Scott Peterson's appeal

[ekg]

LOL! :biggrin:

The bread, not being found in the house, bolsters the State's contention that Laci wasn't alive past the wee hours of 12/24, as she never got the chance to shop for it.

IMO
unless she was going shopping in the wee-hours of the morning it only helps Scott imo...it just shows another thing he didn't lie about..

[thinkaboutit]

Well, maybe she was - looking to see where she was backing out of the driveway. Maybe she was looking over her shoulder out the driver's window. I don't see how you can claim for certain any of your allegations.


I'll leave it at that - imo you are refusing to see what is obviously there. Servas was very clear about where she found the dog. And it is clear from your google map that the Medina's had a clear view of Servas' driveway from the south side of their house.


http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=516+Covena,+modesto,+ca&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=45.8712,81.738281&ie=UTF8&ll=37.645976,-120.97209&spn=0.001408,0.002494&t=k&z=19&om=1

[attorneywan2be]

No, but you change facts - like saying that the meringue happened at 9:49 and that Laci did her shopping on the 22nd

I'm sorry but she didn't say that Laci made her shopping on the 22nd..I think you need to read her post again...

[thinkaboutit]

No, but you change facts - like saying that the meringue happened at 9:49 and that Laci did her shopping on the 22nd

So now I'm changing facts? :lol: I was a minute off on the meringue - I said 9:49 instead of 9:48 - which isn't even to my positions advantage.

Please quote my post where I said that Laci did her shopping on the 22nd?

[thinkaboutit]

Woohoo...I found this...:D

Laci's phone was not dead..I think this should put the notion that her phone was dead to rest...

On December 23rd..Scott called Laci's cell phone at 10:47 am

Click exhibit 203A-1 ..scroll down to 12/23 at 10:47 am her cell phone number : 209-402-8806

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/P203.htm

Good find AW - he also called her cell on the 18th!!

[ekg]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, MG does a great cross. So, in the opinion of someone who sure doesn't count, ineffective counsel doesn't seem in the cards.

Or the receipts.

The devil in this case is not in the details, he wasn't that clever. MOO.


huh....... another witness that changes his testimony... only this one did it in the same trial...

is this a normal occurrence in trials?

[Lavindar]

huh....... another witness that changes his testimony... only this one did it in the same trial...

is this a normal occurrence in trials?

what witness are you referring to?

[attorneywan2be]

Good find AW - he also called her cell on the 18th!!

Thanks ...exactly..!! I think that totally refutes the notion that Laci's phone was not working for weeks...so far no comment from the posters that stated that Laci's phone was not working...!!!

[ekg]

Woohoo...I found this...:D

Laci's phone was not dead..I think this should put the notion that her phone was dead to rest...

On December 23rd..Scott called Laci's cell phone at 10:47 am

Click exhibit 203A-1 ..scroll down to 12/23 at 10:47 am her cell phone number : 209-402-8806

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/P203.htm

VERY good find aw2b....:beer: :beer:

[Lavindar]

VERY good find aw2b....:beer: :beer: One problem, ekg. IT does NOT say that he actually talked to her. In fact, since her phone was in her car and she was at home, it's unlikely he DID talk to her

[ekg]

ekg - she went back and did the stopwatch thing in January of 2003. She never used the clock in her car to retrace her steps at all.

She realized that at 5:05 it would have been totally dark out on Dec 24th so she realized that she much have been wrong on the time - she could NOT have seen the package in the mailbox when it was DARK out, so she went back and looked at her daytimer and caught the 4:00 time. Maybe leaving her house 5 minutes late meant she was 5 minuts late, not that she was actually 5 minutes late in arriving. That was never clear in the testimony.

Nevertheless, she was VERY clear on her time of putting MacKenzie in the yard. No wavering there at all.

I think Karen is just one of those HONEST people who tries to get it right, not some nefarious person in on convicting Scott.

I don't believe she was nefarious either.... I also don't believe there is any proof at all that she put the dog up at that time.... only her word.. and she did change her word a cpl times..... sure it was to narrow something down or correct an error or just a mistake.... but you would not give Jackie Peterson the same slack would you?

it's also been shown that the Medinas didn't see any of what KS described.... and Amie and Terra heard Mac barking after KS said she put him up..... IMO she didn't put him up when she left, but put him up later in the day and once she had already re-traced and re-stated her statement to LE on the subject, IMO she thought she would look crazy to come back and say once again, oops I was wrong......

