so to speak? his actions point to consciousness of innocence..he stored his boat at the warehouse where people knew him...


He couldn't have driven down the highway with a boat that had no license tag on it. The one he eventually found was perfect for him: already registered, and to a person with the same last name. He could have said it was his brother's or father's if he'd been stopped.

As for why he didn't rent a storage closer to the bay - this type of question always bemuses me.

It seems that some people can think of a more "sensible" way to cover up a murder than Scott did, and so they think that this makes Scott innocent - because he didn't think up the things that THEY would think up if they were going to commit a murder?

[cookiewench]

IOW:

Why not research every murder who got busted and convicted, think of the ways he could have done it better, and then decide that he's innocent because he didn't think of those things himself?


It was Scott's arrogance that got him in the end:

he never thought they would suspect him.....or search the bay.....or find Amber, etc. etc. etc.

[accordn2me]

-<snip>
he MPD had no reason to search the bay (90 miles away from Modesto) except for his statement to them... They had records from his computer showing research of the bay...among other areas he could have chosen to dump a body.

IMO, he had nothing to hide..he stored his boat at his warehouse..Then why did he want to hide it from his boss?

in addition, the people saw him after he was done fishing..so I would say they had no way of knowing his exact spot....Scott said that he saw a couple of guys "out there" and exchanged a brief "did you catch anything" conversation. Not same guys that laughed at him at the marina.

You stated that he thought the body would drift out to the ocean..but IMO, there is no way for him to have thought that the body that he supposedly dumped in a shallow area would have drifted out to the ocean in few hours...How do you know "there is no way for him to have thought....?" :shrug: And every time you mention this shallow water, I ask if you read the testimony of the hydrologist, sometimes I post it for you...and you ignore it. Do you understand...there is also deep water in the very area where Scott took the boat (Laci's body)? You can pretend it's not there. It's there!:read:

so why not wait to see if someone would come forward to tell the police that they saw him at the bay...at least to give time for the body to drift out to the ocean...what would have been the benefit to come clean as to where he went if the police would find the body in the next few hours?...think about it...Are you serious! YOU need to think about it! Scott had some explaining to do. The police didn't run straight to the bay as soon as Scott told them his fishy story...No! They conducted a missing persons investigation.

with that said, if the people who saw him came forward, he could have said that they were mistaken..Oh! Well! ...I'm sure the police and everybody else would have quickly dismissed them, then! Especially if Scott had stuck to his golfing story.

<snip>

The point is, why would a killer turn down exonerating evidence under any circumstances? <snip>!Because he was having a party and couldn't be bothered! Scott knew they didn't see Laci! The point is...it is not, was not, and never will be exonerating evidence. :no:

[One2Snoop]

-They say a picture is worth a thousand words..
snip

If Scott had planned to use the boat to dump Laci's body as you contend..then..
-why didn't he get an unregistered boat where there was no need for him to give his name and home address? (he did find such a boat but chose to buy a registered one)
-why didn't he rent a secret storage closer to the bay where no one knew him to store the boat to keep it a secret so to speak? his actions point to consciousness of innocence..he stored his boat at the warehouse where people knew him...
BTW..it was the seller who insisted on getting cash


I think the fact that Scott was able to find a registered boat with the last name of Peterson was just a stroke of luck on his part - whether it made a difference in his decision to murder Laci and Conner I don't know, but I think the thing we need to focus on is he had a boat that no one knew anything about - except the Peterson who sold it to him and perhaps a clerk at the DMV.

Why didn't he rent a storage unit closer?

Maybe because of financial reasons or a paper trail? What better way to hide a boat in none other than your work warehouse? Whose to say no one would recognize him if he had rented a new space someplace else? Don't most storage units have "live on the site" managers and video camera's?

he stored his boat at the warehouse where people knew him...

Did anyone at the warehouse actually say they saw the boat? If not, I'd find that highly suspicious. Why didn't anyone there see it? :shrug: Was it because Scott moved the boat in at night - disposed of Laci/Conner at night and moved the boat back into the warehouse during the night/early morning and thats why no one saw it? It was also during the holiday - most places either close or have minimal staff.

Speaking of video camera's did this warehouse/storage unit have them??? Is there footage 2-3 weeks prior to Laci disappearing? IIRC I remember pictures being posted of Scotts truck with the boat backing up to or away from the storage unit, but nothing else before that. I don't recall seeing any photo's of Laci actually being at the warehouse a few days before her disappearance either.

Someone refresh my memory - where did those pictures of the truck and boat at the warehouse come from? Were they after the fact?

TIA.
O2S

[frydaddy]

-They say a picture is worth a thousand words..unfortunately, the media chose to focus on the picture of Scott smiling at the vigil..even so he did cry at the vigil..please note the picture of Scott holding his niece, if you would enlarge the picture you would see that Scott had his eyes closed, to me he looks like he was praying and crying...

"Peterson's husband, Scott, who told police that he last saw his wife at 9:30 a.m. Christmas Eve when he left for a fishing trip, attended the vigil but did not sit with other family on the stage. He did not address the audience.

He tearfully greeted friends and family after the ceremony but declined an interview with The Bee."

http://www.modbee.com/reports/laci/story/5764546p-6734912c.html

-As to Scott referring to Laci in past tense...

From a Modbee article published Dec 27, 2002

"Since then, family and friends have hoped for the best and feared the worst. No one knows exactly what to think. When they talk about Laci Peterson, their words slip between past and present tense."

http://www.modbee.com/local/story/5721883p-6694768c.html




He could have asked for a search warrant..he could have refused that the police collect evidence or take pictures..rather, he left them in his house UNSUPERVISED doing whatever they wanted to...IMO, he had nothing to hide..he also accepted to be interviewed on tape with asking for his attorney to be present..he gave his cell phone to Brocchini to examine as well as Laci's




He had purchased an ocean rod and two-day fishing license..was he documenting his plan as to where he was going to dump Laci's body?..at that point, he had no reason to create a paper trail that would indicate that he was going to go fishing...in addition, no one saw him there that knew him personally, he could have lied to the police about his whereabouts...he could have taken his chance that the people who saw him BRIEFLY would not recognize him, thus would not come forward..the MPD had no reason to search the bay (90 miles away from Modesto) except for his statement to them...IMO, he had nothing to hide..he stored his boat at his warehouse..in addition, the people saw him after he was done fishing..so I would say they had no way of knowing his exact spot....
You stated that he thought the body would drift out to the ocean..but IMO, there is no way for him to have thought that the body that he supposedly dumped in a shallow area would have drifted out to the ocean in few hours...so why not wait to see if someone would come forward to tell the police that they saw him at the bay...at least to give time for the body to drift out to the ocean...what would have been the benefit to come clean as to where he went if the police would find the body in the next few hours?...think about it...with that said, if the people who saw him came forward, he could have said that they were mistaken..



If Scott had planned to use the boat to dump Laci's body as you contend..then..
-why didn't he get an unregistered boat where there was no need for him to give his name and home address? (he did find such a boat but chose to buy a registered one)
-why didn't he rent a secret storage closer to the bay where no one knew him to store the boat to keep it a secret so to speak? his actions point to consciousness of innocence..he stored his boat at the warehouse where people knew him...
BTW..it was the seller who insisted on getting cash



The point is, why would a killer turn down exonerating evidence under any circumstances? I mean 2 witnesses reported seeing Laci alive after he had left his house...just picture this scenario..police officers tell A killer that two witnesses saw his victim alive..can you imagine him saying " nope..they must be mistaken.. it could not be her"!!

I see that Di, A2, and Snoop have expanded on these points and mine. Due to the late hour for me, I will have to tackle this another time. But, I did want to state that you really don't address the picture where the photographer "caught" him, other than to pretend that the other stuff erases it. If you think someone whose pregnant spouse has been missing for a week has that sort of smile in them, that's your right. But, to me, I'd say it's 100% inconceivable.

[attorneywan2be]

Snip

Think about it- A: staged abduction-check out the two witnesses. B: no staged abduction-check out the two witnesses. One cannot go wrong in either A or B, but, DRISP didn't even bother two both-RED FLAG!!!

Sorry I didn't respond earlier..

If A killer staged the abduction would he turn down witnesses reports of seeing his victim alive for any reason whatsoever?...IMO, no way!..why would he? I can't find one single reason that would compel Scott to turn down those reports if he killed Laci...IMO, he would have gone to the media with those reports...he would not have stopped talking about those reports...on the other hand, I can find a possible explanation as to why an innocent man would discount those reports...for example, what if Laci had told him she would never walk that way for whatever reason...in other words, he was sure about it..!

[accordn2me]

Sorry I didn't respond earlier..

If A killer staged the abduction would he turn down witnesses reports of seeing his victim alive for any reason whatsoever?...IMO, no way!..why would he? I can't find one single reason that would compel Scott to turn down those reports if he killed Laci...IMO, he would have gone to the media with those reports...he would not have stopped talking about those reports...on the other hand, I can find a possible explanation as to why an innocent man would discount those reports...for example, what if Laci had told him she would never walk that way for whatever reason...in other words, he was sure about it..!When someone is holding out the slightest ray of hope...they never discount any possibility.

Scott discounted this one because he wanted to continue his first holiday celebration without his "lost" wife, or any interruptions about her. He was done with her. His Jack Cadillac lifestyle was kicking in - no distractions, please.

Stay tuned........Babysitters and flirtinis coming right up! I'm sure you have an "innocent man" explanation for this too. :rolleyes:

[Wearing A Halo]

Sorry I didn't respond earlier..

If A killer staged the abduction would he turn down witnesses reports of seeing his victim alive for any reason whatsoever?...IMO, no way!..why would he? I can't find one single reason that would compel Scott to turn down those reports if he killed Laci...IMO, he would have gone to the media with those reports...he would not have stopped talking about those reports...on the other hand, I can find a possible explanation as to why an innocent man would discount those reports...for example, what if Laci had told him she would never walk that way for whatever reason...in other words, he was sure about it..!

"A killer" would and wouldn't turn down turn down reports depending on his thoughts and circumstances that pertain to him and him only. "An innocent" person wouldn't turn down and discount anything what soever no matter what his thoughts and circumstance were.

I know that you are having trouble with this concept. The principle of Vincible Ignorance applies here. Google it or Yahoo it and read up on it.

[ekg]

Any explanation for the hair in the pliers found in the boat?

Bodies, boat, research of tide/currents and that ominous prediction.....yep. It's enough.


the hair could have belong to what? one person out of every 115? I'd love to have lottery with those odds..but basis for a murder conviction? no...

besides the pliers were rusted shut, weren't they? when were they found? how did they rust shut so quickly? were they Scott's or Brian Petersons, who's fingerprints were on them, and did they match Brian P's wife hair? I don't remember the answer to any of those questions... and I would need them to make a better judgment...

add to that I have hair down to my waist.... black hair... not a day goes by that I don't find my hair in places that I can't explain...just last night it was draped across the ice tray and frozen in half the ice blocks....no big deal except that I haven't dumped or filled the ice trays in months... it's one of my youngest's daily 'chores'.... so how did it get there frozen in the ice?

Transference probably...


it's stuff like that that IMO this case is built on... and since I can either relate it to an actual personal situation or just a 'could be this too' explanation... I can't or couldn't convict him of this crime...

[frydaddy]

They say a picture is worth a thousand words..unfortunately, the media chose to focus on the picture of Scott smiling at the vigil..even so he did cry at the vigil..please note the picture of Scott holding his niece, if you would enlarge the picture you would see that Scott had his eyes closed, to me he looks like he was praying and crying...

"Peterson's husband, Scott, who told police that he last saw his wife at 9:30 a.m. Christmas Eve when he left for a fishing trip, attended the vigil but did not sit with other family on the stage. He did not address the audience.

He tearfully greeted friends and family after the ceremony but declined an interview with The Bee."

http://www.modbee.com/reports/laci/story/5764546p-6734912c.html

-As to Scott referring to Laci in past tense...

From a Modbee article published Dec 27, 2002

"Since then, family and friends have hoped for the best and feared the worst. No one knows exactly what to think. When they talk about Laci Peterson, their words slip between past and present tense."

http://www.modbee.com/local/story/5721883p-6694768c.html

Scott could turn off and on the tears at will. Too many statements by people and the Diane Sawyer interview prove this is the case. So, his tearful welcomes do not explain or justify the big ole smile, the excitement in the Amber/Paris call, or his not wanting to be with the family. And even his friends, IIRC, said they found his behavior odd. It does not fit.

As for the reflection of Laci's friends, I saw nothing in those statements that indicated speaking about Laci in the past tense as if they knew or assumed she was dead. They were reflecting on who Laci was and what she liked to do. Again, these do not eliminate or justify Scott's examples. You are not addressing his actions, merely trying to counter them with examples to the contrary.

He could have asked for a search warrant..he could have refused that the police collect evidence or take pictures..rather, he left them in his house UNSUPERVISED doing whatever they wanted to...IMO, he had nothing to hide..he also accepted to be interviewed on tape with asking for his attorney to be present..he gave his cell phone to Brocchini to examine as well as Laci's

As I stated, asking for a lawyer or a warrant would indicate to LE that those were needed. If he thought he could get away with this, then this doesn't come close to proving he had nothing to hide. Rather, he thought he hid it too well. Each of these things he allowed bore fruit that was in the least questionable, and at most, was CE of his involvement. So, common sense says that he had something to hide, he thought he pulled this off, and was wrong. Had none of the question marks popped up in each of the items you listed and he had taken a poly and passed, I might be inclined to concede this part.

He had purchased an ocean rod and two-day fishing license..was he documenting his plan as to where he was going to dump Laci's body?..at that point, he had no reason to create a paper trail that would indicate that he was going to go fishing...in addition, no one saw him there that knew him personally, he could have lied to the police about his whereabouts...he could have taken his chance that the people who saw him BRIEFLY would not recognize him, thus would not come forward..the MPD had no reason to search the bay (90 miles away from Modesto) except for his statement to them...IMO, he had nothing to hide..he stored his boat at his warehouse..in addition, the people saw him after he was done fishing..so I would say they had no way of knowing his exact spot....
You stated that he thought the body would drift out to the ocean..but IMO, there is no way for him to have thought that the body that he supposedly dumped in a shallow area would have drifted out to the ocean in few hours...so why not wait to see if someone would come forward to tell the police that they saw him at the bay...at least to give time for the body to drift out to the ocean...what would have been the benefit to come clean as to where he went if the police would find the body in the next few hours?...think about it...with that said, if the people who saw him came forward, he could have said that they were mistaken..

When did he use the ocean rod? And what bait was used?
When did he decide to go "fishing"?
When did he buy the license?
Why did he look at the bay data when he did?
Add these to the questions A2M asked.

If Scott had planned to use the boat to dump Laci's body as you contend..then..
-why didn't he get an unregistered boat where there was no need for him to give his name and home address? (he did find such a boat but chose to buy a registered one)
-why didn't he rent a secret storage closer to the bay where no one knew him to store the boat to keep it a secret so to speak? his actions point to consciousness of innocence..he stored his boat at the warehouse where people knew him...
BTW..it was the seller who insisted on getting cash

I do not recall information on any unregistered boat. If you provide the information, I will comment on it. It's been too long to remember it all.

As for renting a secret storage facility, you don't think that would look more suspicious than the warehouse? IF LE found out about a secret facility near the bay used only to hide a boat, don't you think that would be an even greater red flag than the story he told? And, what proof do you have that people knew him in that area. Who testified that they knew him and knew about the boat?

The issue about the boat is and always has been, who besides the seller and Scott knew about it that can be factually proven?

The point is, why would a killer turn down exonerating evidence under any circumstances? I mean 2 witnesses reported seeing Laci alive after he had left his house...just picture this scenario..police officers tell A killer that two witnesses saw his victim alive..can you imagine him saying " nope..they must be mistaken.. it could not be her"!!

It would only be exhonerating evidence if it turned out to be true. Lack of witnesses prove it was not. I think this is a case of "that's my story and I'm sticking to it".

[ekg]

snipped

Are you serious! YOU need to think about it! Scott had some explaining to do. The police didn't run straight to the bay as soon as Scott told them his fishy story...No! They conducted a missing persons investigation.




well, they did get there pretty early on....


http://web.archive.org/web/20030115065017/www.modbee.com/reports/laci/story/5748322p-6703401c.html
Officers scour more locations
December 30, 2002 Posted: 05:08:00 AM PST


By TY PHILLIPS
BEE STAFF WRITER

(Originally published Dec. 28, 2002)

nvestigators expanded their hunt for clues Friday to a warehouse used by the Modesto man whose pregnant wife has been missing since Christmas Eve.

Also, police and FBI crime-scene analysts spent a second day working inside the La Loma neighborhood home that belongs to the missing woman, Laci Peterson, 27, and her husband, Scott, 30.

The warehouse, which Peterson uses in his work as an agricultural salesman, is on North Emerald Avenue near Kansas Avenue in Modesto. Police sealed the warehouse as well as the Peterson home.

In other developments:

Modesto and Berkeley police went to a marina on San Francisco Bay to investigate Peterson's claim that he was fishing at the time his wife disappeared. No details were available about what detectives might have found out.



and they published a story about him being in the bay area on the 26th..



Woman vanishes on walk
By MOLLY DUGAN and JUDY SLY
BEE STAFF WRITERS

(Originally published Dec. 26, 2002)

http://web.archive.org/web/20030201120110/www.modbee.com/reports/laci/story/5748328p-6686776c.html

She was last seen in the park about 10 a.m. Peterson was reported missing shortly before 6 p.m. Tuesday, after her husband returned home from a fishing trip to the Bay Area, police said.

:shrug:

[frydaddy]

well, they did get there pretty early on....





and they published a story about him being in the bay area on the 26th..



:shrug:

When did they find the info on the computer? And which reason did they use for suspecting the bay. His story, the PC info, or both?

[cookiewench]

"A killer" would and wouldn't turn down turn down reports depending on his thoughts and circumstances that pertain to him and him only. "An innocent" person wouldn't turn down and discount anything what soever no matter what his thoughts and circumstance were.

I know that you are having trouble with this concept. The principle of Vincible Ignorance applies here. Google it or Yahoo it and read up on it.

I think that Scott counted on certain people thinking that "a guilty man wouldn't discount an alleged sighting - he would feign excitement about it".

A lot of his little psychological game-playing worked on those who want to find him innocent.


But then again - I'm inclined to believe that Scott was just very, very tired and wanted everyone to give up for the night and go away so that he could finish his cleaning at the house, run to the warehouse and do some more cleaning, and then get some sleep.


Didn't Brent drive by the house about 4:00 am and see that Scott wasn't home?

[enlightenme]

well, they did get there pretty early on....





and they published a story about him being in the bay area on the 26th..



:shrug:


IMO, "the bay area" is not very specific.

[weezer]

Sorry I didn't respond earlier..

If A killer staged the abduction would he turn down witnesses reports of seeing his victim alive for any reason whatsoever?...IMO, no way!..why would he? I can't find one single reason that would compel Scott to turn down those reports if he killed Laci...IMO, he would have gone to the media with those reports...he would not have stopped talking about those reports...on the other hand, I can find a possible explanation as to why an innocent man would discount those reports...for example, what if Laci had told him she would never walk that way for whatever reason...in other words, he was sure about it..!

I always thought he discounted her being seen in the park in order to encourage LE and searchers to leave.

[ekg]

When did they find the info on the computer? And which reason did they use for suspecting the bay. His story, the PC info, or both?


that article says they went b/c of his story

police went to a marina on San Francisco Bay to investigate Peterson's claim

the same article says they took the computer from the house on thrusay night, which would have been 12/26


Ridenour said investigators were looking for evidence in two computers and two vehicles seized Thursday night from the Peterson home.


by 1/1 they were already at the bay with divers


http://web.archive.org/web/20030207091417/www.modbee.com/reports/laci/story/5781014p-6750662c.html
After a relatively light search effort on New Year's Day, volunteers and law enforcement Thursday resumed their widespread efforts to find Laci Peterson, including divers searching the waters near Berkeley Marina.

kinda hard to be looking for a 'live' person when you're using divers..




also..... here's some off topic-non sequitur , but interesting snippets that I found and don't know what thread to put them in:confused:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030201122357/http://www.modbee.com/ips_rich_content/296-01a1vigil1.jpg

puts the 'smile' in perspective when you see that him and his niece are smiling at something they are looking at..

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Search for missing woman moves west- Published 12/30/02
http://web.archive.org/web/20030208000511/www.modbee.com/reports/laci/story/5748321p-6712397c.html
Police said they had found no connection between Peterson's disappearance and a burglary across the street from her Covena Avenue home. Investigators say they believe the burglary occurred between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. Tuesday, the day Peterson disappeared.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


New wrinkle in search- Published 12/31/02
http://web.archive.org/web/20030201123223/www.modbee.com/reports/laci/story/5756611p-6727223c.html
When Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department deputies brought in a specially trained bloodhound on Thursday to help in the search, it didn't head into the park. Instead, it headed to Yosemite Boulevard. Later, the dog led its handler from the Peterson house all the way to Maze Boulevard.

Monday, the Stanislaus County Sheriff's Underwater Search and Rescue Team inspected a section of the San Joaquin River about one-half mile north of the Old Fisherman's Club on Highway 132. The area is about 16 miles from the Peterson home.

The divers were there because the bloodhound made a beeline down Maze, said deputy Mark Cardoza, a member of the dive team.

"We are looking at all the areas where people could pull off the side of the road and not be seen," he said Monday.

At an afternoon news conference at the Modesto Police Department, Sgt. Ron Cloward said bloodhounds often are reliable.

"I've worked on cases where those dogs have located people six months after they disappeared," he said.

That's where the body-dump-frame-scott comes to play

the dogs scented her to another waterway.. on 12/30

everyone in the country knew Scott was at Berkley by 12/26-12/27

Who's to say the dogs weren't right... they just never found her.. they didn't find her in the bay and the search there was alot more intense and alot longer...

weird things happen in that part of the country.. :shrug:

Published: April 21, 2003, 03:33:55 PM PDT
Sonar can detect the shapes of objects in deep water. It was used in June in the successful search for several bodies that had been dumped in New Melones Reservoir, on the Tuolumne-Calaveras county border, in an alleged kidnap-for-ransom scheme stretching from Los Angeles to Russia.