I believe she only wanted to help Laci and Sharon anyway she could... and if that meant keeping that one little tidbit, wait I'm sorry THE tidbit that made the case against SP like no other piece did, she was happy to keep it to herself....

[aingael]

Good find AW - he also called her cell on the 18th!!




From what I can see there were 5 entries on the18th and none of them were to Laci’s number. Would you mind pointing me to what you are referring to?

On December 18, Laci and Scott were in Carmel with Mr. and Mrs. Peterson, why would he call Laci’s cell when they went in his truck?

The call on the 24th was 1 minute, which doesn’t confirm anything other than he called the cell number and in my opinion got her voice mail.

Neither thing changes the fact that Laci’s cell phone didn’t work

[Lavindar]

VERY good find aw2b....:beer: :beer:

Earliest call I see on there is 1/26/2002 Please provide ONLY the sheet that proves the 23rd. I could not find it among those posted

[Lavindar]

I don't believe she was nefarious either.... I also don't believe there is any proof at all that she put the dog up at that time.... only her word.. and she did change her word a cpl times..... sure it was to narrow something down or correct an error or just a mistake.... but you would not give Jackie Peterson the same slack would you?

it's also been shown that the Medinas didn't see any of what KS described.... and Amie and Terra heard Mac barking after KS said she put him up..... IMO she didn't put him up when she left, but put him up later in the day and once she had already re-traced and re-stated her statement to LE on the subject, IMO she thought she would look crazy to come back and say once again, oops I was wrong......

I believe she only wanted to help Laci and Sharon anyway she could... and if that meant keeping that one little tidbit, wait I'm sorry THE tidbit that made the case against SP like no other piece did, she was happy to keep it to herself....

Testimony was that it COULD have been Mac, not that it WAS Mac

[thinkaboutit]

From what I can see there were 5 entries on the18th and none of them were to Laci’s number. Would you mind pointing me to what you are referring to?

On December 18, Laci and Scott were in Carmel with Mr. and Mrs. Peterson, why would he call Laci’s cell when they went in his truck?

The call on the 24th was 1 minute, which doesn’t confirm anything other than he called the cell number and in my opinion got her voice mail.

Neither thing changes the fact that Laci’s cell phone didn’t work

IIRC - there were times during their trip to Carmel when Laci and Jackie went one way and Scott and Lee went another - perhaps it was one of those times. The entry says the call was at 3:32:16 (which would actually be 12:32) and the number is 209-402-8806.

No one has provided anything other than a Globe article to support that Laci's cell wasn't working.

Skimming through the records he also called it twice on the 13th, once on the 12th, once on the 11th, once on the 10th - that's as far as I went.

[ekg]

Maybe the Globe got it from Catherine Crier who wrote in her book that Jackie Peterson said "everyone knows Laci's cell phone hasn't worked for weeks!"


or CC got it from the globe....:shrug: The Globe article came out before CC's book didn't it?

either way, aw2b posted the calls and Scott had called her phone on the 23rd..... so I'd say both CC and the globe were wrong...


and are we taking quadruple hearsay now as real? Jackie might have said something to someone who told the Globe, who told CC and she put it her book so it must be real?

ya know... on a side note b/c it made me think of the game"Six degrees of Kevin Bacon" game.. where almost any star can be linked to him in under 6 turns?

here's a link

http://www.geocities.com/theeac/bacon.html

well I can be linked to him in 3 turns...... which is much more than can be said for linking Jackie to that quote CC said she made..:tongue:

[ekg]

you are assuming facts not in evidence.

Martha Stewart woudln't do that

after the globe story, YOU USED, you're going tell me I'm assuming facts not in evidence?

and what evidence am I assuming? that she went to France for cooking lessons or that she would rather have fresh bread over frozen bread?

[attorneywan2be]

Earliest call I see on there is 1/26/2002 Please provide ONLY the sheet that proves the 23rd. I could not find it among those posted


I provided the link in my original post..

click 203A-1 then open it..scroll down to 12/23/02 at 10:47 am..Laci's cell phone :209-402-8806

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/P203.htm

[Lavindar]

after the globe story you're going tell me I'm assuming facts not in evidence?

and what evidence am I assuming? that she went to France for cooking lessons or that she would rather have fresh bread over frozen bread?

the whole bread issue. She bought ingredients for creme brule bread, and the recipe for the same was on the frig. Scott claimed she was going to do some shopping, but there was no bread inthe house. Another reason he should have been concerned imo. Now people are saying that he told Amber something else. It's all just more tossing in of junk into the mix that has nothing to do with anything. Laci had a recipe for a specific French toast on her frig. She went shopping on the 23rd and bought ingredients to make that recipe. Why would she change her mind. She obviously did NOT go shopping on 24th at all - dead bodies don't shop. NO one saw her shopping, she didn't talk to or see anyone who KNEW her after the night of the 23rd other than Scott - which makes him a suspect then and there

[ekg]

Well, it obviously didn't slip Scott's - yet he didn't bother to call Amy OR EVEN TAKE HER PHONE CALL


but I was replying to DD when she said

he may have forgotten all about his promise to Amy, but I'll bet the farm Laci didn't.

[ekg]

WHAT?? Says who? Both are tabloid trash. It's like comparing a box of rotten apples to the box right next to it, also full of rotten apples. :confused:

ITA........ so I don't know why their articles are being used as evidence of anything


and I will say that the NE is a little more respectable...... but yeah, your example is still a good one...

[Lavindar]

or CC got it from the globe....:shrug: The Globe article came out before CC's book didn't it?

either way, aw2b posted the calls and Scott had called her phone on the 23rd..... so I'd say both CC and the globe were wrong...


and are we taking quadruple hearsay now as real? Jackie might have said something to someone who told the Globe, who told CC and she put it her book so it must be real?

ya know... on a side note b/c it made me think of the game"Six degrees of Kevin Bacon" game.. where almost any star can be linked to him in under 6 turns?

here's a link

http://www.geocities.com/theeac/bacon.html

well I can be linked to him in 3 turns...... which is much more than can be said for linking Jackie to that quote CC said she made..:tongue: Except that many people HEARD that comment by Jackie - that
"everyone" knew Laci's phone didn't work. She must have said it on Greta or one of those shows.

[I'mSun]

Thanks ...exactly..!! I think that totally refutes the notion that Laci's phone was not working for weeks...so far no comment from the posters that stated that Laci's phone was not working...!!!The time listed for that call is 1 minute. It proves neither her phone was working, nor that they spoke to each other. In fact, with a time of 1 minute, you can be fairly certain there was NO conversation. Keep in mind, too, that all calls were rounded off to the closest minute. So, it is possible the call actually lasted maybe 30 seconds. All it proves is that Laci's NUMBER was working and that someone, probably Scott, called.

[Lavindar]

but I was replying to DD when she saidok, but WHY DID he not take Amy's call or try to call her to get the basket? Why did he call Laci, and when he didn't reach her, why did he not call Amy back and tell lher? WE already know he's a few brain cells short, but Amy would imo be angrier at NOT getting the basket than she would at his forgetting to get it. Was he embarrassed to admit he had NOT been golfing? Not good enough.

[ekg]

ETA: I just found another statement that Karen Servas changed..it is regarding the phone call she made at 10:38 am after leaving Austin's

I got back into my car and made a phone call----> I made a phone call when I was between Austin's and Starbuck's ..

and why do I need to believe her again?

[ekg]

No, but you change facts - like saying that the meringue happened at 9:49 and that Laci did her shopping on the 22nd





wasn't the meringue at 9:49

[Lavindar]

and why do I need to believe her again? because it backs up the time of the Austin's receipt and proves that teh dog was in the yard BEFORE 10:30

[ekg]

because it backs up the time of the Austin's receipt and proves that teh dog was in the yard BEFORE 10:30

no L it doesn't...

it in no way proves she put the dog up at that time.... it only proves how long it took her to get to the store....that's all.

[ekg]

what witness are you referring to?

so far we in the last cpl posts have Servas and the Austins guy...the other day we have Dr. Peterson...

[ekg]

One problem, ekg. IT does NOT say that he actually talked to her. In fact, since her phone was in her car and she was at home, it's unlikely he DID talk to her


no it just shows that either the phone worked or he didn't know it didn't work since he called it on the 18th and the 23rd..:beer:

[ekg]

the whole bread issue. She bought ingredients for creme brule bread, and the recipe for the same was on the frig. Scott claimed she was going to do some shopping, but there was no bread inthe house. Another reason he should have been concerned imo. Now people are saying that he told Amber something else. It's all just more tossing in of junk into the mix that has nothing to do with anything. Laci had a recipe for a specific French toast on her frig. She went shopping on the 23rd and bought ingredients to make that recipe. Why would she change her mind. She obviously did NOT go shopping on 24th at all - dead bodies don't shop. NO one saw her shopping, she didn't talk to or see anyone who KNEW her after the night of the 23rd other than Scott - which makes him a suspect then and there




please post something saying it was french bread she needed...b/c I thought she had a recipe sitting on the counter or something that plainly asks for Challah bread?

she bought everything except for the bread..... which she was going to go out and buy on the 24th like Scott said she was going to do..she was also going to do it after walking the dog..... the dog was found in the road with his leash on, and indication that he was being walked... we've pretty much destroyed KS testimony so we're back to plenty of time for someone else to have done something to Laci before she was able to get to the store that day...

was the recipe made and in the fridge when Scott got home do we know?