[accordn2me]

They went to the bay trying to corroborate Scott's alibi, didn't they?

I do remember seeing LE on TV asking anyone who may have seen Scott to come forward so they could verify what he was telling them.

The article says that Scott wasn't a suspect at that time. It also mentions the other areas and waterways that are being searched...and that the search is expanding outward.

[frydaddy]

that article says they went b/c of his story



the same article says they took the computer from the house on thrusay night, which would have been 12/26




by 1/1 they were already at the bay with divers



kinda hard to be looking for a 'live' person when you're using divers..




also..... here's some off topic-non sequitur , but interesting snippets that I found and don't know what thread to put them in

http://web.archive.org/web/20030201122357/http://www.modbee.com/ips_rich_content/296-01a1vigil1.jpg

puts the 'smile' in perspective when you see that him and his niece are smiling at something they are looking at..

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



That's where the body-dump-frame-scott comes to play

the dogs scented her to another waterway.. on 12/30

everyone in the country knew Scott was at Berkley by 12/26-12/27

Who's to say the dogs weren't right... they just never found her.. they didn't find her in the bay and the search there was alot more intense and alot longer...

weird things happen in that part of the country..

http://www.findlaci2003.us/vigil-scott-smiling_.jpg

Hope I did this right. This is the photo...nothing puts this photo in perspective for me. This is not a husband concerned about his pregnant wife missing for one week. Compare this photo to those of Scott in the Amber Christmas photos...tell me how he can look so similar in them when in one he's on top of the world and the other, his world supposedly crashed in on him.

As for this rush to nail Scott, if that is the point. What is the proper timeframe to check his alibi, put what they have together to search the bay, assume Laci was murdered? He was there, had a boat, had the current info, was the last to see her alive. Investigations are not only to catch the criminal, but also to provide closure for the family. They can also be used to clear suspects. Perhaps I am missing the point here...wouldn't be the first time.

As for frame/dump, two things are required that I've yet to see a reasonable explanation as to why and how. One, knowledge specific enough to know where they could place bodies that would have caused experts to believe it was Scott who dumped them near where he was. Two, a method of storing the body that would cause experts to testify that it's consistent with her being in the bay for four months. Of the other potential suspects, I saw no one who had the smarts or the means to pull it off, nor a reason to wait four months to do it. Of course, if Scott did it, it ALL makes sense.

[accordn2me]

Yep - there were also people on horseback searching fields. It was hardly a rush to get Scott.Hardly indeed! When Attorneywan2be wrote this: You stated that he thought the body would drift out to the ocean..but IMO, there is no way for him to have thought that the body that he supposedly dumped in a shallow area would have drifted out to the ocean in few hours...so why not wait to see if someone would come forward to tell the police that they saw him at the bay...at least to give time for the body to drift out to the ocean...what would have been the benefit to come clean as to where he went if the police would find the body in the next few hours?...think about it...with that said, if the people who saw him came forward, he could have said that they were mistaken..:rolleyes: (my bold) I nearly fell out! He did wait! He avoided Amy's call. He dropped off the boat, went home, moved the bucket, emptied the water, unleashed the dog, had a snack, unloaded the washing machine, washed his own clothes, took a shower, listened to messages (not necessarily in that order). Then, he started "looking" for his missing wife. He blew about 6 hours! :shrug:

[ekg]

They went to the bay trying to corroborate Scott's alibi, didn't they?

I do remember seeing LE on TV asking anyone who may have seen Scott to come forward so they could verify what he was telling them.

The article says that Scott wasn't a suspect at that time. It also mentions the other areas and waterways that are being searched...and that the search is expanding outward.


that story came out on 1/03 10 days after she went missing...

http://web.archive.org/web/20030207091417/www.modbee.com/reports/laci/story/5781014p-6750662c.html
Police seeking to verify Peterson story- Published 01/03/03
Modesto police on Thursday asked the public for help corroborating the story of a Modesto man who reported his pregnant wife missing Christmas Eve

"Investigators need more information to confirm or corroborate Mr. Peterson's story," said Detective Doug Ridenour. "We want to eliminate him from this investigation. If we have an independent witness who saw him that morning, that would help.


they already had his story, gas receipts and parking ticket....add to that he had been totally cooperative at this time...so I don't know what more they wanted to verify it but IMO it's clear that at this time he was a suspect...even tho they didn't say he was a suspect on the 30th.....( but they didn't say he wasn't either...)

Search for missing woman moves west- Published 12/30/02
http://web.archive.org/web/20030208000511/www.modbee.com/reports/laci/story/5748321p-6712397c.html
"What we're trying to do is eliminate Scott Peterson from being a suspect," Cloward said.

but looking at the old newspaper issues it's pretty apparent what they thought happened and who was responsible for it. IMO anyway...

[ekg]

IMO, "the bay area" is not very specific.

no, but these are....

http://web.archive.org/web/20030115065017/www.modbee.com/reports/laci/story/5748322p-6703401c.html
(Originally published Dec. 28, 2002)
Modesto and Berkeley police went to a marina on San Francisco Bay to investigate Peterson's claim that he was fishing at the time his wife disappeared. No details were available about what detectives might have found out.


Search for missing woman moves west- Published 12/30/02
http://web.archive.org/web/20030208000511/www.modbee.com/reports/laci/story/5748321p-6712397c.html
Peterson told police that he left his home at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday and took his aluminum boat to a marina in Berkeley, where he set out on a fishing trip on San Francisco Bay.

Search for missing woman moves west- Published 12/30/02
http://web.archive.org/web/20030208000511/www.modbee.com/reports/laci/story/5748321p-6712397c.html
Ridenour said investigators traveled to the Berkeley marina where Scott Peterson said he went on Dec. 24 but did not turn up any "conclusive" evidence.

within the 1st few days his whereabouts were known to anyone who wanted to know it...

[TuscanDreams]

his parents called him a spoiled brat?

His parents didn't use those words, I interpreted them. They referred to Scott as the "little Prince" and Jackie stated he didn't really walk until he was 2 because everyone carried him around.

Here's a statement that will rise the ire in some of you- but I think that if Paris Hilton's mother does not insist that her daughter be held responsible for her actions, she is going to kill someone in a drunken driving accident one day.

No parallel between Paris and Scott, except that both of their parents seem to be oblivious to what they have done to their children. It's shameful.

Parents have to hold their kids accountable for actions. Boundaries are a good thing~

[thinkaboutit]

http://www.findlaci2003.us/vigil-scott-smiling_.jpg

Hope I did this right. This is the photo...nothing puts this photo in perspective for me. This is not a husband concerned about his pregnant wife missing for one week. Compare this photo to those of Scott in the Amber Christmas photos...tell me how he can look so similar in them when in one he's on top of the world and the other, his world supposedly crashed in on him.

As for this rush to nail Scott, if that is the point. What is the proper timeframe to check his alibi, put what they have together to search the bay, assume Laci was murdered? He was there, had a boat, had the current info, was the last to see her alive. Investigations are not only to catch the criminal, but also to provide closure for the family. They can also be used to clear suspects. Perhaps I am missing the point here...wouldn't be the first time.

As for frame/dump, two things are required that I've yet to see a reasonable explanation as to why and how. One, knowledge specific enough to know where they could place bodies that would have caused experts to believe it was Scott who dumped them near where he was. Two, a method of storing the body that would cause experts to testify that it's consistent with her being in the bay for four months. Of the other potential suspects, I saw no one who had the smarts or the means to pull it off, nor a reason to wait four months to do it. Of course, if Scott did it, it ALL makes sense.

The uncropped version of that photo puts things in perspective for me. Anyone know who the red-headed guy in the pic is?

http://www.eyewasmozart.com/photos/laci/peterson_vigil_humor-thumb.jpg

As far as someone else dumping the bodies - the knowledge of where the MPD expected to find the bodies could have been easily gotten by one trip to the bay during one of the days that they were there searching. Remember - the bodies were NOT found in the exact location where Scott was. Simply dumping Laci's body in the general vicinity would have gotten them what they needed.

And if you don't believe there was a rush to judgement - what are your thoughts on the people who thought they saw Laci walking and called the tipline several times being ignored until after the trial started? As of Dec. 28th - there was no reason to search the bay. No one knew about Amber - everything Scott said up until that point had checked out. Harvey Kemple hadn't told anyone at the police dept that Scott told him he was golfing. The family was saying - no way - no how he did this. How could they have been so sure at that point - that Scott had murdered Laci and dumped her in the bay? I can understand checking the husband out - but searching the bay for a body? Wouldn't a better focus for this "missing persons investigation" have been interviewing witnesses who claimed to have seen her the day she disappeared?

[enlightenme]

The uncropped version of that photo puts things in perspective for me. Anyone know who the red-headed guy in the pic is?

http://www.eyewasmozart.com/photos/laci/peterson_vigil_humor-thumb.jpg

As far as someone else dumping the bodies - the knowledge of where the MPD expected to find the bodies could have been easily gotten by one trip to the bay during one of the days that they were there searching. Remember - the bodies were NOT found in the exact location where Scott was. Simply dumping Laci's body in the general vicinity would have gotten them what they needed.

And if you don't believe there was a rush to judgement - what are your thoughts on the people who thought they saw Laci walking and called the tipline several times being ignored until after the trial started? As of Dec. 28th - there was no reason to search the bay. No one knew about Amber - everything Scott said up until that point had checked out. Harvey Kemple hadn't told anyone at the police dept that Scott told him he was golfing. The family was saying - no way - no how he did this. How could they have been so sure at that point - that Scott had murdered Laci and dumped her in the bay? I can understand checking the husband out - but searching the bay for a body? Wouldn't a better focus for this "missing persons investigation" have been interviewing witnesses who claimed to have seen her the day she disappeared?

I think what I remember from the pic of this is that the red haired person is a woman. I'm not sure though.

It still does not put it into perspective for me. Who was laughing, smiling first? Scott or this unknown person? I know if my husband had been MISSING only a week, I wouldn't be able to smile, laugh like that!

As for the Laci siting witnesses, did they ignore all of them until after the trial started? First time I've heard that!

[deputydi]

Sorry I didn't respond earlier..

If A killer staged the abduction would he turn down witnesses reports of seeing his victim alive for any reason whatsoever?...IMO, no way!..why would he? I can't find one single reason that would compel Scott to turn down those reports if he killed Laci...IMO, he would have gone to the media with those reports...he would not have stopped talking about those reports...on the other hand, I can find a possible explanation as to why an innocent man would discount those reports...for example, what if Laci had told him she would never walk that way for whatever reason...in other words, he was sure about it..!
As inconsequential as this point seems to me, I still believe that the report caught Scott off guard and he said the first thing that came to mind. His response simply means (to me) that he didn't have a prepared answer for this and he knew she couldn't have been seen. Once he said it, he was stuck with it.

Scott did a lot of things that are just plain stupid. That doesn't mean he is innocent ~ just that things happened that he wasn't prepared for. Watching LE drag the marina is one more example. Innocent or guilty, I just can't see anyone sitting in their car watching police dragging the bay for your spouse's body. And then leaving without saying a word.

His on-going conversations with Amber. Once she came forward he had to have at least considered the possibility that she was being recorded. I believe this is the reason his responses to her were so vague and he would never admit any guilt. I believe he thought that once LE listened to the recordings and there was no confession to the girlfriend, they would leave him alone. On the other hand, in trying to outsmart the police, he didn't consider that trying to continue this affair while his wife was missing made him look even more suspicious.

[deputydi]

<snip>As far as someone else dumping the bodies - the knowledge of where the MPD expected to find the bodies could have been easily gotten by one trip to the bay during one of the days that they were there searching. Remember - the bodies were NOT found in the exact location where Scott was. Simply dumping Laci's body in the general vicinity would have gotten them what they needed.<snip>
Does this scenario really make sense to you? Who would have gone to all the trouble of finding out approx where Scott was that day in order to frame someone they had never met? Wouldn't the same end have been accomplished if they left her body in the park or a shallow grave or anywhere near her home? And, with much less risk of being discovered.

[Wudge]

Does this scenario really make sense to you? Who would have gone to all the trouble of finding out approx where Scott was that day in order to frame someone they had never met? Wouldn't the same end have been accomplished if they left her body in the park or a shallow grave or anywhere near her home? And, with much less risk of being discovered.

The burglars would have eventually gone down for Laci's murder; i.e., unless you think that LE would never have figured out that Steven Todd could not have seen through a metal security mailbox.

(snicker ... A burglar with x-ray vision, and LE bozos that can't figure out how he did it.)

[ekg]

Does this scenario really make sense to you? Who would have gone to all the trouble of finding out approx where Scott was that day in order to frame someone they had never met? Wouldn't the same end have been accomplished if they left her body in the park or a shallow grave or anywhere near her home? And, with much less risk of being discovered.

well it's not like they'd have to hire a PI to find out where he was..LOL.. and don't criminals read the paper or listen to the news to see if LE is on to them? They do on tv anyways:tongue:


so the bodies being in the bay don't help or hurt your opinion of his guilt?

I'm wondering.... to anyone who wants to answer...if every single thing in this case was the same.... Scott smiling, his behavior,Amber, phone calls, boat, evidence..... every single thing was the same except the bodies were found 2 miles from the house..... would you still think he did it?

I've asked this before the majority of the answers I get are "No, in that case I would have to he didn't do it"....

[enlightenme]

The burglars would have eventually gone down for Laci's murder; i.e., unless you think that LE would never have figured out that Steven Todd could not have seen through a metal security mailbox.

(snicker ... A burglar with x-ray vision, and LE bozos that can't figure out how he did it.)


Snicker. I think you would need more evidence than that to convict "the burglars".

Yuk Yuk Yuk

MOO

[frydaddy]

no, but these are....








within the 1st few days his whereabouts were known to anyone who wanted to know it...

http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?searchtype=address&country=US&addtohistory=&searchtab=home&formtype=address&popflag=0&latitude=&longitude=&name=&phone=&level=&cat=&address=201+University+Ave.&city=Berkeley&state=CA&zipcode=94710

Here's a MapQuest of the Berkeley Marina. Coincidence that he chose a marina directly parallel to the outlet to the ocean? Were there no closer marinas? None more suited to his particular boat?

http://sfports.wr.usgs.gov/SFPORTS/vec_map/centbay.html

The current map Scott viewed (today's date). All arrows lead out, including an edge near Brooks Island with larger arrows. Now, what in the path he supposedly traveled, was useful on this map for fishing or trolling? To avoid danger in the boat? Why not go to a less dangerous (and closer) spot? Isn't it reasonable to speculate that he was going to place her in the channel and the storm sent her to shore? More resonable than a framer using these maps and knowing where to place her? Wouldn't they have to have predicted the storm?

San Fransisco Bay covers 400 square miles...a lot when trying to place someone on the shore based on an unknown drop point specifically on Scott's path.

[Hey Paula]

well it's not like they'd have to hire a PI to find out where he was..LOL.. and don't criminals read the paper or listen to the news to see if LE is on to them? They do on tv anyways:tongue:


so the bodies being in the bay don't help or hurt your opinion of his guilt?

I'm wondering.... to anyone who wants to answer...if every single thing in this case was the same.... Scott smiling, his behavior,Amber, phone calls, boat, evidence..... every single thing was the same except the bodies were found 2 miles from the house..... would you still think he did it?

I've asked this before the majority of the answers I get are "No, in that case I would have to he didn't do it"....

I would still think Scott was guilty even if Laci's body was found 2 miles from the house. The number of coincidences alone, aside from the bodies washing up where Scott went fishing, proves his guilt.

IMO

[Anne2719]

The burglars would have eventually gone down for Laci's murder; i.e., unless you think that LE would never have figured out that Steven Todd could not have seen through a metal security mailbox.

(snicker ... A burglar with x-ray vision, and LE bozos that can't figure out how he did it.)
Wudge, you've mentioned this metal security mailbox several times -- do you have a picture or a link for it? In my experience, many mailboxes -- even if enclosed -- allow for OUTGOING mail to stick outside of it so the mail carrier sees it and knows to pick it up. I would really love to see exactly what this mailbox looks like and how you know that someone would need x-ray vision to see the mail waiting to be picked up.

[JustMyOpinion]

His parents didn't use those words, I interpreted them. They referred to Scott as the "little Prince" and Jackie stated he didn't really walk until he was 2 because everyone carried him around.

Here's a statement that will rise the ire in some of you- but I think that if Paris Hilton's mother does not insist that her daughter be held responsible for her actions, she is going to kill someone in a drunken driving accident one day.

No parallel between Paris and Scott, except that both of their parents seem to be oblivious to what they have done to their children. It's shameful.

Parents have to hold their kids accountable for actions. Boundaries are a good thing~


I agree. Paris is far too old for her parents to be involved in this way, IMO. i.e. Making excuses for her, helping her with an appeal of a 45 day sentence, and her mother was way out of line for attempting to shame the judge..IMO. Same with Scott, he was far too old for his parents to make excuses for him, provide explanations for his conduct, assist him in any way with a flight plan, and they were disrespectful of the victims and the court on the day of formal sentencing, IMO. Both families show signs of enmeshment, lack of boundaries, and disregard/contempt for the rights of others,,IMO. If this is how it has always been, no wonder Paris & Scott never learned that which is essential to forming a conscience, IMO. They are each responsible for their adult actions, but it is painful to see how oblivious their parents are to as to how their own actions have helped shape these human beings..JMO

[accordn2me]

well it's not like they'd have to hire a PI to find out where he was..LOL.. and don't criminals read the paper or listen to the news to see if LE is on to them? They do on tv anyways:tongue:


so the bodies being in the bay don't help or hurt your opinion of his guilt?

I'm wondering.... to anyone who wants to answer...if every single thing in this case was the same.... Scott smiling, his behavior,Amber, phone calls, boat, evidence..... every single thing was the same except the bodies were found 2 miles from the house..... would you still think he did it?

I've asked this before the majority of the answers I get are "No, in that case I would have to he didn't do it"....
Absolutely! The burglars had no reason to risk a death sentence by killing Laci and Conner. They got caught for the burglary! Relative to Scott's stay in the concrete hotel...the burglars got a slap on the wrist!

I firmly believe the police tried their best to clear Scott. If it was anyway for the burglars to have taken the rap....or even play to reasonable doubt...Geragos would have called them. The burglars were cleared. :read:

[cookiewench]

I'm wondering.... to anyone who wants to answer...if every single thing in this case was the same.... Scott smiling, his behavior,Amber, phone calls, boat, evidence..... every single thing was the same except the bodies were found 2 miles from the house..... would you still think he did it?

I've asked this before the majority of the answers I get are "No, in that case I would have to he didn't do it"....

I thought he was guilty from the day I heard about the fishing on Christmas eve and the secret boat. Everything that Scott did and said in the months after that just reinforced what I already knew.

I'd still feel that way, even if the bodies had never been found.

[Wudge]

Wudge, you've mentioned this metal security mailbox several times -- do you have a picture or a link for it? In my experience, many mailboxes -- even if enclosed -- allow for OUTGOING mail to stick outside of it so the mail carrier sees it and knows to pick it up. I would really love to see exactly what this mailbox looks like and how you know that someone would need x-ray vision to see the mail waiting to be picked up.

Anne, first, you should read Susan Medina's testimony.

Second, there is a well known poster who holds Scott to be guilty, lives in northern California and has the same securoty mailbox that Susan Medina has. He posts as BuzzM1 in other crime forums. He verified long ago that mail left by the mailman, Mr. Graybill, could not have been seen.

[accordn2me]

..snip..
I'd still feel that way, even if the bodies had never been found.(my bold)

Me too, cookiewench!

However, I held out hope that it wasn't him long after Amber came forward. Albeit, I didn't follow the case closely. There was a lot I didn't know about. Once I heard about all the crap they found in his Mercedes, the disguise, and his non-response when they announced the body of a infant and then a woman who had been pregnant washed up......I knew.

[ekg]

Absolutely! The burglars had no reason to risk a death sentence by killing Laci and Conner. They got caught for the burglary! Relative to Scott's stay in the concrete hotel...the burglars got a slap on the wrist!

I firmly believe the police tried their best to clear Scott. If it was anyway for the burglars to have taken the rap....or even play to reasonable doubt...Geragos would have called them. The burglars were cleared. :read:


were meaning to you replying to the post of mine that you quoted?

You quoted me and added the bold to this part....

I'm wondering.... to anyone who wants to answer...if every single thing in this case was the same.... Scott smiling, his behavior,Amber, phone calls, boat, evidence..... every single thing was the same except the bodies were found 2 miles from the house..... would you still think he did it?


I don't follow what the robbers have to do with what you put in bold? :confused:

[ekg]

I thought he was guilty from the day I heard about the fishing on Christmas eve and the secret boat. snipped

really?!?



thank you for your honesty..

[cookiewench]

really?!?



thank you for your honesty..


Common sense. Seriously - how many people just "disappear" in broad daylight while walking their dog?

And how many of them "disappear" while their husband just happens to be fishing on a major holiday in a "secret boat"?

Did you know that in the first few days, it was announced that "Peterson admitted that no one but he knew about the boat"? It was later that the "Laci knew about the boat" got floated out there.

Oh - and the mop & bucket, when the maid had mopped the floor the day before. That was announced right away, also. And how many women (Martha Stewart types) dump the bucket and then leave their mop & bucket outside?

Oh. Then I saw his face on TV. He was about the most non-upset husband of a missing women I'd ever seen. Even Mark Hacking at least made a stab at appearing upset - as transparent as it was.

By a few days after Christmas, I was sitting back and waiting for the fact that Scott had a girlfriend to be announced.

Most of the men who "disappear" their wives put themselves in a very public place on the day that it happens. I think that was Scott's original plan.

I think that he either put her in the bay the night before and planned to go golfing the next day (after letting the dog out), or - he planned on putting her in the bay during the night and his plan got messed up: either he had to wait longer than he thought he would for her to fall asleep, or the cleanup took longer than he expected.

We don't even know if he washed & dried that comforter overnight, and then fell asleep on it for a while - leaving a drop of blood from a cut that he got during the struggle.

[accordn2me]

were meaning to you replying to the post of mine that you quoted?

You quoted me and added the bold to this part....


I don't follow what the robbers have to do with what you put in bold? :confused::no: They don't have a thing in the world to do with what you said, do they! :o

I just went off about them! Why? Well, if not Scott, then who? The burglars seem to be a popular theory for NGs. Sorry for the confusion!

[cookiewench]

BTW: I don't understand why some posters go on and on about the burglars, when the dog was found BEFORE the Medinas left that day.

Even if - as some people postulate - the timeline was a bit off - it still would have been impossible.

The burglars would have had to break in the house while the Medinas were still driving down Covena - just popped right in as soon as they drove out - somehow knowing psychically that they were leaving for days rather than just running to the store.

Then they would have had to go through the house & shed, steal all that stuff and carry it out - kidnap a woman (tie her up and put her in their non-existent van?) - all within a few minutes in broad daylight, without anyone seeing or hearing anything.

Impossible.

And interestingly - some of the same people who try to blame the burglars also believe the Laci sightings blocks away or in the park - as if she could have done BOTH: get kidnapped by burglars AND walk to the park - all within a few minutes of Scott leaving the house and within minutes of the dog being found.

[ekg]

:no: They don't have a thing in the world to do with what you said, do they! :o

I just went off about them! Why? Well, if not Scott, then who? The burglars seem to be a popular theory for NGs. Sorry for the confusion!

no they don't have a thing to with what I said...... The op said noone would have a reason to plant the bodies at the bay when somewhere near the house would do....so I asked if ppl would still think he was guilty if the bodies were found 2 miles from home...

[Otter]

no they don't have a thing to with what I said...... The op said noone would have a reason to plant the bodies at the bay when somewhere near the house would do....so I asked if ppl would still think he was guilty if the bodies were found 2 miles from home...


Ummm, yeah. Speaking only for myself in regard to SP's guilt. I've never murdered anyone or thought about murdering anyone so I can't get into the mindset. Dumping a body? Sheesh, I don't know. What I do know IMO, is that he sure didn't expect her body to appear. Conner he didn't give a second thought to, who knows what he believed would happen to him. Somehow I don't believe he knew he'd be expelled from his mom's womb.

Its that ROPE of CE. SP just wove it tighter and tighter. All by himself, because in his own words he's smarter than anyone else. :rolleyes:

Do you realize that people have been convicted of murder in 1st degree without a body? SP, MOO, would've been one to add to that infamous list.

[accordn2me]

no they don't have a thing to with what I said...... The op said noone would have a reason to plant the bodies at the bay when somewhere near the house would do....so I asked if ppl would still think he was guilty if the bodies were found 2 miles from home...
Of course. Why would that help him any? He was there! Anywhere between the house and the bay....

Now, like that juror that said if her body had been discovered up in Yosemite...."we wouldn't be here..." or something like that.

For the burglars..or anyone else for that matter... to have killed her would have been a huge risk with absolutely nothing to gain. For them to have killed her AND risk getting caught because they were trying to frame Scott.....preposterous! Why would anyone want to frame Scott? Taking unimaginable risk to themselves to do it......to gain what?

[deputydi]

<snip>I'm wondering.... to anyone who wants to answer...if every single thing in this case was the same.... Scott smiling, his behavior,Amber, phone calls, boat, evidence..... every single thing was the same except the bodies were found 2 miles from the house..... would you still think he did it?

I've asked this before the majority of the answers I get are "No, in that case I would have to he didn't do it"....
I would probably still believe he was guilty, but I'd have some doubt. The absolute clincher for me was the location of the bodies.

Now that I've answered your question, try to answer mine. Who would have gone to all the trouble of hiding Laci's body long enough to learn where her husband had been that day and then drive 90 miles with her body in order to frame Scott?

[Otter]

Of course. Why would that help him any? He was there! Anywhere between the house and the bay....

Now, like that juror that said if her body had been discovered up in Yosemite...."we wouldn't be here..." or something like that.

For the burglars..or anyone else for that matter... to have killed her would have been a huge risk with absolutely nothing to gain. For them to have killed her AND risk getting caught because they were trying to frame Scott.....preposterous! Why would anyone want to frame Scott? Taking unimaginable risk to themselves to do it......to gain what?

Aloha A2M! :seeya:

I wish I had a quarter for every time I heard this argument based on common sense.

Maybe its the fertilizer territory. SP was getting too charming with the farmers and potentially taking away commissions from the other S*** dealers.

Have they been investigated? :eek:

[accordn2me]

Aloha A2M! seeya:

I wish I had a quarter for every time I heard this argument based on common sense.

Maybe its the fertilizer territory. SP was getting too charming with the farmers and potentially taking away commissions from the other S*** dealers.

Have they been investigated? eek:
Aloha to you, Otter! :seeya:

I've seen shows on people who believe that they've been abducted by aliens...some of them believe they've been abducted many times by these aliens...and experimented on and what not..... It's interesting...these people have scars and everything...they pass lie detector tests....give descriptions of the aliens so composite artists can sketch drawings...and the funny thing...the people who've never met each other all give very similar stories and descriptions of these aliens! It's really freaky! :eek:

I've been accused of being "far out there" before...but I have to admit...I'd go with an alien abduction way sooner than burglars or other fertilizer salesmen. But ya see....these aliens don't kill these people...they return them...alive. So...selling me on the aliens isn't going to be easy!:no:

[Otter]

Aloha to you, Otter!

I've seen shows on people who believe that they've been abducted by aliens...some of them believe they've been abducted many times by these aliens...and experimented on and what not..... It's interesting...these people have scars and everything...they pass lie detector tests....give descriptions of the aliens so composite artists can sketch drawings...and the funny thing...the people who've never met each other all give very similar stories and descriptions of these aliens! It's really freaky! :eek:

I've been accused of being "far out there" before...but I have to admit...I'd go with an alien abduction way sooner than burglars or other fertilizer salesmen. But ya see....these aliens don't kill these people...they return them...alive. So...selling me on the aliens isn't going to be easy!:no:

Yikes! Yeah, those alien abduction stories DID line up. Just this week I read about some guy with an implant in his wrist that he's had for 20+ years. He just realized it. :punch:

This frame job is just impossible to swallow. To frame SP is so complicated and dependent on so many varagies of nature, IMO just couldn't happen. No way, no how. Even Tony Soprano wouldn't come up with these scenarios. Well, the writers ... too implausible.

[accordn2me]

the hair could have belong to what? one person out of every 115? I'd love to have lottery with those odds..but basis for a murder conviction? no...

besides the pliers were rusted shut, weren't they? when were they found? how did they rust shut so quickly? were they Scott's or Brian Petersons, who's fingerprints were on them, and did they match Brian P's wife hair? I don't remember the answer to any of those questions... and I would need them to make a better judgment...

add to that I have hair down to my waist.... black hair... not a day goes by that I don't find my hair in places that I can't explain...just last night it was draped across the ice tray and frozen in half the ice blocks....no big deal except that I haven't dumped or filled the ice trays in months... it's one of my youngest's daily 'chores'.... so how did it get there frozen in the ice?

Transference probably...


it's stuff like that that IMO this case is built on... and since I can either relate it to an actual personal situation or just a 'could be this too' explanation... I can't or couldn't convict him of this crime...

I don't believe the pliers were rusted shut when they were found. By the time of trial...they had rusted shut because the salt water was never washed off.

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/P120.htm

Scott's hair was ruled out. Laci's wasn't....and I think 1 out of 112 (says Wudge) is an excellent odd for it being her hair.

Not sure, but I believe Brian Peterson testified that he didn't leave anything in the boat....except :shrug: well, it wasn't pliers.

[ekg]

I would probably still believe he was guilty, but I'd have some doubt. The absolute clincher for me was the location of the bodies.

Now that I've answered your question, try to answer mine. Who would have gone to all the trouble of hiding Laci's body long enough to learn where her husband had been that day and then drive 90 miles with her body in order to frame Scott?


I don't know....:shrug:

that's why I'm still here...to hopefully find out one day...

[JustMyOpinion]

that story came out on 1/03 10 days after she went missing...



they already had his story, gas receipts and parking ticket....add to that he had been totally cooperative at this time...so I don't know what more they wanted to verify it but IMO it's clear that at this time he was a suspect...even tho they didn't say he was a suspect on the 30th.....( but they didn't say he wasn't either...)



but looking at the old newspaper issues it's pretty apparent what they thought happened and who was responsible for it. IMO anyway...

It is apparent to me from Ridenaur's words in the 1/3 article you posted that police wanted to eliminate Scott from suspicion. They were running a parallel investigation, eliminating Scott as a suspect would focus their investigation on the "abducted while walking-dog" scenario, IMO. Scott had lawyered up, refused a polygraph, and by 1/3 police knew of Amber Frey's existence, she was taping conversations. Scott had still not disclosed to police he was having an affair, , and police were aware of Scott's prior inconsistent statements to Amber Frey about losing his wife, they were aware he was now telling Amber he was in Paris, etc. ( and Pearce/Todd had been arrested on 1/2 for the Medina burglary, they submitted to polygraph, according to reports )
Is it your opinion police should not have suspected Scott Peterson?

[JustMyOpinion]

That's where the body-dump-frame-scott comes to play

the dogs scented her to another waterway.. on 12/30

everyone in the country knew Scott was at Berkley by 12/26-12/27

Who's to say the dogs weren't right... they just never found her.. they didn't find her in the bay and the search there was alot more intense and alot longer...

weird things happen in that part of the country.. :shrug:

?? "Body-dump-frame-Scott"?
Who had it in for Scott Peterson enough to murder a pregnant woman & risk detection and imprisonment?
How did "they" pull this off without someone turning them in for a half-million dollar reward?
If they were trying to "frame Scott", why would they weight Laci's body and sink it in the Bay where it might never be found?
What "weird things" that happen in "that part of the country" are you referring to? Do you have some examples?
Studies show homicide by intimate partner is the leading cause of death for pregnant women in this country, it is a common crime.

[JustMyOpinion]

The burglars would have eventually gone down for Laci's murder;

How so? There is no known evidence that the burglars had motive, opportunity, access or means..no known evidence they had anything to do with the crime committed against Laci & Conner Peterson.

[JustMyOpinion]

well it's not like they'd have to hire a PI to find out where he was..LOL.. and don't criminals read the paper or listen to the news to see if LE is on to them? They do on tv anyways:tongue:


so the bodies being in the bay don't help or hurt your opinion of his guilt?

I'm wondering.... to anyone who wants to answer...if every single thing in this case was the same.... Scott smiling, his behavior,Amber, phone calls, boat, evidence..... every single thing was the same except the bodies were found 2 miles from the house..... would you still think he did it?

I've asked this before the majority of the answers I get are "No, in that case I would have to he didn't do it"....


?? Scott smiling wasn't compelling evidence proving his guilt, IMO.
Had the bodies not washed ashore (or been located in the Bay).. I would still have considered Scott the primary suspect in this case, but I think he would have gotten away with it. ( I doubt he could have been convicted) I don't understand the reason for the hypothetical question about the bodies being found 2 miles from the house, but had that been the case : I believe they would have been located much sooner, less decomposed, and they would have revealed EVEN MORE evidence proving Scott's guilt. IMO.

[JustMyOpinion]

Anne, first, you should read Susan Medina's testimony.

Second, there is a well known poster who holds Scott to be guilty, lives in northern California and has the same securoty mailbox that Susan Medina has. He posts as BuzzM1 in other crime forums. He verified long ago that mail left by the mailman, Mr. Graybill, could not have been seen.

You are citing a message board poster's "verification" as actual evidence that Todd couldn't have see the mail? The case you try to make against the burglars is so weak, it is almost laughable, IMO.

[thinkaboutit]

Absolutely! The burglars had no reason to risk a death sentence by killing Laci and Conner. They got caught for the burglary! Relative to Scott's stay in the concrete hotel...the burglars got a slap on the wrist!

I firmly believe the police tried their best to clear Scott. If it was anyway for the burglars to have taken the rap....or even play to reasonable doubt...Geragos would have called them. The burglars were cleared. :read:

But do criminals really think that far ahead when they are committing a crime? Especially drug addicts? I think their first and foremost thought is - this person is keeping me from getting my fix - if I go to jail - I won't get my fix. Just the other day - on the local news - a 91 year old man was beaten by a carjacker - even though he did not resist the carjacker in the least bit. The carjacker obviously didn't think - well - if I just take the car - I'll only be caught for auto theft - but if I beat this man - I'll be charged with assault and battery - or attempted murder also. I'm assuming whoever murdered Laci did it thinking they wouldn't get caught - therefore the death penalty, at the time - was not an issue. IMO ;)

And I firmly believe the burglars were not thoroughly investigated. They took Todd's word on how he cased the Medina's home - even though Susan Medina's testimony PROVES it didn't happen that way. They completely discounted a watch fitting the description of a watch that Laci owned - and was missing - without even an attempt to find it - or make an attempt to see if this person connected to the Medina burglars. They didn't even talk to DR - and I assume this because no one said they did - and Grogan himself said the watch that was pawned didn't appear to be what they were looking for - even though it was the only Croton watch of a similar description pawned from December 24th until March of 2003 in the Modesto area - and it was pawned only a week after Laci went missing and within 2 miles of the Peterson home.

The Aponte tip is another example of how poorly this investigation was handled. Aponte had to call the MPD twice before getting a call back. And when all is said and done - Grogan - the lead investigator claims to have had no knowledge of this tip. This is one of many things on MY WTH? column. ;) Does everyone completely discount the Aponte tip? If so - on what basis? I see no reason for Aponte to lie about what he heard. Aponte didn't testify - but he gave signed statements to both the prosecution and the defense. He overheard the Tenbrinks talking about Todd seeing Laci. And one Tenbrink telling the other to shut up after being questioned about it. Someone else also overheard the incarcerated brother talking about Laci Peterson in the yard. So I'd like all the SIG's opinion on this.....do you think the Tenbrink brothers were lying - if so - why? Do you think Aponte was lying? If so why?

And what about Mr. R? Why would someone bother contacting the prosecution so late in the trial - regarding having information about the abduction of Laci Peterson - and again give names that lead them to the Tenbrinks and Todd? (Geragos clearly stated that it was the information given to him by Mr. R that lead him to the Aponte tip in the discovery.) Maybe because this person with information realized that the trial was not going well for SP - and an innocent man may be sentenced to death for a crime he didn't commit? Maybe they had kept quiet - thinking there was no way he'd be convicted - but then their consience got the best of them?

[thinkaboutit]

You are citing a message board poster's "verification" as actual evidence that Todd couldn't have see the mail? The case you try to make against the burglars is so weak, it is almost laughable, IMO.

HARRIS: Now, you mentioned that you had a new mailbox on December 24th. You had a mailbox for a couple of days; is that correct, a new one?
MEDINA: Yes.
HARRIS: And I think we've heard a description of the mailbox. If it's my understanding, when you were pulling out of the driveway the day you were leaving to go to Los Angeles, your husband got out of the car and took some outgoing mail and placed it in the mailbox; is that correct?
MEDINA: Correct.
HARRIS: And then you came back two days later on the 26th, the night of the 26th. Do I have my dates right?
MEDINA: Yes, you do.
HARRIS: And when you came back that night, was the outgoing mail gone?
MEDINA: Yes.
HARRIS: It had been picked up?
MEDINA: Yes.
HARRIS: In the mailbox, I believe you told the police officers that there were two or three small letters in the mailbox when you got back,
MEDINA: Correct.
HARRIS: is that correct? Okay. They weren't sticking out of the mailbox, were they?
MEDINA: No, they were not.
HARRIS: They were just placed in where you would reach in and pull out the mail; is that right?
MEDINA: No, you don't reach in.
HARRIS: I'm sorry, that's right. I had the description. But they were inside the mail where they wouldn't be sticking out?
MEDINA: Correct.
HARRIS: I think you, if I understand your testimony, you said one of the reasons you got the mailbox was because you wanted to be secure and safe and you had important items being present in the house, checks and so forth, that you wanted to make sure it was secure?
MEDINA: Correct.


Todd claims to have seen mail in the mailbox on Christmas day and went back that night to burglarize the Medina home. He went and got Pearce the morning of the 26th to retrieve the safe. So according to Todd - the burglary was complete by 7:30 a.m. of the 26th. Medina testified that when she returned the only thing in her mailbox was two or three letters that were NOT sticking out of the mailbox. So you see - IF Todd could see mail sticking out of the mailbox from the street - the only mail he could have seen was the outgoing mail - and according to the postman - Mr Graybills - testimony - he had picked up that mail by 10:50 the morning of the 24th. Mail does not run on Christmas day. So either Todd was there on the 24th - between 10:30 and 10:50 - or he did not see mail sticking out of the mailbox and there was some other way he knew that the Medinas were not home. I, personally, think he was there at 10:30 - or just before - and saw Mr. Medina loading up their car to leave - and THAT's how he knew they were not home - and they would not be home for at least a couple of days.

[JustMyOpinion]

Todd claims to have seen mail in the mailbox on Christmas day and went back that night to burglarize the Medina home. He went and got Pearce the morning of the 26th to retrieve the safe. So according to Todd - the burglary was complete by 7:30 a.m. of the 26th. Medina testified that when she returned the only thing in her mailbox was two or three letters that were NOT sticking out of the mailbox. .

Not that I think Todd's "claims" about the seeing the mail are important, however.. Medina testified the mail wasn't sticking out. I don't see where she testified that nobody could have seen mail inside the mailbox.
And according to PEARCE & TODD, the burglary occured in the early morning hours of 12/26.
Did Todd testify so that you have his own statement in evidence about "seeing the mail", or are you relying on hearsay evidence?
Do you have access to the complete investigatorial file on the Medina Burglary?

[thinkaboutit]

Common sense. Seriously - how many people just "disappear" in broad daylight while walking their dog?

And how many of them "disappear" while their husband just happens to be fishing on a major holiday in a "secret boat"?

Did you know that in the first few days, it was announced that "Peterson admitted that no one but he knew about the boat"? It was later that the "Laci knew about the boat" got floated out there.

Oh - and the mop & bucket, when the maid had mopped the floor the day before. That was announced right away, also. And how many women (Martha Stewart types) dump the bucket and then leave their mop & bucket outside?

Oh. Then I saw his face on TV. He was about the most non-upset husband of a missing women I'd ever seen. Even Mark Hacking at least made a stab at appearing upset - as transparent as it was.

By a few days after Christmas, I was sitting back and waiting for the fact that Scott had a girlfriend to be announced.

Most of the men who "disappear" their wives put themselves in a very public place on the day that it happens. I think that was Scott's original plan.

I think that he either put her in the bay the night before and planned to go golfing the next day (after letting the dog out), or - he planned on putting her in the bay during the night and his plan got messed up: either he had to wait longer than he thought he would for her to fall asleep, or the cleanup took longer than he expected.

We don't even know if he washed & dried that comforter overnight, and then fell asleep on it for a while - leaving a drop of blood from a cut that he got during the struggle.

It was announced where that Peterson said "no one but him knew about the boat"? In the media? The media gets alot of things wrong - I sure would like to see what you are referring to - was this a quote from Scott - or the media's interpretation of what he said? I also read an old media article that said that when Laci and Scott showed up at a Christmas party they attended - Laci was teetering on high heels with cookies in one hand and a house plant in the other. Well - we all know Scott wasn't at that Christmas party.

Just like the G's believe that Geragos didn't present witnesses for a reason - I believe there was a reason the prosecution didn't go with the two trip theory.

[ekg]

Todd claims to have seen mail in the mailbox on Christmas day and went back that night to burglarize the Medina home. He went and got Pearce the morning of the 26th to retrieve the safe. So according to Todd - the burglary was complete by 7:30 a.m. of the 26th. Medina testified that when she returned the only thing in her mailbox was two or three letters that were NOT sticking out of the mailbox. So you see - IF Todd could see mail sticking out of the mailbox from the street - the only mail he could have seen was the outgoing mail - and according to the postman - Mr Graybills - testimony - he had picked up that mail by 10:50 the morning of the 24th. Mail does not run on Christmas day. So either Todd was there on the 24th - between 10:30 and 10:50 - or he did not see mail sticking out of the mailbox and there was some other way he knew that the Medinas were not home. I, personally, think he was there at 10:30 - or just before - and saw Mr. Medina loading up their car to leave - and THAT's how he knew they were not home - and they would not be home for at least a couple of days.


bravo...:beer:

[thinkaboutit]

Not that I think Todd's "claims" about the seeing the mail are important, however.. Medina testified the mail wasn't sticking out. I don't see where she testified that nobody could have seen mail inside the mailbox.
And according to PEARCE & TODD, the burglary occured in the early morning hours of 12/26.
Did Todd testify so that you have his own statement in evidence about "seeing the mail", or are you relying on hearsay evidence?
Do you have access to the complete investigatorial file on the Medina Burglary?

Medina not specifically saying - nobody could have seen mail inside the mailbox - is a non-issue.

However - logic tells you that if the incoming mail was not sticking out of the mailbox - then Todd did not see mailbox sticking out of the mailbox the early morning hours of the 26th for the reasons I stated in my above post. Can't happen - period.

Do you consider an officer of the law testifying to what Todd told him hearsay?

Why do I need the complete investigatorial file on the Medina burglary in order for what I stated to be true?

[JustMyOpinion]

Medina not specifically saying - nobody could have seen mail inside the mailbox - is a non-issue.

However - logic tells you that if the incoming mail was not sticking out of the mailbox - then Todd did not see mailbox sticking out of the mailbox the early morning hours of the 26th for the reasons I stated in my above post. Can't happen - period.

Do you consider an officer of the law testifying to what Todd told him hearsay?

Why do I need the complete investigatorial file on the Medina burglary in order for what I stated to be true?