[ekg]

Except that many people HEARD that comment by Jackie - that
"everyone" knew Laci's phone didn't work. She must have said it on Greta or one of those shows.




what ppl heard it? and it's still major hearsay isn't it?

[attorneywan2be]

The time listed for that call is 1 minute. It proves neither her phone was working, nor that they spoke to each other. In fact, with a time of 1 minute, you can be fairly certain there was NO conversation. Keep in mind, too, that all calls were rounded off to the closest minute. So, it is possible the call actually lasted maybe 30 seconds. All it proves is that Laci's NUMBER was working and that someone, probably Scott, called.

The point is that some people here contended that Scott knew that Laci's phone was not working when he called her on the 24th..meaning, that he just did that as part of his sinister plan for whatever reason..however, he did call her on her cell phone on Dec 23rd...whether or not he talked to her for few seconds or none at all or just leaving a message or whatever..it is really irrelevant..the point is again, he called her on her cell phone prior to Dec 24th..

[I'mSun]

The point is that some people here contended that Scott knew that Laci's phone was not working when he called her on the 24th..meaning, that he just did that as part of his sinister plan for whatever reason..however, he did call her on her cell phone on Dec 23rd...whether or not he talked to her for few seconds or none at all or just leaving a message or whatever..it is really irrelevant..the point is again, he called her on her cell phone prior to Dec 24th..It is very possible that on the 23rd he was laying the groundwork for the 24th. Remember, Scott is a manipulator and a liar. So, we never know for sure what he is up to or planning.

[aingael]

please post something saying it was french bread she needed...b/c I thought she had a recipe sitting on the counter or something that plainly asks for Challah bread?

she bought everything except for the bread..... which she was going to go out and buy on the 24th like Scott said she was going to do..she was also going to do it after walking the dog..... the dog was found in the road with his leash on, and indication that he was being walked... we've pretty much destroyed KS testimony so we're back to plenty of time for someone else to have done something to Laci before she was able to get to the store that day...

was the recipe made and in the fridge when Scott got home do we know?


I am the one that stated she could have substituted french bread, like many of us do when we don't have the ingredients or cannot find the ingredients.

The leash does not indicate that he was being walked. He could have been on his leash, tied up to the fence and gotten off. Scott could, and probably did, put him on the leash and let him loose so it would look like Laci had been walking him. I am of this opinion because if Laci had been walking him in the park and something happened the leash would have been dirtier than it was and also, Mac would have stayed at the park because that is where she last was. Dogs are funny like that sometime.

I firmly do not believe that you have destroyed Karen's testimony. You gave no concrete proof that any of it was wrong. You gave suppositions but no proof that it was wrong. That is my opinion and I believe there are many who will agree with me.

[Lavindar]

wasn't the meringue at 9:49

9:48 By changing the time for one minutes leads one down the "slippery slope" of falacious reasoning.

[Lavindar]

I am the one that stated she could have substituted french bread, like many of us do when we don't have the ingredients or cannot find the ingredients.

The leash does not indicate that he was being walked. He could have been on his leash, tied up to the fence and gotten off. Scott could, and probably did, put him on the leash and let him loose so it would look like Laci had been walking him. I am of this opinion because if Laci had been walking him in the park and something happened the leash would have been dirtier than it was and also, Mac would have stayed at the park because that is where she last was. Dogs are funny like that sometime.

I firmly do not believe that you have destroyed Karen's testimony. You gave no concrete proof that any of it was wrong. You gave suppositions but no proof that it was wrong. That is my opinion and I believe there are many who will agree with me.

I am one. And Karen testified that the gate was open - I believe she even said "wide" open. Many people testified that Mac was protective of Laci

[aingael]

no it just shows that either the phone worked or he didn't know it didn't work since he called it on the 18th and the 23rd..:beer:

Or it shows by the number of calls he made on that one cell phone of his that he doesn't know which end is up. It's hard to remember everything when you are planning a murder.

Case in point, he called home and left a message about grandpa's basket and didn't think to call anyone else since Laci didn't answer. Yet he always called everyone else. That to me is suspect in itself.