WHen a witness testifies to what another person said, yes it is hearsay evidence. IMO. The witness "being an officer of the law" has nothing to do with it.
Clearly Medina's testimony is a "non-issue" for you.. JMO
Clearly you don't believe reading the entire investigatorial file would inform your own opinion about the burglary or clarify the facts. JMO

[ekg]

Not that I think Todd's "claims" about the seeing the mail are important, however.. Medina testified the mail wasn't sticking out. I don't see where she testified that nobody could have seen mail inside the mailbox.
And according to PEARCE & TODD, the burglary occured in the early morning hours of 12/26.
Did Todd testify so that you have his own statement in evidence about "seeing the mail", or are you relying on hearsay evidence?
Do you have access to the complete investigatorial file on the Medina Burglary?



HARRIS: is that correct? Okay. They weren't sticking out of the mailbox, were they?
MEDINA: No, they were not.
HARRIS: They were just placed in where you would reach in and pull out the mail; is that right?
MEDINA: No, you don't reach in.
HARRIS: I'm sorry, that's right. I had the description. But they were inside the mail where they wouldn't be sticking out?


Graybill's testimony

205. When you went to the Medinas's, what kind of a mailbox do they have?

206. They have a mailbox that is a security mailbox where you drop the mail down in the box, and then you have to catch this little flap that has the outgoing mail in it. You to have pull that out first in order to put the mail in the box.

207. So when you would go there on the Medinas's mailbox, normally what would happen is you would have to pull the outgoing mail out first, that you could see; is that correct?

208. Correct, yes, sir.

209. So the -- there's kind of a flap that's like -- as I'm demonstrating, where the mail rests on top of the mailbox, correct?

210. Correct.

211. Okay. When you pull that mail out, the flap goes up, correct?

212. Yes, sir.

213. And then you reach your hand down in and you grab the mail that's in there?

214. No, you deliver the mail --

215. Put the mail --

216. -- you deliver the mail at that point. It's very complicated.

217. (Laughter)



snipped

242. Their house faces this way and they have a little porch, and their mailbox was on the wall on the inside of the porch. As you -- as you walk up to their house, there was a -- a wall here, and the front door is right there. Opens in, rather. And their mailbox would sit right here, on this wall.



snipped


257. Let me go back to Medinas's mailbox real quick. Mr. Geragos was trying to do the demonstration of how that particular box worked. Right around the 24th of 2002, December 24th, 2002, had that box been changed from another box?

258. Yes. They were concerned about their outgoing mail. Susan Medina worked at home and had a lot of outgoing mail every day, and she just wanted to make sure that she was as secure as possible. Plus, people who get checks in the mail, that kind of thing, they want to secure their mailbox any way they can.





That tells me it can't be seen..... it also tells me Todd has to go up to the porch around the wall and inside the porch to see anything.



68. Okay. Then he says on Christmas day when he road by he noticed that 516 Covena appeared to be empty; is that right?

69. That's correct.

70. And 516 Covena is the Medina's house, right?

71. Yes.

72. Okay. And he says he noticed it because there was only one car in the driveway, right?

73. Yes.

74. Which he described as being either a Mercedes or a BMW, right?

75. Correct.

76. Okay. And he said he also noticed that the mail in the mail box; is that right?

77. Yes.

78. And he could see when he's riding his bike down the street, not only the car, but that he could see mail in the mail box, right?

79. Yes.

80. Okay. And that led him to believe that nobody was home; is that right?

81. That's correct.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


120. Mr. Todd says that he went by that house first, and the reason that he knew that the house was vacant is because he saw mail in the mailbox, right?

121. Also on the second trip said that he made some noises outside in order to see if anybody would wake up.

122. Okay. I want to make sure that the reason that he first was attracted to the house was because he saw mail in the mailbox, correct?

123. The car missing and the mail in the mailbox.

IMO that means he said he saw the mail in the box......

Medina says you can't see the mail in the box unless it's outgoing mail.


To me that says Todd saw the mail on the 24th b/t the Medina's leaving and the mailman getting there...and it tells me he was inside the porch to see it...

combine that with the Aponte tip and you have reasonable doubt IMO...

that's not to say Todd and Pearce did anything.... it's just saying there's reasonable doubt that Scott did it..

[thinkaboutit]

WHen a witness testifies to what another person said, yes it is hearsay evidence. IMO. The witness "being an officer of the law" has nothing to do with it.
Clearly Medina's testimony is a "non-issue" for you.. JMO
Clearly you don't believe reading the entire investigatorial file would inform your own opinion about the burglary or clarify the facts. JMO

So if an officer of the law testifies that someone said something - I have to disregard what he said - because it didn't come straight from the criminal's mouth?

Ha - ha - Medina's testimony is a non-issue for ME? You are the one ignoring it.

And as usual - you didn't answer all of my questions.

[thinkaboutit]

I, for one, would never say someone was not investigated thoroughly until I knew for a fact how they had been investigated.

You said the burglars were not thoroughly investigated - did you come to that conclusion from reading the details of the investigation? If so, could you share those with us? If not, how did you come to that conclusion?

Obviously - if I had seen the details of the investigation - I could not discuss it here.

I stated reasons why I believe the Medina burglary was not thoroughly investigated a few posts back - did I post anything that was untrue?

[thinkaboutit]

And, in this case, the person was still around and could have been brought to court - but the defense declined to do so.

Possible testimony if DR had been brought in to testify:

Geragos: Who gave you the Croton watch?

DR: My boyfriend (or: I found it).

Geragos: Did this watch belong to Laci Peterson?

DR: No.

Geragos: Where is this watch now?

DR: I don't know - I pawned it.



See what I'm trying to say? Even if that watch was Laci's - without being able to track it down and get it - there would have been no point in bringing DR to the stand. So DR not testifying is NOT proof that the watch did not belong to Laci. Guaranteed - by the time Geragos learned of DR pawning the Croton watch - from the discovery - that watch was gone. Not that a defense lawyer is supposed to do what the MPD should have done. Grogan had that pawn slip in his hand in March 2003 - and it very well could have still been at that pawn shop.

The only people with any leverage to make DR tell the truth - would have been the MPD. But a defense investigator asking DR to tell the truth when the police dept is not behind him and has arrested someone else for the crime - gives DR no incentive to tell the truth.

Ooops - I just realized you were talking about Todd - but the same concept can be applied to him testifying as well. :-)

[thinkaboutit]

When you use the term "obviously" you assume I know something that, in fact, I do not. The information could be available unbeknownst to me. I'll just ask straight out - have you seen the full records of the investigation and drawn your conclusion from those records?



You posted some items, but again, there could be others.

I conclude that the burglars were investigated in sufficient detail to clear them. I base my conclusion on the fact that they were not charged in Laci's murder. The implicit assumption in my conclusion is that the police are competent, and parts of the investigation I am unaware of would support this conclusion. If this assumption is proven false the conclusion does not follow, however, the assumption has not been proven false.

Sorry - I shouldn't have said obviously. But I just can't say what I have seen and what I haven't. If it discredits my opinion with people - so be it.

So you conclude that the burglars were investigated in sufficient detail because you have confidence and trust in the MPD at this time - as you have not seen anything else to make you think differently - is that a fair summation?

And I feel - that even without knowing ALL of the details of the investigation - that what I do know - from testimony alone - raises doubt in my mind to the thoroughness of the investigation.

[enlightenme]

Possible testimony if DR had been brought in to testify:

Geragos: Who gave you the Croton watch?

DR: My boyfriend (or: I found it).

Geragos: Did this watch belong to Laci Peterson?

DR: No.

Geragos: Where is this watch now?

DR: I don't know - I pawned it.



See what I'm trying to say? Even if that watch was Laci's - without being able to track it down and get it - there would have been no point in bringing DR to the stand. So DR not testifying is NOT proof that the watch did not belong to Laci. Guaranteed - by the time Geragos learned of DR pawning the Croton watch - from the discovery - that watch was gone. Not that a defense lawyer is supposed to do what the MPD should have done. Grogan had that pawn slip in his hand in March 2003 - and it very well could have still been at that pawn shop.

The only people with any leverage to make DR tell the truth - would have been the MPD. But a defense investigator asking DR to tell the truth when the police dept is not behind him and has arrested someone else for the crime - gives DR no incentive to tell the truth.

Ooops - I just realized you were talking about Todd - but the same concept can be applied to him testifying as well. :-)

Possible testimony? Please!

There's no evidence that is was Laci's watch either! Moot!

[frydaddy]

The uncropped version of that photo puts things in perspective for me. Anyone know who the red-headed guy in the pic is?

http://www.eyewasmozart.com/photos/laci/peterson_vigil_humor-thumb.jpg

As far as someone else dumping the bodies - the knowledge of where the MPD expected to find the bodies could have been easily gotten by one trip to the bay during one of the days that they were there searching. Remember - the bodies were NOT found in the exact location where Scott was. Simply dumping Laci's body in the general vicinity would have gotten them what they needed.

And if you don't believe there was a rush to judgement - what are your thoughts on the people who thought they saw Laci walking and called the tipline several times being ignored until after the trial started? As of Dec. 28th - there was no reason to search the bay. No one knew about Amber - everything Scott said up until that point had checked out. Harvey Kemple hadn't told anyone at the police dept that Scott told him he was golfing. The family was saying - no way - no how he did this. How could they have been so sure at that point - that Scott had murdered Laci and dumped her in the bay? I can understand checking the husband out - but searching the bay for a body? Wouldn't a better focus for this "missing persons investigation" have been interviewing witnesses who claimed to have seen her the day she disappeared?

Do you have any other sources for this picture? I'm looking for a full size one. TIA

Regarding this picture...for me it doesn't matter who else is doing what at that vigil. Only Scott was the husband and father, only Scott was missing the woman who completed his glorious marraige. We don't know the conversation, but it doesn't matter. For example, if Scott was telling them a dirty joke, would you be inclined to dismiss this photo as irrelevant? The bottom line is the mood of Scott, the inappropriateness of his behavior...corroborated by the Amber call and the not wanting to be with family, but wanting to be with friends. Despair, fear, sadness...those are what I would expect to see at all times in a situation like that. His wife was missing...possibly being tortured...he's not just beaming, he's chuckling, yukking it up. He's avoiding Laci's family. He's still living his fantasy. This picture is actually worse uncropped IMO. I've seen people at funerals do this...in celebrating someone's life, rather than their death. No one knew Laci's fate yet...well, one person did and some suspected.

On the dumping the bodies theory, we will have to agree to disagree. There are far many more questions and problems that just where to dump the bodies. Until I see a plausible scenario from abduction to the bodies being found, I will consider it. But, I've yet to see one plausible and it's pretty much pointless to argue this one morsel at a time.

I keep hearing about what was or wasn't investigated. Tips weren't checked out, witnesses weren't interviewed, etc. Number one, we don't know what was or wasn't checked out. We'd need every page of the investigation. Number two, MG had every opportunity to call these people to testify if they had merit. Number three, too many people in LE to think that the whole lot of them lacked the integrity to follow an alternate theory or suspect if it had any merit. As for a rush to judgment...again...what is the proper timeframe?

No reason to search the bay? He was the last person to see her alive. He was unaccounted for from 8:30pm the night before until 5:30pm the next evening. He was alone...in a secret boat...in the bay...90 miles from home...he had current info from the bay...there were circles on the trailer in his warehouse they thought were anchors...his fishing story and the gut reaction of LE was that Scott wasn't real solid on his story...Trimble had scented Laci at the bay...what more was needed in your opinion?

[enlightenme]

Sorry - I shouldn't have said obviously. But I just can't say what I have seen and what I haven't. If it discredits my opinion with people - so be it.

So you conclude that the burglars were investigated in sufficient detail because you have confidence and trust in the MPD at this time - as you have not seen anything else to make you think differently - is that a fair summation?

And I feel - that even without knowing ALL of the details of the investigation - that what I do know - from testimony alone - raises doubt in my mind to the thoroughness of the investigation.

I feel that MOST of Scott's supporters, who are not family members, have an axe to grind with LE and authorities. Cool, I can relate with that. Depends on the case and the facts.

Just not in this case!

IMO

[thinkaboutit]

Possible testimony? Please!

It's no evidence that is was Laci's watch either! Moot!

Of course there isn't - because no one went to look at the watch!

[frydaddy]

I feel that MOST of Scott's supporters, who are not family members, have an axe to grind with LE and authorities. Cool, I can relate with that. Depends on the case and the facts.

Just not in this case!

IMO

I would certainly agree with this statement. Sometimes I read with wonder at how easily folks can determine that a laundry list of individuals are all wrong, bad, and incompetent and yet, defend one person, who's obviously got a lot of negative traits as a person, as if he was a saint. Defies logic, in fact!

[frydaddy]

Of course there isn't - because no one went to look at the watch!

Can you prove this?

[thinkaboutit]

Do you have any other sources for this picture? I'm looking for a full size one. TIA

Regarding this picture...for me it doesn't matter who else is doing what at that vigil. Only Scott was the husband and father, only Scott was missing the woman who completed his glorious marraige. We don't know the conversation, but it doesn't matter. For example, if Scott was telling them a dirty joke, would you be inclined to dismiss this photo as irrelevant? The bottom line is the mood of Scott, the inappropriateness of his behavior...corroborated by the Amber call and the not wanting to be with family, but wanting to be with friends. Despair, fear, sadness...those are what I would expect to see at all times in a situation like that. His wife was missing...possibly being tortured...he's not just beaming, he's chuckling, yukking it up. He's avoiding Laci's family. He's still living his fantasy. This picture is actually worse uncropped IMO. I've seen people at funerals do this...in celebrating someone's life, rather than their death. No one knew Laci's fate yet...well, one person did and some suspected.

On the dumping the bodies theory, we will have to agree to disagree. There are far many more questions and problems that just where to dump the bodies. Until I see a plausible scenario from abduction to the bodies being found, I will consider it. But, I've yet to see one plausible and it's pretty much pointless to argue this one morsel at a time.

I keep hearing about what was or wasn't investigated. Tips weren't checked out, witnesses weren't interviewed, etc. Number one, we don't know what was or wasn't checked out. We'd need every page of the investigation. Number two, MG had every opportunity to call these people to testify if they had merit. Number three, too many people in LE to think that the whole lot of them lacked the integrity to follow an alternate theory or suspect if it had any merit. As for a rush to judgment...again...what is the proper timeframe?

No reason to search the bay? He was the last person to see her alive. He was unaccounted for from 8:30pm the night before until 5:30pm the next evening. He was alone...in a secret boat...in the bay...90 miles from home...he had current info from the bay...there were circles on the trailer in his warehouse they thought were anchors...his fishing story and the gut reaction of LE was that Scott wasn't real solid on his story...Trimble had scented Laci at the bay...what more was needed in your opinion?

But how did they know on the 28th that he was the last person to see her alive if they ignore people coming forward to say they had seen her. Grogan's words - straight out of his mouth -

GERAGOS: Is it a fair statement that, if you had known about Mr. Freitas back in December, that you would have taken some action to have contacted him and to have interviewed him or have somebody from law enforcement interview him?

GROGAN: Well, I can't say that the sightings were automatically a priority for us at that time in the investigation, but the intention always was to try to contact any of those folks around there, yes.



Laci sightings weren't a priority in December?? You can add that to my WT*? list! I don't know who the witnesses were that they did talk to - but the list of witnesses that had to come forward more than one time and who were never contacted until the trial - is way too long imo.

And yes - I think the conversation when that photo was taken is very relevant. If Scott was telling a dirty joke - I'd find it strange - but the fact is - we don't know what the conversation was. They could have been talking about something funny Laci said. The point is - we don't know who said what. Obviously everyone at that vigil was concerned for Laci - so I just don't see how someone else smiling just as big as Scott is irrelevant. And I really don't see that Scott is chuckling in the picture. I read the other day - sorry - I don't have the link right now - Amy Rocha talking about the vigil (I think it was Amy) and she said they were all optimistic that Laci was coming home. I just don't see how not allowing yourself to think the worst and trying to stay positive is a sign of guilt. I think if he had been crying - boo-hooing at the vigil - people would now be saying - oh - it was so fake - so transparent - look how he could turn it on and off.

I think him smiling at the vigil is a sign of innocence - because if he was guilty - and people were snapping pictures - he would have made sure he looked sad the entire time.

Sorry - I don't have any other sources for the pic - I found it by searching the net for "Laci Peterson vigil" under images.

[thinkaboutit]

I would certainly agree with this statement. Sometimes I read with wonder at how easily folks can determine that a laundry list of individuals are all wrong, bad, and incompetent and yet, defend one person, who's obviously got a lot of negative traits as a person, as if he was a saint. Defies logic, in fact!

Frydaddy with all due respect - I don't think this is a fair and accurate statement.

My determination that this was an incompetent investigation was not come to "easily". It came from years of reading transcripts and doing research into this case. I've never said the MPD were "all wrong" or "bad". I just think they messed up.

And sorry - I disagree that SP had "a lot of negative traits as a person". Nor do I think he was a saint. I don't think you or I have enough facts about SP or the circumstances surrounding his behaviors to even begin to come to that conclusion. I have negative traits - everyone does. I shudder to think what type of false conclusions people might come to about me if someone were taping conversations I have with friends - and were only allowed to hear certain conversations. Or heard a recording of me laughing while listening to a message from my mother - not knowing if I was laughing at something on the radio - or at a billboard I just passed.

SIG's don't think I have enough information to question the investigation done into this case - and I don't think SIG's have enough information to determine that Scott's lies were unnecessary - or a laugh or a smile was sinister. So I guess we're even. ;)

[thinkaboutit]

Can you prove this?

Grogan testified to his investigation of the pawned watch and he said that from the description on the pawn slip - it didn't appear to be what they were looking for. I imagine, if he had gone to check it out - Fladager's next question would have been - "Did you go to the pawn shop to look at the watch anyway?". But she didn't. I can only assume from that - that he didn't. Especially since the focus of Geragos' defense was the tunnelvision of the MPD.

[enlightenme]

Grogan testified to his investigation of the pawned watch and he said that from the description on the pawn slip - it didn't appear to be what they were looking for. I imagine, if he had gone to check it out - Fladager's next question would have been - "Did you go to the pawn shop to look at the watch anyway?". But she didn't. I can only assume from that - that he didn't. Especially since the focus of Geragos' defense was the tunnelvision of the MPD.

Please, stop with "I imagine" non-points of the trial! Do you think that's what the jury was supposed to do? "If only the pros. or the defense would have asked this question....."

Why didn't Geragos jump all over this on cross?

You assume too much, IMO.

[frydaddy]

But how did they know on the 28th that he was the last person to see her alive if they ignore people coming forward to say they had seen her. Grogan's words - straight out of his mouth -



Laci sightings weren't a priority in December?? You can add that to my WT*? list! I don't know who the witnesses were that they did talk to - but the list of witnesses that had to come forward more than one time and who were never contacted until the trial - is way too long imo.

And yes - I think the conversation when that photo was taken is very relevant. If Scott was telling a dirty joke - I'd find it strange - but the fact is - we don't know what the conversation was. They could have been talking about something funny Laci said. The point is - we don't know who said what. Obviously everyone at that vigil was concerned for Laci - so I just don't see how someone else smiling just as big as Scott is irrelevant. And I really don't see that Scott is chuckling in the picture. I read the other day - sorry - I don't have the link right now - Amy Rocha talking about the vigil (I think it was Amy) and she said they were all optimistic that Laci was coming home. I just don't see how not allowing yourself to think the worst and trying to stay positive is a sign of guilt. I think if he had been crying - boo-hooing at the vigil - people would now be saying - oh - it was so fake - so transparent - look how he could turn it on and off.

I think him smiling at the vigil is a sign of innocence - because if he was guilty - and people were snapping pictures - he would have made sure he looked sad the entire time.

Sorry - I don't have any other sources for the pic - I found it by searching the net for "Laci Peterson vigil" under images.


T - What are we discussing...whether there was sufficient reason to search the bay on the 28th and/or the timeliness of it? Or are we going to argue whether or not MPD properly investigated witnesses? Because I'm providing reasons for one and you are going in another direction. You said there was no reason to search the bay, I said the dog scented Laci there, now you are saying that they didn't talk to witnesses. And ignoring people and "not automatically making the tips a priority" are not the same thing.

We'll have to disagree about this picture business...I think it's ludicrous that he could smile, chuckle, whatever. Especially when some talk about him tearfully greeting people earlier. Folks want to defend him in that picture, but they don't want to explain all the points that have been brought up at the vigil at one time. (Amber call...the smile...his friends thoughts on his vigil behavior...not wanting to be with her family) It's part and parcel of the case discussion...piece at a time or the whole thing in context. But no worries, no one is being swayed, so no harm in it I guess.

As for what people would have said based on what Scott might have done, I think we have plenty of points to discuss of what people have said about what he did to to keep us busy! LOL

No problem on the uncropped pic, I just wonder why the thing is so small when I know the advocates have always referred to it. In the least, I'd think the advocate sites would have it in their "evidence" vaults!

[frydaddy]

Grogan testified to his investigation of the pawned watch and he said that from the description on the pawn slip - it didn't appear to be what they were looking for. I imagine, if he had gone to check it out - Fladager's next question would have been - "Did you go to the pawn shop to look at the watch anyway?". But she didn't. I can only assume from that - that he didn't. Especially since the focus of Geragos' defense was the tunnelvision of the MPD.

My point was simply that without assumption, we don't know. Perhaps another officer did. Perhaps they called the pawn shop owner and asked about it and it didn't match. The bottom line is, MG did not call anyone in to testify about it. Now, I can only assume that meant that it wasn't the same watch in his mind, for whatever reason. But I can't prove or disprove this either way.

And to address your last post in this one...

I've not seen any negative traits in you as a person, though I think you are wrong about the case. :) J/K

I evaluate the character of the person based on what I see of them. I didn't really know Scott obviously, but it is a fact that he was a compulsive serial liar and that he had no problem cheating on Laci. He was arrogant and self-oriented and yet, he was a coward. I could go on, but the point is, he was these things even if he didn't kill Laci.

As for the deal about LE. My point is this...no way can there be a conspiracy to nail Scott without someone fessing up...that's just my feeling. And no way did someone in LE come up with something pertinent to indicate someone else and hid it or do nothing about it. There's too many people involved for them all to have messed up in some capacity, by choice or by accident. Just my opinion.

[thinkaboutit]

Please, stop with "I imagine" non-points of the trial! Do you think that's what the jury was supposed to do? "If only the pros. or the defense would have asked this question....."