[Lavindar]

what ppl heard it? and it's still major hearsay isn't it?
I figure if Geragos was able to get it into the trial that we could do it here also.

Geragos got in statements by Kristen Reed as to laci wanting to start walking again, yet ne never called her. That's LEGAL hearsay and not legal in a court. He was able to get Ann Bird's telling Grogan what Scott told her in testimony too. Seems hearsay is only not okay if it's done by anyone who thinks Scott is guilty.

[Lavindar]

no L it doesn't...

it in no way proves she put the dog up at that time.... it only proves how long it took her to get to the store....that's all.

I disagree. Her receipt from Austins was at 10:34 - her phone call was at 10:38, both documented in court. She could not have gotten from her house to Austins, purchased some items and checked out in 4 minutes - particularly since she did two turns around of the B of A parking lot on her way.

[Lavindar]

please post something saying it was french bread she needed...b/c I thought she had a recipe sitting on the counter or something that plainly asks for Challah bread?

she bought everything except for the bread..... which she was going to go out and buy on the 24th like Scott said she was going to do..she was also going to do it after walking the dog..... the dog was found in the road with his leash on, and indication that he was being walked... we've pretty much destroyed KS testimony so we're back to plenty of time for someone else to have done something to Laci before she was able to get to the store that day...

was the recipe made and in the fridge when Scott got home do we know?


Since the photographs were taken the night of the 23rd, it would have been there unless SCOTT put it there.

we do not know what was in the frig. Since Nava did not testify that Laci ws doing much of anything on the 23rd, she would have had to do it AFTER the haircuts and Scott said they ate pizza and watched TV, not that she prepared anything

[Lavindar]

please post something saying it was french bread she needed...b/c I thought she had a recipe sitting on the counter or something that plainly asks for Challah bread?

she bought everything except for the bread..... which she was going to go out and buy on the 24th like Scott said she was going to do..she was also going to do it after walking the dog..... the dog was found in the road with his leash on, and indication that he was being walked... we've pretty much destroyed KS testimony so we're back to plenty of time for someone else to have done something to Laci before she was able to get to the store that day...

was the recipe made and in the fridge when Scott got home do we know?
Laci went shopping and left her purse at home and the house unlocked? Ekg, start suspended the scott-is-innocent-at-all-costs and start listening to what you are saying.

Where is the evidence that the dog was walked? No one saw her that testified. No one saw the dog dragging the leash but Karen and that was early in the day. No one saw Laci being abducted so you have no REASON to believe she was walking the dog at all - other than witnesses who saw her walking the dog AFTER the dog was put back in the yard or BEFORE Scott left the house

[TopGunner]

Thanks ...exactly..!! I think that totally refutes the notion that Laci's phone was not working for weeks...so far no comment from the posters that stated that Laci's phone was not working...!!!


No comment AW2B because I wasn't here all day:

Here you go:

key. As Brocchini opens the cab door, it hits Laci Peterson's Land Rover parked beside the pickup truck. Brocchini states that he will be more careful, then searches the cab of Scott Peterson's truck. In the cab, he finds shopping bags with lures and a receipt, and several items of clothing that are later taken in as evidence. He also finds a handgun that he takes into evidence immediately. After searching the truck, Brocchini realizes he has misplaced his keys and asks Scott Peterson to unlock the truck again before locating the keys on the truck's wheel well. Brocchini also searches Laci Peterson's Land Rover and finds her cell phone with dead batteries. Doug Ridenour Jr. brings a Minolta 35mm flash camera to Brocchini. Modesto Police Department officials determine Laci Peterson is not someone who would have simply "run off," and they launch an immediate search of the neighborhood and East La Loma Park. Lt. Bruce Able and a half-dozen officers go into the park.


And, as previously stated (several times):

CC's Book - page 78

Around 4:30, Jackie and Lee Peterson arrived at the house. Scott's mother had just left the news conference. She was complaining about Chief Wasden's comment that it would be strage for Laci to go walking without her cell phone. "Everybody knows Laci's cell phone had been dead for weeks," she griped. "So why would she be taking it on walks with her?"

When I read this in the police report, I wondered why Jackie was already interpreting this comment as an indictment of her son. (CC speaking).