Why didn't Geragos jump all over this on cross?

You assume too much, IMO.


????????How many times have I heard you and other SIG's come to the ASSUMPTION that because Geragos didn't call a witness - that person wasn't credible - or had nothing to add to the defense. And you say I assume too much?

I don't care what the jury was supposed to do. Look back at ALL of my posts - I have never argued what I thought the jury should have done. That's not why I'm here - not my argument.

[thinkaboutit]

My point was simply that without assumption, we don't know. Perhaps another officer did. Perhaps they called the pawn shop owner and asked about it and it didn't match. The bottom line is, MG did not call anyone in to testify about it. Now, I can only assume that meant that it wasn't the same watch in his mind, for whatever reason. But I can't prove or disprove this either way.

And to address your last post in this one...

I've not seen any negative traits in you as a person, though I think you are wrong about the case. :) J/K

I evaluate the character of the person based on what I see of them. I didn't really know Scott obviously, but it is a fact that he was a compulsive serial liar and that he had no problem cheating on Laci. He was arrogant and self-oriented and yet, he was a coward. I could go on, but the point is, he was these things even if he didn't kill Laci.

As for the deal about LE. My point is this...no way can there be a conspiracy to nail Scott without someone fessing up...that's just my feeling. And no way did someone in LE come up with something pertinent to indicate someone else and hid it or do nothing about it. There's too many people involved for them all to have messed up in some capacity, by choice or by accident. Just my opinion.

Can we use what Dalton writes in his book? Dalton writes that he went to the pawnship and the pawnshop owner wouldn't even come out of the back room to talk to him. He directed him to the MPD.

I disagree that the bottom line is Geragos didn't bring anyone in to testify about it. Like I pointed out in a previous post - a defense lawyer can only do so much when it comes to investigation and getting people to cooperate. They do not have the power behind them that LE has. Someone doesn't want to talk - there is nothing they can do about it.

I agree that without assumption - we don't know that it was Laci's watch. But I stand by my conclusion - based on Grogan's testimony - that Grogan never attempted to find the watch pawned by DR:

GROGAN: Well, I spoke with a CSO, Community Service Officer, that worked in our pawn detail and I provided with her with the information about the Croton watch and asked if she could run that through her system to see if anyone had pawned a watch like that, and I think I got some results at that point.

JUDGE: What were the results?

GROGAN: She told me that she did find one, one pawned, one pawn receipt for a Croton watch, but that the receipt didn't make any mention of diamonds in it and it said the watch was scratched, and it didn't appear consistent with what we were looking for.

FLADAGER: And for purposes of pawn shop receipts with valuable jewels, like diamonds, need be noted?

GROGAN: That was my understanding from her, yes.

FLADAGER: As part of your follow-up on jewelry on this particular day did you watch a videotape that we talked about previously that was recovered after the burglary by Kim McGregor?

GROGAN: Yes, I did.

FLADAGER: And what is it that you discovered when you watched that video?

GROGAN: Well, I watched it and it contains several, several different small clips in it throughout the video, including things like traffic patterns that appear in the neighborhood close by to where they reside. There's some driving in vehicles on Encina Avenue. There are some images of the defendant's truck with the flatbed trailer attached to it, some job site footage, it appears, and some, there's some other, like a, there appears to be a fishing trip that's videotaped. Additionally, there's, there's several photographs, there's several small segments at the end that show items that appear to be on E-Bay and appeared that the photos for E-Bay matched the videotape.

FLADAGER: And one of these items is the Croton watch?

GROGAN: Yes, one of the items is, yes.

FLADAGER: With diamonds around the face?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And based on you analysis of that videotape and watching it does it appear that's it's been videotaped for several minutes?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: At different times?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Does the time ever change on the watch?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: What conclusion did you draw from that?

GROGAN: That the watch was probably not functional; that the battery was dead, and there are several other watches that were also videotaped on that and many of them appeared to be working.




In fact - I was wrong - maybe Grogan never had the pawn slip in his hand - since it was the CSO that told him it didn't appear to be consistent with what they were looking for.

[JustMyOpinion]

So if an officer of the law testifies that someone said something - I have to disregard what he said - because it didn't come straight from the criminal's mouth?

Ha - ha - Medina's testimony is a non-issue for ME? You are the one ignoring it.

And as usual - you didn't answer all of my questions.

You may give the witness's testimony whatever weight you choose, I'm not telling you what you "have to" do.
Medina didn't testify that nobody could SEE the mail, that appears to be a non-issue for you. ( not sure why you believe it couldn't be seen).
Which questions do you want me to answer?

[thinkaboutit]

T - What are we discussing...whether there was sufficient reason to search the bay on the 28th and/or the timeliness of it? Or are we going to argue whether or not MPD properly investigated witnesses? Because I'm providing reasons for one and you are going in another direction. You said there was no reason to search the bay, I said the dog scented Laci there, now you are saying that they didn't talk to witnesses. And ignoring people and "not automatically making the tips a priority" are not the same thing.

I believe I only brought up the witnesses that saw Laci - to counter that the MPD knew that Scott was the last person to have seen her alive.

Ignoring people and "not automatically making the tips a priority" are not the same thing - agreed - but imo - MPD did both.


We'll have to disagree about this picture business...I think it's ludicrous that he could smile, chuckle, whatever. Especially when some talk about him tearfully greeting people earlier. Folks want to defend him in that picture, but they don't want to explain all the points that have been brought up at the vigil at one time. (Amber call...the smile...his friends thoughts on his vigil behavior...not wanting to be with her family) It's part and parcel of the case discussion...piece at a time or the whole thing in context. But no worries, no one is being swayed, so no harm in it I guess.

Agreed.....(to disagree) ;)


No problem on the uncropped pic, I just wonder why the thing is so small when I know the advocates have always referred to it. In the least, I'd think the advocate sites would have it in their "evidence" vaults!

Nope - I don't have it in my evidence vault - but now that you mention it - I might be able to get it from one of my fellow advocates. I'll work on that for ya'! :tongue:

[deputydi]

Todd claims to have seen mail in the mailbox on Christmas day and went back that night to burglarize the Medina home. He went and got Pearce the morning of the 26th to retrieve the safe. So according to Todd - the burglary was complete by 7:30 a.m. of the 26th. Medina testified that when she returned the only thing in her mailbox was two or three letters that were NOT sticking out of the mailbox. So you see - IF Todd could see mail sticking out of the mailbox from the street - the only mail he could have seen was the outgoing mail - and according to the postman - Mr Graybills - testimony - he had picked up that mail by 10:50 the morning of the 24th. Mail does not run on Christmas day. So either Todd was there on the 24th - between 10:30 and 10:50 - or he did not see mail sticking out of the mailbox and there was some other way he knew that the Medinas were not home. I, personally, think he was there at 10:30 - or just before - and saw Mr. Medina loading up their car to leave - and THAT's how he knew they were not home - and they would not be home for at least a couple of days.
Was there actual testimony by anyone who said the mail was "sticking out of the mailbox"? If not, what makes you so certain that they didn't just open the mailbox to see there was mail inside?

[JustMyOpinion]

I believe I only brought up the witnesses that saw Laci - to counter that the MPD knew that Scott was the last person to have seen her alive.

Ignoring people and "not automatically making the tips a priority" are not the same thing - agreed - but imo - MPD did both.



:

I don't see how you can conclude MPD ignored credible witnesses or credible tips without reading the entire 40,000 - plus pages of investigative files or the actual content of the 10,000 - plus tips, ( or without speaking with the person who took the actual tip) Just because Grogan didn't personally speak with all of these persons, it doesn't prove that nobody did, IMO. I have no expectation that LE follow up on tips just because they come in, and LE has a method by which they determine credibility of a tip, IMO. I think they did go ahead and follow-up on some tips after Scott was arrested and he had retained Geragos because they knew defense might try to impugn their investigation as a trial strategy..IMO. How do you feel about Scott and his parents setting up a tip-line to potentially obstruct the MPD's investigation?

[attorneywan2be]

Can you prove this?

It is obvious to me that the police didn't examine the watch itself..they disregarded the pawned watch based on the receipt..according to Grogan's testimony, diamonds were not mentioned on the receipt...
We know that they wrote on the receipt "withG"..I called The Pawn Shop in Modesto , "withG" means "with gems which would also include diamonds" ..but that's my own research..!

Birgit Fladager: On March 6th did you do additional follow-up investigation relating to the jewelry?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Birgit Fladager: And can you tell us what that was that you did.
Craig Grogan: Well, I spoke with a CSO, Community Service Officer, that worked in our pawn detail and I provided with her with the information about the Croton watch and asked if she could run that through her system to see if anyone had pawned a watch like that, and I think I got some results at that point.
Judge Delucchi: What were the results?
Craig Grogan: She told me that she did find one, one pawned, one pawn receipt for a Croton watch, but that the receipt didn't make any mention of diamonds in it and it said the watch was scratched, and it didn't appear consistent with what we were looking for.
Birgit Fladager: And for purposes of pawn shop receipts with valuable jewels, like diamonds, need be noted?
Craig Grogan: That was my understanding from her, yes.

[accordn2me]

<snip>

SIG's don't think I have enough information to question the investigation done into this case - and I don't think SIG's have enough information to determine that Scott's lies were unnecessary - or a laugh or a smile was sinister. So I guess we're even. ;)

I don't need information to determine that Scott's lies were unnecessary. It's one of the rules I play by. Lies are unnecessary. The truth may be uncomfortable but it's always better than a lie.

[JustMyOpinion]

I believe there was a reason the prosecution didn't go with the two trip theory.

What do you believe their reason was? ( supposing they ever pondered doing this)?

[JustMyOpinion]

I don't need information to determine that Scott's lies were unnecessary. It's one of the rules I play by. Lies are unnecessary. The truth may be uncomfortable but it's always better than a lie.

I am in total agreement!

[accordn2me]

You know, that's one of the biggest disconnects I seem to have with Scott's supporters. In my world, there's no way to ever make a lie a good thing - at least not that I've ever found. But to say Scott was totally justified in lying to:

--The police;
--Laci's family;
--His own family;
--The folks helping him search ("Grief Counseling", anyone?);
--Media interviewers;
--and others

and some even say his dishonesty was the "admirable" thing to - floor me. And what it does is color my opinion of everything else that particular supporter puts forth, because it tells me their judgment is flawed for supporting Scott's dishonesty and that same flawed judgment is probably applied to other things as well. I just can't get around it. I agree, adnoid.

And in Scott's case his lies were so much worse than simply coming clean would have been. Scott is a textbook example of a pathological liar (someone who lies without cause - my definition) out of control.

Maybe he had lied all his life...and maybe he didn't have enough negative consequences to those lies...and it led to his belief that it's OK to take a risk and lie because if you get caught....no big deal. :shrug:

[thinkaboutit]

Was there actual testimony by anyone who said the mail was "sticking out of the mailbox"? If not, what makes you so certain that they didn't just open the mailbox to see there was mail inside?

Officer Hicks' testimony:

GERAGOS: Okay. And he says he noticed it because there was only one car in the driveway, right?

HICKS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Which he described as being either a Mercedes or a ne 4 BMW, right?

HICKS: Correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. And he said he also noticed that the mail in the mail box; is that right?

HICKS: Yes.

GERAGOS: And he could see when he's riding his bike down the street, not only the car, but that he could see mail in the mail box, right?

HICKS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And that led him to believe that nobody was home; is that right?

HICKS: That's correct.

[frydaddy]

Can we use what Dalton writes in his book? Dalton writes that he went to the pawnship and the pawnshop owner wouldn't even come out of the back room to talk to him. He directed him to the MPD.

I disagree that the bottom line is Geragos didn't bring anyone in to testify about it. Like I pointed out in a previous post - a defense lawyer can only do so much when it comes to investigation and getting people to cooperate. They do not have the power behind them that LE has. Someone doesn't want to talk - there is nothing they can do about it.

I agree that without assumption - we don't know that it was Laci's watch. But I stand by my conclusion - based on Grogan's testimony - that Grogan never attempted to find the watch pawned by DR:




In fact - I was wrong - maybe Grogan never had the pawn slip in his hand - since it was the CSO that told him it didn't appear to be consistent with what they were looking for.

You may use Dalton if you wish. But I have to say that I found Dalton's work almost silly at times. Having said that...the watch issue will likely never be resolved to either side's satisfaction.

I agree you can't make people talk, but you can subpoena them to appear. MG didn't bother, so it goes into the "?" pile, at best, and the "irrelevant" pile at worst. There's just not enough hot sauce with this watch thing, for me anyway. While it may have said "with g", perhaps the CSO knew that shop well enough to know they would have stated specifically diamonds on the receipt? Or maybe she called them and asked about diamonds? It'd all be speculation, whatever we come up with, right?

[frydaddy]

I believe I only brought up the witnesses that saw Laci - to counter that the MPD knew that Scott was the last person to have seen her alive.

Ignoring people and "not automatically making the tips a priority" are not the same thing - agreed - but imo - MPD did both.



Agreed.....(to disagree)



Nope - I don't have it in my evidence vault - but now that you mention it - I might be able to get it from one of my fellow advocates. I'll work on that for ya'! :tongue:

LOL - Please do not exert too much effort, it's just a curiosity of mine. Oh, forgot to say, you used the words "I was wrong" in a previous post. You've been upgraded in my book to advocate+! ;)

On the "last one to see him alive", I was mentioning that along with a few other examples of justification for searching the bay. It's difficult to stay on track when posting. Bottom line, I felt it reasonable to search the bay when they did. As for the ignoring and priority comments, too subjective to make either one of us right in the other one's mind. So, A2D again, I suppose?!! :)

[frydaddy]

I don't need information to determine that Scott's lies were unnecessary. It's one of the rules I play by. Lies are unnecessary. The truth may be uncomfortable but it's always better than a lie.

Stellar post!

[thinkaboutit]

I agree, adnoid.

And in Scott's case his lies were so much worse than simply coming clean would have been. Scott is a textbook example of a pathological liar (someone who lies without cause - my definition) out of control.

Maybe he had lied all his life...and maybe he didn't have enough negative consequences to those lies...and it led to his belief that it's OK to take a risk and lie because if you get caught....no big deal. :shrug:

This is exactly the type of statement I was referring to - when I said people say Scott's lies were unnecessary. To say that lying is always unnecessary - the truth is always better - I can agree with that. But to say that Scott was a pathological liar who lied without cause - there is no proof of that. It is the only time I defend his lies in any way - when someone starts saying his lies are an indicator of being pathological. I don't agree.

I am in no way saying his lies were justifiable - it was wrong - no argument there - I just disagree that his lying was pathological.

[enlightenme]

This is exactly the type of statement I was referring to - when I said people say Scott's lies were unnecessary. To say that lying is always unnecessary - the truth is always better - I can agree with that. But to say that Scott was a pathological liar who lied without cause - there is no proof of that. It is the only time I defend his lies in any way - when someone starts saying his lies are an indicator of being pathological. I don't agree.

I am in no way saying his lies were justifiable - it was wrong - no argument there - I just disagree that his lying was pathological.


LOL! Okay, they weren't "pathological", but they were still wrong!

I have this idea in my head about Scott's supporters. It's not bad but I think it is wrong.

The "Media" started off making him appear guilty. I hate the media. They are often wrong, esp. when reporting early on. (Geraldo and the miners were ALIVE, for example).

But the facts of THIS case, convinced me that Scott was guilty. No one else influenced me but the FACTS of this case. Please, give me that IUPG leeway!

[JustMyOpinion]

This is exactly the type of statement I was referring to - when I said people say Scott's lies were unnecessary. To say that lying is always unnecessary - the truth is always better - I can agree with that. But to say that Scott was a pathological liar who lied without cause - there is no proof of that. It is the only time I defend his lies in any way - when someone starts saying his lies are an indicator of being pathological. I don't agree.

I am in no way saying his lies were justifiable - it was wrong - no argument there - I just disagree that his lying was pathological.

I think most of Scott's lies were deliberate, calculated and self-serving. I agree he's not a "pathological liar".. I think he's a sociopath. JMO

[Anne2719]

Anne, first, you should read Susan Medina's testimony.

Second, there is a well known poster who holds Scott to be guilty, lives in northern California and has the same securoty mailbox that Susan Medina has. He posts as BuzzM1 in other crime forums. He verified long ago that mail left by the mailman, Mr. Graybill, could not have been seen.
Mail left BY the carrier wouldn't be seen, but what about mail left FOR the carrier to TAKE? Can you give me a link to the testimony you mention? Thx.

[accordn2me]

This is exactly the type of statement I was referring to - when I said people say Scott's lies were unnecessary. To say that lying is always unnecessary - the truth is always better - I can agree with that. But to say that Scott was a pathological liar who lied without cause - there is no proof of that. It is the only time I defend his lies in any way - when someone starts saying his lies are an indicator of being pathological. I don't agree.

I am in no way saying his lies were justifiable - it was wrong - no argument there - I just disagree that his lying was pathological.

I wasn't rendering a diagnosis of Scott! I used the words "my definition" because I just didn't know a better way to describe the type of lies Scott tells. Scott lies when he doesn't "need" to, or had no cause to lie. Scott lies when the truth would better serve him. You need proof? Well, it would have been better for Scott to say, "ya know, I know it's going to look bad but I've been seeing another woman." Not, "Is that supposed to be me?" It's like Scott lied so much, either he believed himself, or he's gotten away with lying like that for so long with no consequences he just thinks it's worth the risk. I don't know which. I do know he told some whoppers - when the truth would have gotten him so much further.

Why lie about his trips to the bay during the search? What was the purpose of those lies to all the different people he lied about that to? What kind of lying is that?

[One2Snoop]

I wasn't rendering a diagnosis of Scott! I used the words "my definition" because I just didn't know a better way to describe the type of lies Scott tells. Scott lies when he doesn't "need" to, or had no cause to lie. Scott lies when the truth would better serve him. You need proof? Well, it would have been better for Scott to say, "ya know, I know it's going to look bad but I've been seeing another woman." Not, "Is that supposed to be me?" It's like Scott lied so much, either he believed himself, or he's gotten away with lying like that for so long with no consequences he just thinks it's worth the risk. I don't know which. I do know he told some whoppers - when the truth would have gotten him so much further.

Why lie about his trips to the bay during the search? What was the purpose of those lies to all the different people he lied about that to? What kind of lying is that?

Nothing right about this kind of lying. I think if any normal person were put on the spot like Scott was, they'd think twice before telling a lie - its amazing to me how he thought so differently. JMO

[attorneywan2be]

Mail left BY the carrier wouldn't be seen, but what about mail left FOR the carrier to TAKE? Can you give me a link to the testimony you mention? Thx.

The way I understand it is that the outgoing mail would be sticking out and the incoming mail would be hidden...the Medinas put their mail before they left to LA at 10:33am on Dec 24th..the mailman testified that he picked up the mail between 10:35 am and 10:50am that day...so the only time Todd could have seen the mail sticking out would have been between 10:33 am and 10:50 am on Dec 24th..the Medinas returned to their home at 4:12 pm on Dec 26th..she testified that there was no mail sticking out when they returned home...anyhow, the mailman would have picked up the mail that was sticking out no later than 10:50am on Dec 24th....


Mark Geragos: The Medinas is right here?
Russell Graybill: Correct.
Mark Geragos: When you went to the Medinas, what kind of a mailbox do they have?
Russell Graybill: They have a mailbox that is a security mailbox where you drop the mail down in the box, and then you have to catch this little flap that has the outgoing mail in it. You have pull that out first in order to put the mail in the box.
Mark Geragos: So when you would go there on the Medinas mailbox, normally what would happen is you would have to pull the outgoing mail out first, that you could see; is that correct?
Russell Graybill: Correct, yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: So there's kind of a flap that's like, as I'm demonstrating, where the mail rests on top of the mailbox, correct?
Russell Graybill: Correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. When you pull that mail out, the flap goes up, correct?
Russell Graybill: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: And then you reach your hand down in and you grab the mail that's in there?
Russell Graybill: No, you deliver the mail
Mark Geragos: Put the mail
Russell Graybill: you deliver the mail at that point. It's very complicated.
(Laughter)

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


David Harris: Okay. And from, based on that, you were on that street by the Petersons' house or in that general area between 10:35 and 10:50?
Russell Graybill: Yes, sir.

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

David Harris: And as you start to leave for LA, so you were in your car and you are starting to drive. Do you call your children to tell them that you're leaving at that time?
Susan Medina: Not when we back off from our driveway. It's when we made, after we made the stop on Encina to make a right turn, that's when I started to dial his number. And that's the 10:33 a.m. call to my son.

[accordn2me]

The way I understand it is that the outgoing mail would be sticking out and the incoming mail would be hidden...the Medinas put their mail before they left to LA at 10:33am on Dec 24th..the mailman testified that he picked up the mail between 10:35 am and 10:50am that day...so the only time Todd could have seen the mail sticking out would have been between 10:33 am and 10:50 am on Dec 24th..the Medinas returned to their home at 4:12 pm on Dec 26th..she testified that there was no mail sticking out when they returned home...anyhow, the mailman would have picked up the mail that was sticking out no later than 10:50am on Dec 24th....


Mark Geragos: The Medinas is right here?
Russell Graybill: Correct.
Mark Geragos: When you went to the Medinas, what kind of a mailbox do they have?
Russell Graybill: They have a mailbox that is a security mailbox where you drop the mail down in the box, and then you have to catch this little flap that has the outgoing mail in it. You have pull that out first in order to put the mail in the box.
Mark Geragos: So when you would go there on the Medinas mailbox, normally what would happen is you would have to pull the outgoing mail out first, that you could see; is that correct?
Russell Graybill: Correct, yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: So there's kind of a flap that's like, as I'm demonstrating, where the mail rests on top of the mailbox, correct?
Russell Graybill: Correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. When you pull that mail out, the flap goes up, correct?
Russell Graybill: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: And then you reach your hand down in and you grab the mail that's in there?
Russell Graybill: No, you deliver the mail
Mark Geragos: Put the mail
Russell Graybill: you deliver the mail at that point. It's very complicated.
(Laughter)

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


David Harris: Okay. And from, based on that, you were on that street by the Petersons' house or in that general area between 10:35 and 10:50?
Russell Graybill: Yes, sir.

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

David Harris: And as you start to leave for LA, so you were in your car and you are starting to drive. Do you call your children to tell them that you're leaving at that time?
Susan Medina: Not when we back off from our driveway. It's when we made, after we made the stop on Encina to make a right turn, that's when I started to dial his number. And that's the 10:33 a.m. call to my son.Well, if Karen Servas can be wrong about her timeline....and Susan Medina can be wrong about her timeline...the mailman can be wrong about his timeline.

[accordn2me]

Nothing right about this kind of lying. I think if any normal person were put on the spot like Scott was, they'd think twice before telling a lie - its amazing to me how he thought so differently. JMO
FYI....here's what Wikipedia says:

A pathological liar (Amer) is someone who often embellishes his or her stories in a way that he or she believes will impress people. It may be that a pathological liar is different from a normal liar in that a pathological liar believes the lie he or she is telling to be true—at least in public—and is "playing" the role. He or she has a serious mental problem that needs to be rectified. It is not clear, however, that this is the case. It could also be that pathological liars know precisely what they are doing. Making up stories and at the same time believing them is known as confabulation. The term "pathological liar" is not an official clinical diagnosis however psychiatrists may agree that pathological lying is often the result of a mental disorder or low self-esteem. Even though pathological lying is not recognized as a clinical disorder, legal court cases often require that you prove that the defendant is aware that he or she is lying. This proof is most important in cases of slander and/or liability.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Pathological+liar

Now that I've read that a few times....I'd say most of Scott's lies to Amber were pathological. The lies to the police, family members, friends.....:shrug: unnecessary and without cause, yes.

[JustMyOpinion]

I agree, adnoid.

And in Scott's case his lies were so much worse than simply coming clean would have been. Scott is a textbook example of a pathological liar (someone who lies without cause - my definition) out of control.

Maybe he had lied all his life...and maybe he didn't have enough negative consequences to those lies...and it led to his belief that it's OK to take a risk and lie because if you get caught....no big deal. :shrug:

It is very appparent to me that Scott's parents supported his deceptions ( from my reading of the conversations that were taped and detailed in Crier's book). Jackie even encourages him to lie..( deny, deny, deny). They really didn't want the truth, IMO..and they didn't really care if he killed her, IMO..They just didn't want him to get caught, IMO.

[Beebee]

It is very appparent to me that Scott's parents supported his deceptions ( from my reading of the conversations that were taped and detailed in Crier's book). Jackie even encourages him to lie..( deny, deny, deny). They really didn't want the truth, IMO..and they didn't really care if he killed her, IMO..They just didn't want him to get caught, IMO.

What "deceptions" are you talking about?

TIA

[JustMyOpinion]

What "deceptions" are you talking about?

TIA
Some examples:
That Brocchini had it in for him from the start.
That Ron or Dennis or Brent did it.
Advice that he should "deny these things" ( to family, to police, to press)
That he loved and respect Laci
That police would plant evidence to frame him.
That "it's a witch hunt for an affair or a one-night stand"..

[Beebee]

Some examples:
That Brocchini had it in for him from the start.
That Ron or Dennis or Brent did it.
Advice that he should "deny these things" ( to family, to police, to press)
That he loved and respect Laci
That police would plant evidence to frame him.
That "it's a witch hunt for an affair or a one-night stand"..

:confused:

I'm asking you what Scott's deceptions were?

I already know he was cheating with Amber...... now what are the other "deceptions"?

[JustMyOpinion]

:confused:

I'm asking you what Scott's deceptions were?

I already know he was cheating with Amber...... now what are the other "deceptions"?

I'm not going to list all of Scott's deceptions, in reponse to your OP, I did provide some examples of those he engaged in during conversations with Jackie/Lee. It appears you are ignoring the list I provided..IMO.

[Beebee]

I'm not going to list all of Scott's deceptions, in reponse to your OP, I did provide some examples of those he engaged in during conversations with Jackie/Lee. It appears you are ignoring the list I provided..IMO.

I don't know where your "list" is.....

Well, how about just telling me of one "deception" outside of the fling?

[JustMyOpinion]

I don't know where your "list" is.....

Well, how about just telling me of one "deception" outside of the fling?
Here are some the evidence showed:
He deceived Shawn Sibley and Amber Frey.IMO
He deceived Brocchini, telling him there was no electricty at the warehouse, IMO
He deceived Diane Sawyer and viewers, IMO.
He deceived his mother and friends claiming he had spoken to authorities in Longview. IMO
He deceived various person(s) about his whereabouts at different times..IMO
He claimed he'd been in the hills doing grief counseling..IMO
He perpetrated an intentional DECEPTION/FRAUD on everyone ( claiming Laci was "missing", "staging a dog-walking scenario", when in fact, he disposed of her in the Bay ) IMO.

[Beebee]

Here are some the evidence showed:
He deceived Shawn Sibley and Amber Frey.IMO
He deceived Brocchini, telling him there was no electricty at the warehouse, IMO
He deceived Diane Sawyer and viewers, IMO.
He deceived his mother and friends claiming he had spoken to authorities in Longview. IMO
He deceived various person(s) about his whereabouts at different times..IMO
He claimed he'd been in the hills doing grief counseling..IMO
He perpetrated an intentional DECEPTION/FRAUD on everyone ( claiming Laci was "missing", "staging a dog-walking scenario", when in fact, he disposed of her in the Bay ) IMO.


Longview? Hey that has recently been addressed: http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/May07FF.htm

Brocchini and the lights? Scott TOOK Brocchini to the warehouse freely without a warrant. There were no lies about the warehouse. The only lie about the warehouse came from Brocchini when he excised info from his report that Laci had been there.

As for where he was... Scott was being watched 24/7 so when did he do something incriminating? I must have missed that part.

Sibley is a fling lie.

[JustMyOpinion]

[QUOTE=Beebee;8858469]Longview? Hey that has recently been addressed

So, you are simply going to post a link to a pro-Scott website which is supposed to serve as your own response? It doesn't appear you are here to "discuss", IMO.

[JustMyOpinion]

Brocchini and the lights? Scott TOOK Brocchini to the warehouse freely without a warrant. There were no lies about the warehouse. The only lie about the warehouse came from Brocchini when he excised info from his report that Laci had been there.

As for where he was... Scott was being watched 24/7 so when did he do something incriminating? I must have missed that part.

Sibley is a fling lie.

I agree Scott accompanied Brocchini & Evers to the warehouse, they both testified Scott told them there was no electricity.
I agree Brocchini admitted under oath that he excised a paragraph from a written report ( the paragraph pertained to the woman in the warehouse next door to Scott's, who had told police Laci had asked to use her restroom).
No witness testified that they had seen Laci inside Scott's warehouse, or.. Laci viewing the boat.
Scott was not being watched after taping the first interview with Brocchini, there is evidence he returned to the warehouse. ( items that had been seen elsewhere on the night of 12/24 were found in warehouse during execution of search warrant)

[thinkaboutit]

LOL! Okay, they weren't "pathological", but they were still wrong!

I have this idea in my head about Scott's supporters. It's not bad but I think it is wrong.

The "Media" started off making him appear guilty. I hate the media. They are often wrong, esp. when reporting early on. (Geraldo and the miners were ALIVE, for example).

But the facts of THIS case, convinced me that Scott was guilty. No one else influenced me but the FACTS of this case. Please, give me that IUPG leeway!


Enlightenme - could you please clarify the bolded parts of your post?

[thinkaboutit]

I wasn't rendering a diagnosis of Scott! I used the words "my definition" because I just didn't know a better way to describe the type of lies Scott tells. Scott lies when he doesn't "need" to, or had no cause to lie. Scott lies when the truth would better serve him. You need proof? Well, it would have been better for Scott to say, "ya know, I know it's going to look bad but I've been seeing another woman." Not, "Is that supposed to be me?" It's like Scott lied so much, either he believed himself, or he's gotten away with lying like that for so long with no consequences he just thinks it's worth the risk. I don't know which. I do know he told some whoppers - when the truth would have gotten him so much further.

Why lie about his trips to the bay during the search? What was the purpose of those lies to all the different people he lied about that to? What kind of lying is that?

Hi A2ME - are you referring to the day when the GPS tracking showed he was in one place - but he was telling family members that he was someplace else?

There are actually two reasonable explanations for this. All of these lies - about where he was - all occurred on ONE day. Geragos got Jacobsen to admit on the stand - that the call records on the GPS - did not match the calls on the phone records - the times were off. He admitted they were having problems with it on that first day (it was the first day they had used the GPS tracking - IIRC). So AW2B's position that Scott wasn't lying - that the GPS records were wrong - is a reasonable possibility to me.

Or the other possible explanation - is Scott was trying to figure out how people knew where he was - how were they keeping track of his whereabouts. It's possible he was trying to figure out whether his phone was tapped or not?

If this was an example of his lying for no reason - and this was such a bad habit for him - why were there not other days when he was caught telling people he was in one place and was really in another?

[thinkaboutit]

It is very appparent to me that Scott's parents supported his deceptions ( from my reading of the conversations that were taped and detailed in Crier's book). Jackie even encourages him to lie..( deny, deny, deny). They really didn't want the truth, IMO..and they didn't really care if he killed her, IMO..They just didn't want him to get caught, IMO.

That's a REALLY strong statement. And very, very wrong, IMO.

[accordn2me]

Hi A2ME - are you referring to the day when the GPS tracking showed he was in one place - but he was telling family members that he was someplace else?

There are actually two reasonable explanations for this. All of these lies - about where he was - all occurred on ONE day. Geragos got Jacobsen to admit on the stand - that the call records on the GPS - did not match the calls on the phone records - the times were off. He admitted they were having problems with it on that first day (it was the first day they had used the GPS tracking - IIRC). So AW2B's position that Scott wasn't lying - that the GPS records were wrong - is a reasonable possibility to me.

Or the other possible explanation - is Scott was trying to figure out how people knew where he was - how were they keeping track of his whereabouts. It's possible he was trying to figure out whether his phone was tapped or not?

If this was an example of his lying for no reason - and this was such a bad habit for him - why were there not other days when he was caught telling people he was in one place and was really in another?I never know exactly what half the time! :tongue: And there probably were many other days Scott did that. I don't know the case well enough to list them. But you know what the pest control company says about (thinking of this b/c they are coming later...) if you see one roach....there are 100s probably 1000s more you don't see.....All of Scott's lies are not documented or even discovered.

In addition to the blatant lies to....:shrug: his mom? dad? friend? Sharon....I'm not sure who he lied to...don't feel like looking it up...Scott was deceptive in that he rented cars for no other purpose to drive to the bay area during the search. Why not just tell everybody where he was and take his own truck? Simple. No :no: need to lie. Right?

[JustMyOpinion]

That's a REALLY strong statement. And very, very wrong, IMO.

Are you saying you disagree with my opinion about this? I don't think the Petersons do care whether or not he killed Laci..( and if they suspect or actually "know" he disposed of her .. they may believe it was an accidental death..that she fell or something and he panicked..IMO) After reading transcripts of some of the things he said to Amber about Laci and Conner, I have no doubt Scott was fully capable of painting Laci in an unfavorable and dishonest way to this parents..JMO Based on what Anne Bird has written/said, it seems apparent to me that Jackie was critical of Laci & Modesto ( behind her back) prior Scott reporting Laci 'missing". And, Anne Bird has also said Jackie told her she thought Scott and Laci were having problems, I think it is possible Jackie bought Scott the membership in the golf club to placate him. JMO

[thinkaboutit]

I agree Scott accompanied Brocchini & Evers to the warehouse, they both testified Scott told them there was no electricity.I agree Brocchini admitted under oath that he excised a paragraph from a written report ( the paragraph pertained to the woman in the warehouse next door to Scott's, who had told police Laci had asked to use her restroom).
No witness testified that they had seen Laci inside Scott's warehouse, or.. Laci viewing the boat.
Scott was not being watched after taping the first interview with Brocchini, there is evidence he returned to the warehouse. ( items that had been seen elsewhere on the night of 12/24 were found in warehouse during execution of search warrant)

But Brocchini also testified that he was assuming Scott was talking about the shop area - and neither of them testified that Scott lied about there being no electricity in the shop area did they? Nor did anyone testify that there was electricity in the shop area. If they did - I missed it.

[accordn2me]

I don't know where your "list" is.....

Well, how about just telling me of one "deception" outside of the fling?Was Scott, aka. Jacqueline, having a fling with the guy he bought the Mercedes from?

[Otter]

That's a REALLY strong statement. And very, very wrong, IMO.

I don't know TAI, when looking for the "we want those" quote, I came across an interview the P's did with Time. Like so many other details, I forgot about it.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,444968,00.html

A few quotes:

Lee Peterson: I would ask everyone to consider Scott's family. We're a good family. We don't have a record of anything.

Jackie Peterson: He doesn't either. You can look.

Lee Peterson: He doesn't. There was no domestic violence.

I find it odd that they mention themselves first -- they're not charged with anything, nor had anyone accused them of having any sort of a record. Its like SP is an after thought.

In this interview, LP refers to Conner as "the baby" twice, JP refers to him as "her baby". Laci being gone is barely referred to, except they say they're grieving, and the first mention is as "Scott's wife". That just bothers me, IMO there's a real coldness bordering on resentment toward Laci and the fact that she was murdered with their son standing accused.

Anyone help my memory on the statement I bolded below?

Jackie Peterson: No drugs. No financial problems. He worked three jobs to put himself through college and put his wife through college. They both worked hard to get everything they had, and they were enjoying it to the hilt. And they adored each other.

I never heard that! I don't think I did -- ring a bell for anyone else?

[Beebee]

Scott was not being watched after taping the first interview with Brocchini, there is evidence he returned to the warehouse. ( items that had been seen elsewhere on the night of 12/24 were found in warehouse during execution of search warrant)

Are you saying Scott there is something sinister about Scott going to his own warehouse, where he had an office for work?

[JustMyOpinion]

I don't know TAI, when looking for the "we want those" quote, I came across an interview the P's did with Time. Like so many other details, I forgot about it.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,444968,00.html

A few quotes:



I find it odd that they mention themselves first -- they're not charged with anything, nor had anyone accused them of having any sort of a record. Its like SP is an after thought.

In this interview, LP refers to Conner as "the baby" twice, JP refers to him as "her baby". Laci being gone is barely referred to, except they say they're grieving, and the first mention is as "Scott's wife". That just bothers me, IMO there's a real coldness bordering on resentment toward Laci and the fact that she was murdered with their son standing accused.

Anyone help my memory on the statement I bolded below?



I never heard that! I don't think I did -- ring a bell for anyone else?

I've never heard anyone who knew Laci back-up Jackie's assertion that "Scott worked 3 jobs and put his wife through college". My understanding is that Laci graduated prior to their wedding, Laci worked a job away from SLO, while it took Scott another year to complete his degree.
It consistently bothered me that Jackie referred to Conner as the baby, that baby, Scott's little buddy, OUR grandbaby... or mostly referred to Laci as "his wife", or "OUR daughter-in-law, Scott's wife. JMO And, putting curse words into Laci's mouth in the interview she gave just one day after her remains were identified was unnecessary and shows no respect or "grief" at all, IMO. I haven't seen any conduct from Jackie or Lee that indicates actual respect for Laci or grieving for Laci, they didn't even attend the memorial service the family held on her birthday shortly after Scott's arrest . JMO

[JustMyOpinion]

Are you saying Scott there is something sinister about Scott going to his own warehouse, where he had an office for work?


I said he went there sometime after video-taping the interview with Brocchini, and he moved in items that had previously been placed/seen elsewhere.

[Beebee]

I said he went there sometime after video-taping the interview with Brocchini, and he moved in items that had previously been placed/seen elsewhere.

Where are you getting he went there after the interview with Brocchini? What was moved that has you concerned, or makes you think it's related to murder?

[JustMyOpinion]

Where are you getting he went there after the interview with Brocchini? What was moved that has you concerned, or makes you think it's related to murder?
I have no way of knowing everything that could have been moved or destroyed. ( The items that were are related to his alibi, IMO)
per Crier ( page 96)
Scott had admiited making at least one additional trip to the warehouse after Xmas Eve. Some of the previously viewed items that had been moved to the warehouse were:
Scott's tan jacket found stuffed inside a green duffel in the bow of the boat, ( it had been in the truck) two, new fishing lures were in the duffel bag ( they had been in the truck) the shotgun shells from the truck's toolbox were in the duffel bag. Brocchini found the missing Big 5 bag and sale receipt for the fishing tackle in a trash pail.

Per Crier: ( page 73)
By December 26, 2002 Scott Peterson's office on Emerald Street was under survelliance. No one could enter the business until the pending search warrant had been served. "I felt that if evidence was present at the Emerald location, evidence destruction at that location could be completed without witnesses in the remote, mostly unoccupied industrial area in the late evening and early morning hours." Detective Craig Grogan reported.

[Beebee]

I have no way of knowing everything that could have been moved or destroyed. ( The items that were are related to his alibi, IMO)
per Crier ( page 96)
Scott had admiited making at least one additional trip to the warehouse after Xmas Eve. Some of the previously viewed items that had been moved to the warehouse were:
Scott's tan jacket found stuffed inside a green duffel in the bow of the boat, ( it had been in the truck) two, new fishing lures were in the duffel bag ( they had been in the truck) the shotgun shells from the truck's toolbox were in the duffel bag. Brocchini found the missing Big 5 bag and sale receipt for the fishing tackle in a trash pail.

Per Crier: ( page 73)
By December 26, 2002 Scott Peterson's office on Emerald Street was under survelliance. No one could enter the business until the pending search warrant had been served. "I felt that if evidence was present at the Emerald location, evidence destruction at that location could be completed without witnesses in the remote, mostly unoccupied industrial area in the late evening and early morning hours." Detective Craig Grogan reported.

So your point is you think he may have moved something incriminating because he possibly went there, based on a book, and you think he is guily so he must of moved stuff then!!

Is that it? :confused:

[JustMyOpinion]

So your point is you think he may have moved something incriminating because he possibly went there, based on a book, and you think he is guily so he must of moved stuff then!!

Is that it? :confused:

No, I know he admitted he'd been there once, I think he did go there, I think he did move some items from the truck to the warehouse ( and..from the truck to the backyard & tool shed) JMO The details about these items contained in the book are factual, they are derived from the actual reports written by officers/detectives. No, I don't think he is guilty "because he moved stuff" I think the fact he moved specific items shows he was trying to shore up his fishing alibi, and in the case of the tarps, trying to destroy biological evidence or..deter cadavar dogs from hitting on the tarps..JMO

[Beebee]

No, I know he admitted he'd been there once, I think he did go there, I think he did move some items from the truck to the warehouse ( and..from the truck to the backyard & tool shed) JMO The details about these items contained in the book are factual, they are derived from the actual reports written by officers/detectives. No, I don't think he is guilty "because he moved stuff" I think the fact he moved specific items shows he was trying to shore up his fishing alibi, and in the case of the tarps, trying to destroy biological evidence or..deter cadavar dogs from hitting on the tarps..JMO


What do you mean by "shore up his fishing alibi"?? He didn't hide the fact he went fishing.

What tarps are you talking about?

Not a single cadaver dog hit anywhere.

[dallasvic]

I Scott a very unlucky person. He tells his mistress is wife is gone. And then she really is.He had the phone conversation with Fry tell her he was celebrating New Years out of town and the hole time he's still at home at Lacie's vigil.Was he so stupid to think Fry would not find out about him being married? And to top that one off the wife he said he had that he had lost has just now passed away?He buys a boat then he goes fish suppose and showed the investigators were he fished. How bum can you be to take some one were you had discarded a body, knowing that it could possible show up one day, but close to were he fished?
This guy needs to be put in the genius book of records for being the stupidest murder in the world!!!!

[One2Snoop]

I Scott a very unlucky person. He tells his mistress is wife is gone. And then she really is.He had the phone conversation with Fry tell her he was celebrating New Years out of town and the hole time he's still at home at Lacie's vigil.Was he so stupid to think Fry would not find out about him being married? And to top that one off the wife he said he had that he had lost has just now passed away?He buys a boat then he goes fish suppose and showed the investigators were he fished. How bum can you be to take some one were you had discarded a body, knowing that it could possible show up one day, but close to were he fished?
This guy needs to be put in the genius book of records for being the stupidest murder in the world!!!!

LOL, I especially agree with that last sentence....although I think you meant

Guinness World Records, which chronicles all kinds of strange and extreme talents. You could definitely add stupid in there for sure. :read: :tongue:

[dallasvic]

LOL, I especially agree with that last sentence....although I think you meant

Guinness World Records, which chronicles all kinds of strange and extreme talents. You could definitely add stupid in there for sure. :read: :tongue:

LOL, I got carried away with that. That what I meant:tongue:

[One2Snoop]

LOL, I got carried away with that. That what I meant:tongue:


Ohhh, I knew it!!!! LOL. Thank you for clarifying dallasvic. :seeya: :rose:

[accordn2me]

LOL, I especially agree with that last sentence....although I think you meant

Guinness World Records, which chronicles all kinds of strange and extreme talents. You could definitely add stupid in there for sure. :read: :tongue:We can put it in that book.....but can we call it: When Genius People Do Stupid Murders .....please?

[dallasvic]

We can put it in that book.....but can we call it: When Genius People Do Stupid Murders .....please?

Sounds good to ME:tongue:.Anyway you look at it it is stupid and unlucky all around.If he was guilty he was very stupid. If he was innocent he was very unlucky.

[JustMyOpinion]

What do you mean by "shore up his fishing alibi"?? He didn't hide the fact he went fishing.

What tarps are you talking about?

Not a single cadaver dog hit anywhere.

He claimed he went fishing, IMO.
Blue tarp that had been seen wrapped around umbrellas in truck on 12/24 ( found 12/27 in the patio shed spread out beneath a power sprayer)
Tan canvas tarp ( boat cover) found on 12/27 in storage shed under power tool leaking gasoline).
According to dog handler, cadaver dog "Twist"did show interest in specific areas at the warehouse, but did not actually "hit".. and.. according to the handler, cross-trained "Trimble" followed Laci's scent to the end of a pier at Berkeley Marina.. IIRC.