[Lavindar]

gNo comment AW2B because I wasn't here all day:

Here you go:

key. As Brocchini opens the cab door, it hits Laci Peterson's Land Rover parked beside the pickup truck. Brocchini states that he will be more careful, then searches the cab of Scott Peterson's truck. In the cab, he finds shopping bags with lures and a receipt, and several items of clothing that are later taken in as evidence. He also finds a handgun that he takes into evidence immediately. After searching the truck, Brocchini realizes he has misplaced his keys and asks Scott Peterson to unlock the truck again before locating the keys on the truck's wheel well. Brocchini also searches Laci Peterson's Land Rover and finds her cell phone with dead batteries. Doug Ridenour Jr. brings a Minolta 35mm flash camera to Brocchini. Modesto Police Department officials determine Laci Peterson is not someone who would have simply "run off," and they launch an immediate search of the neighborhood and East La Loma Park. Lt. Bruce Able and a half-dozen officers go into the park.


And, as previously stated (several times):

CC's Book - page 78

Around 4:30, Jackie and Lee Peterson arrived at the house. Scott's mother had just left the news conference. She was complaining about Chief Wasden's comment that it would be strage for Laci to go walking without her cell phone. "Everybody knows Laci's cell phone had been dead for weeks," she griped. "So why would she be taking it on walks with her?"

When I read this in the police report, I wondered why Jackie was already interpreting this comment as an indictment of her son. (CC speaking).
good detective work TG

[Lavindar]

no it just shows that either the phone worked or he didn't know it didn't work since he called it on the 18th and the 23rd..:beer:

Yet his MOTHER knew. AMAZING!!!!!!!!

[I'mSun]

*snipped*

CC's Book - page 78

Around 4:30, Jackie and Lee Peterson arrived at the house. Scott's mother had just left the news conference. She was complaining about Chief Wasden's comment that it would be strage for Laci to go walking without her cell phone. "Everybody knows Laci's cell phone had been dead for weeks," she griped. "So why would she be taking it on walks with her?"

When I read this in the police report, I wondered why Jackie was already interpreting this comment as an indictment of her son. (CC speaking).Thanks for finding this, TG! Given the above, I think it is safe to assume Scott knew the phone wasn't working, since his Mother even knew.

[adnoid]

...the dog was found in the road with his leash on, and indication that he was being walked...

You can believe that if you want. I do not.

...we've pretty much destroyed KS testimony...

Not even close.

[Lavindar]

Been reading those very interesting phoen logs. Anyone else think this is a little strange?


Scott calls Laci's phone at 12:18am and 12:57am on Christmas day? He knows that Brocchini has seen that Laci's phone is in the Land Rover. I have to wonder if he left more "hi Beautiful messages" for her.

Also interesting is that it would appear that Brighton towers were not busy at all that day as most of his calls are through that tower.

I have found two more towers MUCH CLOSER TO THE high shopping area than the cell tower at 929 Woodland. I woudl think these towers would be utilized rather than the more distant one that WAS NOT utilized on Scott's call.

2701 Rumble which is right off Sisk (where Target, the Mall and Toys R Us) are located.

and

2012 W, Brigsmore which is between Sisk and Prescott (Walmart is a short distance from this location.

So anyone doing last minute shopping on the 23rd or 24th at any of the "high shopping" areas in Modesto would most likely NOT be utilizing the Woodland cell towers at all.

[ekg]

It is very possible that on the 23rd he was laying the groundwork for the 24th. Remember, Scott is a manipulator and a liar. So, we never know for sure what he is up to or planning.


what do you think it more reasonable?

That The Globe was wrong, as tabloid usually are

or Scott called Laci's phone on and off for the month of December so he could pretend like her phone worked?

if it wasn't working why did she still have it in the car?

if her phone wasn't working why did Ron call it?

if her phone wasn't working why didn't Sharon know?

You guys say you're only here for the truth....... we'll here's your chance... a rumor startedby a tabloid and mimicked by a profiteer has been proven false.... you can either believe that tabloid or you can believe the CE that proves noone knew her phone didn't work b/c it did work....

[TopGunner]

Been reading those very interesting phoen logs. Anyone else think this is a little strange?


Scott calls Laci's phone at 12:18am and 12:57am on Christmas day? He knows that Brocchini has seen that Laci's phone is in the Land Rover. I have to wonder if he left more "hi Beautiful messages" for her.

Also interesting is that it would appear that Brighton towers were not busy at all that day as most of his calls are through that tower.

I have found two more towers MUCH CLOSER TO THE high shopping area than the cell tower at 929 Woodland. I woudl think these towers would be utilized rather than the more distant one that WAS NOT utilized on Scott's call.

2701 Rumble which is right off Sisk (where Target, the Mall and Toys R Us) are located.

and

2012 W, Brigsmore which is between Sisk and Prescott (Walmart is a short distance from this location.

So anyone doing last minute shopping on the 23rd or 24th at any of the "high shopping" areas in Modesto would most likely NOT be utilizing the Woodland cell towers at all.



Dang Lavindar, you're good! :patriot:

[ekg]

I figure if Geragos was able to get it into the trial that we could do it here also.

Geragos got in statements by Kristen Reed as to laci wanting to start walking again, yet ne never called her. That's LEGAL hearsay and not legal in a court. He was able to get Ann Bird's telling Grogan what Scott told her in testimony too. Seems hearsay is only not okay if it's done by anyone who thinks Scott is guilty.


but that's someone telling a COP something and him repeating it under oath......... it's a little different than a tabloid saying something and then a profiteer saying it again...

[ekg]

Since the photographs were taken the night of the 23rd, it would have been there unless SCOTT put it there.

we do not know what was in the frig. Since Nava did not testify that Laci ws doing much of anything on the 23rd, she would have had to do it AFTER the haircuts and Scott said they ate pizza and watched TV, not that she prepared anything

exactly............. so if it was prepared in the fridge, then she did it that morning....meaning, she was alive after he left

funny how we just don't know the answer to that tho....

[adnoid]

Dang Lavindar, you're good! :patriot:

:beer: I totally agree! Good point!

[adnoid]

Been reading those very interesting phoen logs. Anyone else think this is a little strange?


Scott calls Laci's phone at 12:18am and 12:57am on Christmas day? He knows that Brocchini has seen that Laci's phone is in the Land Rover. I have to wonder if he left more "hi Beautiful messages" for her.

Also interesting is that it would appear that Brighton towers were not busy at all that day as most of his calls are through that tower.

I have found two more towers MUCH CLOSER TO THE high shopping area than the cell tower at 929 Woodland. I woudl think these towers would be utilized rather than the more distant one that WAS NOT utilized on Scott's call.

2701 Rumble which is right off Sisk (where Target, the Mall and Toys R Us) are located.

and

2012 W, Brigsmore which is between Sisk and Prescott (Walmart is a short distance from this location.

So anyone doing last minute shopping on the 23rd or 24th at any of the "high shopping" areas in Modesto would most likely NOT be utilizing the Woodland cell towers at all.


:beer: I totally agree! Good point!

[frydaddy]

Been reading those very interesting phoen logs. Anyone else think this is a little strange?


Scott calls Laci's phone at 12:18am and 12:57am on Christmas day? He knows that Brocchini has seen that Laci's phone is in the Land Rover. I have to wonder if he left more "hi Beautiful messages" for her.

Also interesting is that it would appear that Brighton towers were not busy at all that day as most of his calls are through that tower.

I have found two more towers MUCH CLOSER TO THE high shopping area than the cell tower at 929 Woodland. I woudl think these towers would be utilized rather than the more distant one that WAS NOT utilized on Scott's call.

2701 Rumble which is right off Sisk (where Target, the Mall and Toys R Us) are located.

and

2012 W, Brigsmore which is between Sisk and Prescott (Walmart is a short distance from this location.

So anyone doing last minute shopping on the 23rd or 24th at any of the "high shopping" areas in Modesto would most likely NOT be utilizing the Woodland cell towers at all.

IMO, the 12:18 call was Brocchini using Scott's cell phone to check the voice mails per the interview transcript. The call at 12:57 was Scott reviewing them to keep his story straight or deleting them, also MO. I also believe the cell phone worked so long as Laci was in the car with it running, or at least the car was powering the cell phone.

[TopGunner]

exactly............. so if it was prepared in the fridge, then she did it that morning....meaning, she was alive after he left

funny how we just don't know the answer to that tho....


Or after the cleaning woman left, and before the haircut. You're right, we'll never know.

[adnoid]

IMO, the 12:18 call was Brocchini using Scott's cell phone to check the voice mails per the interview transcript. The call at 12:57 was Scott reviewing them to keep his story straight or deleting them, also MO. I also believe the cell phone worked so long as Laci was in the car with it running, or at least the car was powering the cell phone.


:beer: I totally agree! Good point!

[adnoid]

Or after the cleaning woman left, and before the haircut. You're right, we'll never know.


:beer: I totally agree! Good point!