[dallasvic]

He claimed he went fishing, IMO.
Blue tarp that had been seen wrapped around umbrellas in truck on 12/24 ( found 12/27 in the patio shed spread out beneath a power sprayer)
Tan canvas tarp ( boat cover) found on 12/27 in storage shed under power tool leaking gasoline).
According to dog handler, cadaver dog "Twist"did show interest in specific areas at the warehouse, but did not actually "hit".. and.. according to the handler, cross-trained "Trimble" followed Laci's scent to the end of a pier at Berkeley Marina.. IIRC.

If this is true. Why was her scent at the end of the pier. Did she walk to the end of the pier and get in the boat after SP put it the water? If anything the dog would have followered the sent down the boat launch. She was in the boat already. No one seen her at the marine did they?

[JustMyOpinion]

If this is true. Why was her scent at the end of the pier. Did she walk to the end of the pier and get in the boat after SP put it the water? If anything the dog would have followered the sent down the boat launch. She was in the boat already. No one seen her at the marine did they?

Hi dallisvic:
No witness testified that they saw Scott ( or Laci) at the marina on 12/24.
Here is a snip from a news report about the testimony of the dog handler:

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/083104_ctv.html
SNIP:
On Dec. 28, Laci Peterson was the most important person in Trimble's world.

As prosecutor Dave Harris projected an aerial photo of the Berkeley Marina on a screen, Anderson pointed to the area where Trimble began her search process.

She first faced her dog toward an area that she deemed to be a "neutral direction" and then presented Laci Peterson's "scent article" to her.

"With rubber gloves, I peeled the plastic Ziplocs off the article, and opened the glass case so she could 'scent' on the glasses inside," Anderson said.

Trimble moved toward vegetation in the parking area, circled back to her owner, sat by her left-hand side, and made eye contact, a behavior that indicated "no scent trail."

After several "no scent trails," Trimble took a straight line down a pier and stopped at a pylon at the water's edge. Trimble then looked out over the water, her snout into the wind, and turned to give Anderson an "end of trail" indication, head level and tail up.
Anderson said that Trimble then verified Laci's trail, going to the perimeter of the scent, and returning back to the pylon, again indicating a "hard" end-of-trail alert.
Harris asked if it was possible that the dog could have picked up the scent of someone else whose scent commingled with Laci's while driving in and out of the parking lot.
Anderson said that Trimble would have picked up an "exit trail" leading out of the parking lot, but she did not do that in Laci's case.
http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/083104_ctv.html

[dallasvic]

Hi dallisvic:
No witness testified that they saw Scott ( or Laci) at the marina on 12/24.
Here is a snip from a news report about the testimony of the dog handler:

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/083104_ctv.html
SNIP:
On Dec. 28, Laci Peterson was the most important person in Trimble's world.

As prosecutor Dave Harris projected an aerial photo of the Berkeley Marina on a screen, Anderson pointed to the area where Trimble began her search process.

She first faced her dog toward an area that she deemed to be a "neutral direction" and then presented Laci Peterson's "scent article" to her.

"With rubber gloves, I peeled the plastic Ziplocs off the article, and opened the glass case so she could 'scent' on the glasses inside," Anderson said.

Trimble moved toward vegetation in the parking area, circled back to her owner, sat by her left-hand side, and made eye contact, a behavior that indicated "no scent trail."

After several "no scent trails," Trimble took a straight line down a pier and stopped at a pylon at the water's edge. Trimble then looked out over the water, her snout into the wind, and turned to give Anderson an "end of trail" indication, head level and tail up.
Anderson said that Trimble then verified Laci's trail, going to the perimeter of the scent, and returning back to the pylon, again indicating a "hard" end-of-trail alert.
Harris asked if it was possible that the dog could have picked up the scent of someone else whose scent commingled with Laci's while driving in and out of the parking lot.
Anderson said that Trimble would have picked up an "exit trail" leading out of the parking lot, but she did not do that in Laci's case.
http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/083104_ctv.html


Hey, thanks for the link I am going to read and be back later

[JustMyOpinion]

Hey, thanks for the link I am going to read and be back later

Y/W, dallasvic.

Here is a snip from another news report, handler's testimony regarding behavior of cadaver dog "Twist"..:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20040226/ai_n14569817

SNIP:Anderson testified that she used a cadaver dog, which is meant to find dead people, and a trailing dog, used to find those still alive, during her searches.

The cadaver dog, Twist, was used to search inside Peterson's storage warehouse on Dec. 27, 2002 in an attempt to see if a body had been brought there.
"The dog ran its nose across the starboard bow of the boat, and went to some boxes and barked in frustration because she could not pinpoint any source," Anderson said.

She also testified that, in her estimation, the dog "alerted," or sensed a cadaver's scent in the warehouse, but was unable to locate it.

After Anderson said that, Mark Geragos, who was sitting with Peterson's family in the first row of the gallery, jumped out of his seat to complain to the judge that the prosecution had not included information in its discovery about Anderson's dog "alert." Judge Alfred Delucchi said he found no problem with the prosecution's information.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20040226/ai_n14569817

[dallasvic]

Y/W, dallasvic.

Here is a snip from another news report, handler's testimony regarding behavior of cadaver dog "Twist"..:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20040226/ai_n14569817

SNIP:Anderson testified that she used a cadaver dog, which is meant to find dead people, and a trailing dog, used to find those still alive, during her searches.

The cadaver dog, Twist, was used to search inside Peterson's storage warehouse on Dec. 27, 2002 in an attempt to see if a body had been brought there.
"The dog ran its nose across the starboard bow of the boat, and went to some boxes and barked in frustration because she could not pinpoint any source," Anderson said.

She also testified that, in her estimation, the dog "alerted," or sensed a cadaver's scent in the warehouse, but was unable to locate it.

After Anderson said that, Mark Geragos, who was sitting with Peterson's family in the first row of the gallery, jumped out of his seat to complain to the judge that the prosecution had not included information in its discovery about Anderson's dog "alert." Judge Alfred Delucchi said he found no problem with the prosecution's information.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20040226/ai_n14569817

I wonder why they felt they need to sets of scent dogs sent out? Thats a mouth full. LOL The first one had already scented at the boat ramp. I did notice the second on sent out picked up SP sent while the other had Laci's

[JustMyOpinion]

I wonder why they felt they need to sets of scent dogs sent out? Thats a mouth full. LOL The first one had already scented at the boat ramp. I did notice the second on sent out picked up SP sent while the other had Laci's

Probably because police were in early stages of the investigation, and it was a paralell investigation ( abducted while walking dog vs domestic homicide) They were trying to find Laci, and trying to determine if she was dead or alive, IMO.

[dallasvic]

Probably because police were in early stages of the investigation, and it was a paralell investigation ( abducted while walking dog vs domestic homicide) They were trying to find Laci, and trying to determine if she was dead or alive, IMO.

Dog that scent and are used properly are very vivacious animals. I have a black lab I got when he was a puppy and he had so much energy. He loved freebie and he like you to through it off the dock so he could get in the water to get it and he would even push it down so he could go under and get it on his way back to the dock.
He need more attention then i could give him because my mom was sick then so I gave him to a handler that trained dog and you know what my dog Hooch was one of the dogs at the bombing in Oklahoma and after that they retired him and I have seen were they send them to retire and it fit for a king.
So I don't think dog scenting is voodoo or hoodoo what ever that guy said that is a false statement. True not all dogs do it. So they just don't ever get it and some have it in their blood. Just like the work people do some are good at one thing and some are not and IMO I think that applies to animals also.

[JustMyOpinion]

Dog that scent and are used properly are very vivacious animals. I have a black lab I got when he was a puppy and he had so much energy. He loved freebie and he like you to through it off the dock so he could get in the water to get it and he would even push it down so he could go under and get it on his way back to the dock.
He need more attention then i could give him because my mom was sick then so I gave him to a handler that trained dog and you know what my dog Hooch was one of the dogs at the bombing in Oklahoma and after that they retired him and I have seen were they send them to retire and it fit for a king.
So I don't think dog scenting is voodoo or hoodoo what ever that guy said that is a false statement. True not all dogs do it. So they just don't ever get it and some have it in their blood. Just like the work people do some are good at one thing and some are not and IMO I think that applies to animals also.

I think forensic canines do very valuable work and can be highly relied upon, but there are variables, IMO. ( i.e.how experienced an individual dog is, how experienced the handler is) I agree it is not "voodoo", but of course Geragos would choose to use a word like that to describe it..this is the same man who floated a Satanic cult theory in the media for awhile...) JMO. How wonderful that your puppy Hooch became such a helpful dog, he's earned his retirement!

[dallasvic]

I think forensic canines do very valuable work and can be highly relied upon, but there are variables, IMO. ( i.e.how experienced an individual dog is, how experienced the handler is) I agree it is not "voodoo", but of course Geragos would choose to use a word like that to describe it..this is the same man who floated a Satanic cult theory in the media for awhile...) JMO. How wonderful that your puppy Hooch became such a helpful dog, he's earned his retirement!

I read in this thread or another on that there is a theory that Laci was alive up to six weeks after she came up missing and that both bodies were dumped at the site they were found at. Why did they not get the dogs and carry them down to that site and see if they could scent from there unless the just assumed they washed up but all leads should have been followed up? The ME"s would have been able to make a on site judgment on that one IMO

[JustMyOpinion]

I read in this thread or another on that there is a theory that Laci was alive up to six weeks after she came up missing and that both bodies were dumped at the site they were found at. Why did they not get the dogs and carry them down to that site and see if they could scent from there unless the just assumed they washed up but all leads should have been followed up? The ME"s would have been able to make a on site judgment on that one IMO

I think that one of many defense theories, I don't know if Geragos actually hired dogs/handlers to track from the recovery sites.. or if he attempted to do anything like what you suggest.

[dallasvic]

I think that one of many defense theories, I don't know if Geragos actually hired dogs/handlers to track from the recovery sites.. or if he attempted to do anything like what you suggest.

I guess there are alot of things that could of or should of then we would not be posting here would we.

[ekg]

If this is true. Why was her scent at the end of the pier. Did she walk to the end of the pier and get in the boat after SP put it the water? If anything the dog would have followered the sent down the boat launch. She was in the boat already. No one seen her at the marine did they?


her scent was also around the bathroom area wasn't it?

[dallasvic]

her scent was also around the bathroom area wasn't it?

Her bathroom?

[attorneywan2be]

her scent was also around the bathroom area wasn't it?

I don't think so..

[ekg]

Her bathroom?

no the marina bathroom.....IIRC trimble or Andersons other dog(don't know it's name) did the 'end of scent' thing near/on the pier and near the mens bathroom.

I could be way off on that tho.. I barely remember the dog stuff... but I thought her scent was found in 2 places at the bay, the pylon and the bathroom....

[ekg]

I don't think so..


ok....

b/c I always wondered how she got in the bathroom at the marina...

thanks...


oops.....

I think my confusion was this..


http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/26/BAGQN58KV51.DTL
"Expert dog handler Eloise Anderson testified during a pretrial hearing Wednesday that on Dec. 28, her specially trained Labrador retriever named Trimble picked up Laci Peterson's scent near the parking lot at the marina and pulled her from that location to a pylon near the end of the pier."



I think the 'near the parking lot' area was shown on a map in court and was near the bathroom....??

I don't know..... I can't remember...:o so I take your word on it.....

[dallasvic]

no the marina bathroom.....IIRC trimble or Andersons other dog(don't know it's name) did the 'end of scent' thing near/on the pier and near the mens bathroom.

I could be way off on that tho.. I barely remember the dog stuff... but I thought her scent was found in 2 places at the bay, the pylon and the bathroom....

I am going back to read it and I will check it out .

[attorneywan2be]

IMO, the so called dog's evidence about finding the scent of Laci's body at the Marina is meaningless..!

From pre-trial hearings:

Eloise Anderson used Trimble, a trailing dog, to pick up the scent of Laci's body at the marina..she didn't use Twist, a cadaver dog...hmmmm! why not?!

2 Q. Now, did you believe you were following the scent*
3 of a live human being? Or the scent of a cadaver?
4 A. I believed that I was following the scent of the*
5 person that she was scented on.
6 Q. And that was --*
7 A. And --*
8 Q. I'm sorry.*
9 A. And I was going to say, and -- and at that point,*
10 even if she were no longer alive, there would be some skin*
11 raft still coming off. And her scent article was also*
12 probably the age of the item that she was trailing.
13 Q. Okay. The -- when you say the skin rafts coming
14 off of a person's who's dead, is there any literature that
15 you can alert us to that would support that opinion?
16 A. None that I know of.
17 Q. Okay. Skin rafts come off of live people because*
18 biological processes keep producing skin and then the skin*
19 rafts, the -- the --
20 A. Skin rafts I would also think could come off of*
21 dead people because you still have friction from clothing,*
22 you have skin rafts on the clothing itself. You have wind*
23 factors --*
24 Q. I'm sorry, let me stop you there.*
25 MR. DAVID HARRIS: Your Honor, she was answering*
26 the question.*

1589
1 THE COURT: Wait a minute. I'm not sure it's*
2 responsive.*
3 MR. KOPP: Well, I was going to object that it's*
4 speculation.*
5 THE COURT: Well, I don't think -- she's*
6 qualified as an expert. I think she can give her opinion.*
7 It goes to the weight rather than its admissibility.*
8 Overruled.*
9 MR. KOPP: Okay.
10 THE COURT: Finish your answer.*
11 THE WITNESS: In my opinion you would still get
12 skin rafts off of a person who could be deceased.
13 MR. KOPP: Q. Have you ever pursued any
14 scientific course work in which you examined that theory?
15 A. No, I haven't.

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


15 Q. The question was if the prevailing wind was west*
16 to east and a person drove this route with a vehicle down*
17 to the launch ramp, you wouldn't expect the scent to end up*
18 on the west side; it would be blown to the east, right?
19 A. You would still get some scent on the west side.
20 Q. Well --*
21 A. The primary scent would be blown to the east, but*
22 if you dock on that western-most dock, you're still going*
23 to get some scent there.
24 Q. Do you have any information that Mr. Peterson*
25 docked his boat on the west side of that dock?
26 A. I don't. I'm only telling you what my dog did.

1595
1 Q. Okay. Well, do skin rafts have the ability to
2 swim upstream against the prevailing wind?
3 MR. HARRIS: Objection. Argumentative.
4 THE COURT: I don't -- I don't -- I don't know.
5 I'm going to let you answer the question. Can
6 skin rafts go against the prevailing wind? Is that
7 possible in your experience?
8 THE WITNESS: I think it would depend upon the
9 level of the wind. I think that he could be right, that it
10 might not go against that. But I think also, if there*
11 isn't a strong wind, you're going to get skin rafts, that*
12 if you -- if you're talking about something that may be in*
13 a boat, you're going to get skin rafts that are going to*
14 flow over the sides of the boat, and they may stick to*
15 that.*
16 MR. KOPP: Q. Okay. But we're -- these skin*
17 rafts are microscopic items, correct?*
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. And if there's a breeze blowing from one*
20 direction to the other, you're not going to expect to see*
21 the skin rafts be floating up wind against the prevailing*
22 wind, right?
23 A. How strong a breeze?
24 Q. Well, more than five miles an hour?
25 A. No, you probably wouldn't.

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

14 Q. This was like the -- a bronze or brown tan Ford*
15 F-150?
16 A. I know what the truck looks like.
17 Q. Did you ever ask to put the dog, Twist, inside
18 that vehicle?
19 A. I asked if they wanted me to have Twist check the
20 boat -- check the truck, I'm sorry, and they said no.
21 Q. Okay. Who told you that?
22 A. I believe it was --*
23 Q. Detective Brocchini?
24 A. No, it was not Brocchini. It was Dodge.*
25 Detective Dodge.
26 Q. Dodge Hendee?

1604
1 A. Hendee. Thank you. I couldn't remember his last*
2 name, I'm sorry.
3 Q. Okay. And did you know at the time that*
4 you asked -- well, strike that.*
5 You asked if they wanted the dog to check the*
6 truck, because you knew that a possible theory was that Ms.*
7 Peterson's body had been in that truck, right?*
8 A. And that that would be something that we can*
9 check that wouldn't have the fertilizer issue, yes.
10 Q. Right. So you knew that that was a possible*
11 theory that the police were pursuing, and it seemed logical*
12 to you as a cadaver dog handler to put the dog in the truck*
13 that would not have the fertilizer contamination smell,*
14 right?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. You offered to do that and they didn't take you*
17 up on the offer, right?
18 A. I believe at that point that they were already*
19 processing the truck. The dog evidence is only*
20 corroborative, and if we find anything, it's up to the lab*
21 to determine if there's anything there.
22 Q. Okay. Well, but, at the time that you made the*
23 offer to put the dog into the truck, the truck was*
24 available for you to put the dog in the truck, right?
25 A. I don't know if the truck was or not. I don't*
26 know where the truck was.

1605
1 MR. KOPP: If I could just have a moment, your*
2 Honor.*
3 THE COURT: Sure. Go ahead.*
4 (Pause in proceedings)
5 MR. KOPP: Q. Just briefly, did anyone ever ask
6 you to use Twist at the Berkeley Marina at any time?
7 A. No, they did not.
8 Q. Did you ever offer to use Twist at that time?
9 A. No. Twist is not certified in water.
10 Q. Okay. Well, did anyone ever ask you -- strike
11 that.
12 You could have used Twist at the launch ramp or
13 the entrance to the marina; those weren't areas that were
14 under water, right?
15 A. That's true.
16 Q. I mean, you didn't scent Trimble in any area that
17 was under water, right?
18 A. No, I didn't.
19 Q. Okay.
20 I don't have anything further, your Honor.

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

[ekg]

IMO, the so called dog's evidence about finding the scent of Laci's body at the Marina is meaningless..!

snipped




Oh I agree....

and the 'bathroom' scent always cemented it in my head..

I can't see how her scent was on the pier unless Scott put her body there... and I can't see him placing the body of his dead wife on the Berkley Marina pier in broad daylight ...IMO the dog was smelling Scott..

BTW, I know the bodies are always an issue..... and I was going thru some old links and I found this news story...


http://www.petersonblog.com/newspapers/RCDN-09-13-2004.html

Prosecution theory about bodies has some big problems

But the prosecution's theory about the bodies' locations has severe problems, according San Francisco Medical Examiner Boyd Stephens, who was consulted by Modesto police in April 2003.

In opening statements, lead prosecutor Rick Distaso showed a chart with two arrows pointing from a single spot just southeast of Brooks Island. The diverging arrows led from that spot to the two Richmond shoreline locations where the bodies washed up in mid-April 2003.



The spot where the arrows begin is almost in the center of where Scott Peterson told police he went fishing on Dec. 24, 2002, the day Laci Peterson was reported missing. A United States Geological Survey expert on San Francisco Bay will testify, Distaso said, that the two bodies broke loose from that spot on the bottom of the bay after an April 12, 2003 storm.



Conner's fetus was tom from Laci Peterson's womb in the process, and the two bodies floated away from each other to the shoreline.



But that scenario is unlikely, the San Francisco medical examiner told lead Modesto Detective Craig Grogan two weeks before the bodies were found. Stephens is acknowledged as the leading forensic expert on the behavior and decomposition of bodies in San Francisco Bay.



I wonder why the state dropped him and went with Cheng who isn't an expert on the behavior and decomposition of bodies in San Francisco Bay...

MG had him on the witness list and didn't call him either tho...

I think MG did an awesome job of turning the DA's witness' into a Def. witness, but he should have hammered it home with his own guys too...

anyways, I thought you'd like that article...

LOL, I also found a pic of the Medina's house to help thinkaboutit the next time she's arguing that Todd couldn't have seen the mail..lol

[deputydi]

Dog that scent and are used properly are very vivacious animals. I have a black lab I got when he was a puppy and he had so much energy. He loved freebie and he like you to through it off the dock so he could get in the water to get it and he would even push it down so he could go under and get it on his way back to the dock.
He need more attention then i could give him because my mom was sick then so I gave him to a handler that trained dog and you know what my dog Hooch was one of the dogs at the bombing in Oklahoma and after that they retired him and I have seen were they send them to retire and it fit for a king.
So I don't think dog scenting is voodoo or hoodoo what ever that guy said that is a false statement. True not all dogs do it. So they just don't ever get it and some have it in their blood. Just like the work people do some are good at one thing and some are not and IMO I think that applies to animals also.
Bless Hooch and bless you for recognizing his need to be active and having the heart to do the right thing. These dogs are awesome and not just any old dog can do it. I have a friend who has a black lab who was trained as a cadaver dog. Her name is Shadow (same as one of my dogs) and she was at Ground Zero. She, too, had to be retired afterwards because of the infection she got from the debris. She is his beloved pet now and is getting up in age, but her heroic efforts at the WTC will always be remembered.

[attorneywan2be]

Oh I agree....

and the 'bathroom' scent always cemented it in my head..

I can't see how her scent was on the pier unless Scott put her body there... and I can't see him placing the body of his dead wife on the Berkley Marina pier in broad daylight ...IMO the dog was smelling Scott..

BTW, I know the bodies are always an issue..... and I was going thru some old links and I found this news story...


http://www.petersonblog.com/newspapers/RCDN-09-13-2004.html

Prosecution theory about bodies has some big problems

But the prosecution's theory about the bodies' locations has severe problems, according San Francisco Medical Examiner Boyd Stephens, who was consulted by Modesto police in April 2003.

In opening statements, lead prosecutor Rick Distaso showed a chart with two arrows pointing from a single spot just southeast of Brooks Island. The diverging arrows led from that spot to the two Richmond shoreline locations where the bodies washed up in mid-April 2003.



The spot where the arrows begin is almost in the center of where Scott Peterson told police he went fishing on Dec. 24, 2002, the day Laci Peterson was reported missing. A United States Geological Survey expert on San Francisco Bay will testify, Distaso said, that the two bodies broke loose from that spot on the bottom of the bay after an April 12, 2003 storm.



Conner's fetus was tom from Laci Peterson's womb in the process, and the two bodies floated away from each other to the shoreline.



But that scenario is unlikely, the San Francisco medical examiner told lead Modesto Detective Craig Grogan two weeks before the bodies were found. Stephens is acknowledged as the leading forensic expert on the behavior and decomposition of bodies in San Francisco Bay.



I wonder why the state dropped him and went with Cheng who isn't an expert on the behavior and decomposition of bodies in San Francisco Bay...

MG had him on the witness list and didn't call him either tho...

I think MG did an awesome job of turning the DA's witness' into a Def. witness, but he should have hammered it home with his own guys too...

anyways, I thought you'd like that article...

LOL, I also found a pic of the Medina's house to help thinkaboutit the next time she's arguing that Todd couldn't have seen the mail..lol


Thanks ekg...I have read that article before but I couldn't find the link for it..

Can you post the picture you are referring to?

[ekg]

Thanks ekg...I have read that article before but I couldn't find the link for it..

Can you post the picture you are referring to?

sure

http://www.petersonblog.com/mod_covena/images/DSCN4174.jpg

http://www.petersonblog.com/mod_covena/images/DSCN4197.jpg

they're too big to put on here...so you'll have to clicky them

but you can see the mailbox on the wall and see that there no way to see 'delivered' mail sticking out of it.."outgoing mail" sure, but not the other way around..

here's the link to the whole covena ave.....

http://www.petersonblog.com/mod_covena/index.html

[attorneywan2be]

sure

http://www.petersonblog.com/mod_covena/images/DSCN4174.jpg

http://www.petersonblog.com/mod_covena/images/DSCN4197.jpg

they're too big to put on here...so you'll have to clicky them

but you can see the mailbox on the wall and see that there no way to see 'delivered' mail sticking out of it.."outgoing mail" sure, but not the other way around..

here's the link to the whole covena ave.....

http://www.petersonblog.com/mod_covena/index.html


ekg... thanks for the pictures..but it is still hard to tell.. I enlarged it further..however, the testimony is very clear...


Mark Geragos: When you went to the Medinas, what kind of a mailbox do they have?
Russell Graybill: They have a mailbox that is a security mailbox where you drop the mail down in the box, and then you have to catch this little flap that has the outgoing mail in it. You have pull that out first in order to put the mail in the box.
Mark Geragos: So when you would go there on the Medinas mailbox, normally what would happen is you would have to pull the outgoing mail out first, that you could see; is that correct?
Russell Graybill: Correct, yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: So there's kind of a flap that's like, as I'm demonstrating, where the mail rests on top of the mailbox, correct?
Russell Graybill: Correct.

[ekg]

ekg... thanks for the pictures..but it is still hard to tell.. I enlarged it further..however, the testimony is very clear...


Mark Geragos: When you went to the Medinas, what kind of a mailbox do they have?
Russell Graybill: They have a mailbox that is a security mailbox where you drop the mail down in the box, and then you have to catch this little flap that has the outgoing mail in it. You have pull that out first in order to put the mail in the box.
Mark Geragos: So when you would go there on the Medinas mailbox, normally what would happen is you would have to pull the outgoing mail out first, that you could see; is that correct?
Russell Graybill: Correct, yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: So there's kind of a flap that's like, as I'm demonstrating, where the mail rests on top of the mailbox, correct?
Russell Graybill: Correct.


I recognized it pretty quickly but I have an advantage in that my mom delivered mail up until last yr and as a kid 'd go to work with her(and h-a-t-e-d it!-lol)

but it reminded of these kinds of boxes

http://www.thesolargroup.com/MSK.gif



yeah the pic isn't the best...but add it with the testimony from the Medina's and the mailman and IMO you've got pretty hard evidence that for Todd to see mail sticking out he had to have been there b/t the Medina's leaving and Graybill coming that morning..

[attorneywan2be]

I recognized it pretty quickly but I have an advantage in that my mom delivered mail up until last yr and as a kid 'd go to work with her(and h-a-t-e-d it!-lol)

but it reminded of these kinds of boxes

http://www.thesolargroup.com/MSK.gif



yeah the pic isn't the best...but add it with the testimony from the Medina's and the mailman and IMO you've got pretty hard evidence that for Todd to see mail sticking out he had to have been there b/t the Medina's leaving and Graybill coming that morning..

The way I understand this, the flap close to the top of the mailbox is where they put the outgoing mail..I'm just wondering, would the outgoing mail be sticking out regardless of the size/quantity of the letters being mailed out?

IMO, Todd most definitely lied about seeing the mail on Dec 26th..the only time he could have seen the mail is between 10:32 am and 10:50 am on Dec 24th...!

[dallasvic]

Bless Hooch and bless you for recognizing his need to be active and having the heart to do the right thing. These dogs are awesome and not just any old dog can do it. I have a friend who has a black lab who was trained as a cadaver dog. Her name is Shadow (same as one of my dogs) and she was at Ground Zero. She, too, had to be retired afterwards because of the infection she got from the debris. She is his beloved pet now and is getting up in age, but her heroic efforts at the WTC will always be remembered.

Hi ,
That is sooooooooo cool to talk to someone that knows about dogs like these first hand. Hooch was given 4 booties for his feet at the site ,He to injured his paw with all that twisted metal like razor blades.

as they say it is true that these type dogs in some instances maybe used wrong ,but with the right handler they do their job like they were trained it would be the handler at fault not the dogs.

[dallasvic]

Can anyone tell me if they brought up if there were anchors that came with SP boat. I know he told Laci's brother the made one but never found out if there were anchors that came with the boat. And if so were are they now?

[attorneywan2be]

Can anyone tell me if they brought up if there were anchors that came with SP boat. I know he told Laci's brother the made one but never found out if there were anchors that came with the boat. And if so were are they now?

The seller testified that he sold Scott the boat without anchors..

[thinkaboutit]

I don't know TAI, when looking for the "we want those" quote, I came across an interview the P's did with Time. Like so many other details, I forgot about it.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,444968,00.html

A few quotes:



I find it odd that they mention themselves first -- they're not charged with anything, nor had anyone accused them of having any sort of a record. Its like SP is an after thought.

In this interview, LP refers to Conner as "the baby" twice, JP refers to him as "her baby". Laci being gone is barely referred to, except they say they're grieving, and the first mention is as "Scott's wife". That just bothers me, IMO there's a real coldness bordering on resentment toward Laci and the fact that she was murdered with their son standing accused.

Anyone help my memory on the statement I bolded below?



I never heard that! I don't think I did -- ring a bell for anyone else?

Hi Otter.... but the way I look at it is this is April 20, 2003 - first and foremost on their minds is their son has been arrested for murder. They have had 4 months to grieve over the loss of Laci and Conner. And references to Conner as her baby or the baby - don't bother me - because they were never given the opportunity to meet Conner or bond with him. I know from my own experience with my husband - when I was pregnant - he had no interest in feeling a kick - the bond he feels with our son started when he was able to hold him in his arms - and he is a WONDERFUL father.

I think Lee is just saying - consider Scott's family - meaning consider how he was raised - he wouldn't do something like this. It could have been in response to the question - what reasons can you give us that support his innocence?

And in the beginning of the "interview" it clearly states this is only "Excepts from their conversation" - I think it is supposed to say excerpts. We don't know what else they said - what was edited out. Chances are - they are responding to specific questions asked of them - and the editors included what they wanted to include.

[cookiewench]

That interview is very disturbing. Calling Laci "the body"; the lies ("he didn't try to sell the house"), and saying that he sold the truck and bought a car because "his job changed", when we all know that he didn't have a job at all. And the way they keep correcting each other, as if one of them has told too much, or told the wrong lie.

Also:

Lee Peterson: "And one of these gentlemen — and they are prominent people — he's a three-term council member up there and an attorney, and they saw her and they know her and the police have disregarded this. If it doesn't fit their theory, by God, they don't want to investigate it. I just can't be any more emphatic than that. And we're gonna pursue this thing."

C'mon.

Geragos could have called any of these so-called witnesses into court if he'd wanted to.

The fact is that they DIDN'T pursue it, or they pursued it to the point where they realized that it was not a credible sighting.

[thinkaboutit]

That interview is very disturbing. Calling Laci "the body"; the lies ("he didn't try to sell the house"), and saying that he sold the truck and bought a car because "his job changed", when we all know that he didn't have a job at all. And the way they keep correcting each other, as if one of them has told too much, or told the wrong lie.

Also:

Lee Peterson: "And one of these gentlemen — and they are prominent people — he's a three-term council member up there and an attorney, and they saw her and they know her and the police have disregarded this. If it doesn't fit their theory, by God, they don't want to investigate it. I just can't be any more emphatic than that. And we're gonna pursue this thing."

C'mon.

Geragos could have called any of these so-called witnesses into court if he'd wanted to.

The fact is that they DIDN'T pursue it, or they pursued it to the point where they realized that it was not a credible sighting.

So it's your position that the MPD checked out all these Laci sightings and NONE of them were credible - and that's why Geragos didn't call one witness who claimed to have seen Laci?

[Wudge]

The way I understand this, the flap close to the top of the mailbox is where they put the outgoing mail..I'm just wondering, would the outgoing mail be sticking out regardless of the size/quantity of the letters being mailed out?

IMO, Todd most definitely lied about seeing the mail on Dec 26th..the only time he could have seen the mail is between 10:32 am and 10:50 am on Dec 24th...!

All security mailboxes have size dependcies in some way, at some size point special handling from the sender to the mailman would have to be made.

[accordn2me]

So it's your position that the MPD checked out all these Laci sightings and NONE of them were credible - and that's why Geragos didn't call one witness who claimed to have seen Laci?I'll stand by that statement.

I'm sure it was quick....like what time did you see her? If they said after 10:30....bye!

OK...it probably wasn't that simple...but you know....

Do you really think the police blew off credible sightings of Laci and focused on framing Scott?

[accordn2me]

All security mailboxes have size dependcies in some way, at some size point special handling from the sender to the mailman would have to be made.
Mr. W....


I posted some pics on the "Blowing off Steam" thread to try and give perspective on what you can/can't see from a distance. Even when I'm on shore and looking through binoculars....I can't tell what the small fishing boats are up to. These pics are from the ocean to shore......

[cookiewench]

So it's your position that the MPD checked out all these Laci sightings and NONE of them were credible - and that's why Geragos didn't call one witness who claimed to have seen Laci?

If any of the sightings had shown the least credibility, of course Geragos would have called them. He was desperate.

[thinkaboutit]

I'll stand by that statement.

I'm sure it was quick....like what time did you see her? If they said after 10:30....bye!

OK...it probably wasn't that simple...but you know....

Do you really think the police blew off credible sightings of Laci and focused on framing Scott?

Yes......not in the sense that they checked these sightings out - they appeared credible and they blew them off anyway.....but in the sense that they were so convinced Scott had done this - and that Laci had not gone walking - they simply didn't do a thorough investigation of the sightings. And this is supported by people who had claimed to have seen Laci on the right day - at the right time - and were never contacted by the police.

And I'm not suggesting that the investigation of SP should have been completely dropped and they should have changed their entire focus to the sightings or other suspects. But I think their efforts should have been divided a little bit better to cover all bases. I don't think a sighting at 10:40 should have been dismissed based on one woman's account that she found the dog at 10:30 - or even after she altered her account to 10:18 based on time stamp receipts. You'd think - that before you dismiss these other witnesses - the MPD would have at least wanted to verify the accuracy of that receipt - if they wanted the truth. But why bother - when Servas' account supported their theory. What if all those other witnesses were right - and Servas was wrong?

[cookiewench]

Why didn't Geragos call these witnesses into court? Where are they? If I saw someone who was supposed to have been murdered before I even saw her, I'd be calling LE every day, and then I'd call Geragos.

The fact is, that when someone disappears there are always a lot of people who THINK they saw that person.

[JustMyOpinion]

The fact is, that when someone disappears there are always a lot of people who THINK they saw that person.

ITA. ( which explains: "193 Laci sightings" after she vanished ("in 26 states")
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20041112-1443-ca-lacipeterson.html

[thinkaboutit]

Now while I certainly wouldn't expect the MPD to go running and immediately checking Laci sightings in another state - a good place to start would be to check out the many sightings that occurred that morning on that day.

You can't deny that there were people who said they saw Laci - at that time - on that day - and called the MPD many times and never got a call back - or got a call back for the first time after SP's trial started. Grogan's calling and interviewing a witness after the trial started was a sad attempt at CYA - to say - see - this sighting wasn't credible - well alot of good it does after you know the victim is dead.

You can point out that there are often false sightings in a missing persons case - but it doesn't change the fact that there were witnesses who could not be discredited without being interviewed - and they were never interviewed - nor is it a valid excuse for not checking them.

And you can point out that Geragos didn't call any of these people as witnesses - but it doesn't change the above fact either.

And you can point out that the MPD had 10000 tips to comb through - and couldn't possibly have called all of them. Well - maybe they could have investigated all of those tips - by postponing their search for a dead body by a couple of days and spent that manpower checking Laci sightings.

I don't see Geragos as being desperate at all. It's clear to me that Geragos thought - and he said it himself - he didn't think there was enough evidence to convict. He told the jury that he did not defend this case. Dalton interviewed many of these witnesses, himself, found many of these witnesses credible - and even he has no idea why Geragos didn't put them on the stand.

It's argued over and over again - that Geragos did the best he could with what he had to work with - yet Geragos saw all the evidence against Scott and still states he believes he is innocent. You can call him a liar - but as I've pointed out - it makes no sense for him to lie about this. It only makes him look more incompetent as a lawyer if he is so convinced that SP is innocent. And he has stated this on more than one occasion - even after he cashed that big fat check from the Petersons. And Dalton is convinced SP is innocent too.

What I don't understand - is the refusal to admit that these sightings should have been checked (by the MPD). :shrug:

[JustMyOpinion]

What I don't understand - is the refusal to admit that these sightings should have been checked (by the MPD). :shrug:

I don't have access to the 40,000 plus pages of discovery, I haven't read the total content of each of the 10,000 plus tips, nor have I interviewed the officers who took the actual tips. It isn't a "refusal to admit" anything, I don't have enough actual, precise information to form an opinion on why a specific tip was deemed credible, or not credible. JMO

[thinkaboutit]

I don't have access to the 40,000 plus pages of discovery, I haven't read the total content of each of the 10,000 plus tips, nor have I interviewed the officers who took the actual tips. It isn't a "refusal to admit" anything, I don't have enough actual, precise information to form an opinion on why a specific tip was deemed credible, or not credible. JMO

Yes - it is a refusal. Because you have the testimony of the lead detective saying to his knowledge - no one called these people back - and that the first time anyone contacted the witness he contacted after the trial started (I can't remember his name right now) was then. And you have Grogan's testimony that the Laci sightings were not a priority at the end of December. And the content of these tips was testified to.

[JustMyOpinion]

Yes - it is a refusal. Because you have the testimony of the lead detective saying to his knowledge - no one called these people back - and that the first time anyone contacted the witness he contacted after the trial started (I can't remember his name right now) was then. And you have Grogan's testimony that the Laci sightings were not a priority at the end of December. And the content of these tips was testified to.

?? Unless I interview the person who took the tip, and read the content of the tip, I have no way to know why a tip was or was not deemed credible. Testimony about some content of a tip is not the same as testimony from the person who took the tip, or the same as reading the entire content of the actual tip, IMO.
I do agree MPD did investigate some of these tips after trial started ( they were well-aware Geragos was trying to impugn their investigation as a defense strategy, ) IMO.

[thinkaboutit]

?? Unless I interview the person who took the tip, and read the content of the tip, I have no way to know why a tip was or was not deemed credible. Testimony about some content of a tip is not the same as testimony from the person who took the tip, or the same as reading the entire content of the actual tip, IMO.
I do agree MPD did investigate some of these tips after trial started ( they were well-aware Geragos was trying to impugn their investigation as a defense strategy, ) IMO.

And obviously they felt Geragos had grounds to do so - if they felt the need to cover their butts. If they were confident in the investigation they did - they wouldn't have bothered, imo.

So unless you actually talk to the person that took the tip - AND read the content of the tip - you have no way of knowing if that tip was credible.

What does talking to the person who took the tip have to do with anything? What they heard - they wrote down - right?. And we have the testimony of the content of the tip. The bottom line is....you can't know if a witness is credible from the content of the tip - not if it's the right day and the right time and the right description of Laci Peterson.

[JustMyOpinion]

And obviously they felt Geragos had grounds to do so - if they felt the need to cover their butts. If they were confident in the investigation they did - they wouldn't have bothered, imo.

So unless you actually talk to the person that took the tip - AND read the content of the tip - you have no way of knowing if that tip was credible.

What does talking to the person who took the tip have to do with anything? What they heard - they wrote down - right?. And we have the testimony of the content of the tip. The bottom line is....you can't know if a witness is credible from the content of the tip - not if it's the right day and the right time and the right description of Laci Peterson.

I think impugning the investigation is a fairly common defense strategy, and I think MPD was wise to prepare by actually interviewing some of these tipsters in the event they were directly asked questions about these tips under oath, JMO
Talking to the person(s) who actually took the tip and actually reading the entire content of the tip would provide insight into why it was or was not deemed credible.. ( i.e. the person taking the tip may have asked several questions of the caller) JMO
I disagree with you, police officers are trained to determine credibility of tips/information. They can, IMO.

[deputydi]

<snip>I don't see Geragos as being desperate at all. It's clear to me that Geragos thought - and he said it himself - he didn't think there was enough evidence to convict. He told the jury that he did not defend this case. Dalton interviewed many of these witnesses, himself, found many of these witnesses credible - and even he has no idea why Geragos didn't put them on the stand.<snip>
He was dead wrong about that and it is (IMO) foolish to assume a jury will not convict based upon what the defense attorney "thinks". No one can predict with certainty what a jury will do. If he believed that any of these sightings were credible, he had all the information he needed to interview some or all of them and put them on the stand. LE probably considered it a waste of time to check out leads that they believed couldn't be accurate. They did check out the ones they considered valid. Nothing on God's green earth stopped MG from checking out the ones he thought would prove it was impossible for Scott to have killed Laci (or at least create reasonable doubt).

It's also not true that MG presented "no" defense. That would have been him not calling a single witness and resting his case immediately following the prosecution's CIC. He didn't do that. He did mount somewhat of a defense -- a pretty pathetic one, but a defense nonetheless. Why do you suppose HE didn't call some of these "credible" witness to testify? Could it be that even he didn't find them all that credible?

I will, no doubt, go to my grave wondering what kind of strategy he was trying to use. Truly, I do not understand it. Even that crazy woman, Susan Polk, managed to defend herself better than MGs representation of Scott. Having said this, I still don't believe it amounts to incompetence -- bad judgment, yes -- but nothing that will succeed on appeal.

[dallasvic]

I have one thing I would like to say before I am gone for the night.
When the police have a missing person or homicide and a missing person alot more then most turns out to be a homicide after 48 hours. The police should even if they have a person of interest follow up on all leads no matter how small they maybe because that person of interest could be look at life or death if convicted.
This is the reason that alot, (not all) persons on prison have been wrongfully convicted of a crime they did not commit. An I am NOT stating the SP is, but if I was on a jury of a murder trial I would always wonder if we convicted someone and they spent many years in prison because of my decision I could never live with that on my mind. Yall know what I mean?

[JustMyOpinion]

I have one thing I would like to say before I am gone for the night.
When the police have a missing person or homicide and a missing person alot more then most turns out to be a homicide after 48 hours. The police should even if they have a person of interest follow up on all leads no matter how small they maybe because that person of interest could be look at life or death if convicted.
This is the reason that alot, (not all) persons on prison have been wrongfully convicted of a crime they did not commit. An I am NOT stating the SP is, but if I was on a jury of a murder trial I would always wonder if we convicted someone and they spent many years in prison because of my decision I could never live with that on my mind. Yall know what I mean?

Hi dallasvic
After reviewing all the available information about this investigation, I do believe police pursued proper investigative procedure ( they did do a parallel investigation into the dog-walking abduction scenario vs domestic homicide).IMO
I do agree with you that serving on a jury is a solemn duty. Based on what many of SP's jurors have said, I believe they undertook their task with seriousness and deliberated the evidence that came before them in accordance with the instructions they were given. IMO. I don't think any of them have expressed any sense of "joy" about the decision, those who have spoken/written appear to be satisfied at the correctness of their verdict. JMO

[ekg]

I have one thing I would like to say before I am gone for the night.
When the police have a missing person or homicide and a missing person alot more then most turns out to be a homicide after 48 hours. The police should even if they have a person of interest follow up on all leads no matter how small they maybe because that person of interest could be look at life or death if convicted.
This is the reason that alot, (not all) persons on prison have been wrongfully convicted of a crime they did not commit. An I am NOT stating the SP is, but if I was on a jury of a murder trial I would always wonder if we convicted someone and they spent many years in prison because of my decision I could never live with that on my mind. Yall know what I mean?

just the simple things like the mail in the Medina's mailbox not being able to be seen if it was 'delivered' mail so the only mail Todd could have seen is the outgoing mail that was there on the 24th sometime after the Medina's left and Graybill got there...is enough to tell me they just skim coated everything that didn't include a scenario that Scott killed her....

it doesn't necessarily mean Todd did anything..... it just means if they skim coated that, what else did they skim over...

it seeems like every month there is another person exonerated for whatever crime he was convicted of..No, at this time there is no DNA to help/hurt Scott.... but since IMO MPD just skimmed the surface in the 1st place, we don't know that there won't ever be DNA somewhere else...

[accordn2me]

just the simple things like the mail in the Medina's mailbox not being able to be seen if it was 'delivered' mail so the only mail Todd could have seen is the outgoing mail that was there on the 24th sometime after the Medina's left and Graybill got there...is enough to tell me they just skim coated everything that didn't include a scenario that Scott killed her....

it doesn't necessarily mean Todd did anything..... it just means if they skim coated that, what else did they skim over...

it seeems like every month there is another person exonerated for whatever crime he was convicted of..No, at this time there is no DNA to help/hurt Scott.... but since IMO MPD just skimmed the surface in the 1st place, we don't know that there won't ever be DNA somewhere else...:eek: Like where?