[attorneywan2be]

No comment AW2B because I wasn't here all day:

Here you go:

key. As Brocchini opens the cab door, it hits Laci Peterson's Land Rover parked beside the pickup truck. Brocchini states that he will be more careful, then searches the cab of Scott Peterson's truck. In the cab, he finds shopping bags with lures and a receipt, and several items of clothing that are later taken in as evidence. He also finds a handgun that he takes into evidence immediately. After searching the truck, Brocchini realizes he has misplaced his keys and asks Scott Peterson to unlock the truck again before locating the keys on the truck's wheel well. Brocchini also searches Laci Peterson's Land Rover and finds her cell phone with dead batteries. Doug Ridenour Jr. brings a Minolta 35mm flash camera to Brocchini. Modesto Police Department officials determine Laci Peterson is not someone who would have simply "run off," and they launch an immediate search of the neighborhood and East La Loma Park. Lt. Bruce Able and a half-dozen officers go into the park.


And, as previously stated (several times):

CC's Book - page 78

Around 4:30, Jackie and Lee Peterson arrived at the house. Scott's mother had just left the news conference. She was complaining about Chief Wasden's comment that it would be strage for Laci to go walking without her cell phone. "Everybody knows Laci's cell phone had been dead for weeks," she griped. "So why would she be taking it on walks with her?"

When I read this in the police report, I wondered why Jackie was already interpreting this comment as an indictment of her son. (CC speaking).

TopGunner..the point that is not being addressed is that Scott called Laci on her cell phone several times during the month of December, Dec 23rd being the latest call he made to her on her cell phone PRIOR to Dec 24th...I think this totally REFUTES the notion that her phone was not working and Scott knew about it and that he just called her cell on the 24th as part of a cynical plan....

[TopGunner]

TopGunner..the point that is not being addressed is that Scott called Laci on her cell phone several times during the month of December, Dec 23rd being the latest call he made to her on her cell phone PRIOR to Dec 24th...I think this totally REFUTES the notion that her phone was not working and Scott knew about it and that he just called her cell on the 24th as part of a cynical plan....


Aw2b - you're comment was that none of us were producing the SOURCE to back up what we said, i.e., comments were made that Laci's cell was dead. I took the time to do just that.

You can believe ISP, I wouldn't expect otherwise. I wouldn't believe his shoe size if he were to give it. We both entitled.:seeya:

[I'mSun]

TopGunner..the point that is not being addressed is that Scott called Laci on her cell phone several times during the month of December, Dec 23rd being the latest call he made to her on her cell phone PRIOR to Dec 24th...I think this totally REFUTES the notion that her phone was not working and Scott knew about it and that , he just called her cell on the 24th as part of a cynical plan....
And I think it totally lays the foundation for his alibi. His mother knew the phone didn't work, Laci knew it didn't work and it just isn't reasonable to think Scott didn't know it was not working.

[TopGunner]

And I think it totally lays the foundation for his alibi. His mother knew the phone didn't work, Laci knew it didn't work and it just isn't reasonable to think Scott didn't know it was not working.

Thank you Sun......I woulda said more, but I was watching the end of Wife Swap which was hysterically funny. Sorry! LOL....

[attorneywan2be]

IMO, the 12:18 call was Brocchini using Scott's cell phone to check the voice mails per the interview transcript. The call at 12:57 was Scott reviewing them to keep his story straight or deleting them, also MO. I also believe the cell phone worked so long as Laci was in the car with it running, or at least the car was powering the cell phone.


Not really ..Brocchini called both times:

Page 10 of 29
PETERSON: Right, right, it’s my, you know E-Bay, ATM, debit or credit card, combo, you Know.
BROCCHINI: Did, did you, you didn’t get something in the store?
PETERSON: Uh uh. (negative)
BROCCHINI: Okay when, when you got in the car what did you call you said?
PETERSON: I called Laci ah just as I was leaving the marina.
BROCCHINI: Home phone?
PETERSON: Told her where I was, ah, home and the mobile.
BROCCHINI: What’s your home number?
PETERSON: 524-2049.
BROCCHINI: You left a message?
PETERSON: Yes.
BROCCHINI: And then what’s your mobile?
PETERSON: 402-8806.
BROCCHINI: Do you know her, ah, do you know her password?
PETERSON: 8184.
BROCCHINI: So if we called, if you called her number and ah if they would tell you, Doesn’t it? Does it tell you what time the call comes in?
PETERSON: Ah I don’t know if it’s time stamped, try it out. Yesterday at 2:16.
BROCCHINI: Can I hear?
PETERSON: Yeah.
BROCCHINI: You know how to repeat it?
PETERSON: I think 9.
Long pause
BROCCHINI: How many messages did she have? Two?
PETERSON: Two new ones.
Page 11 of 29
BROCCHINI: Okay, I’ll save it, it was probably her dad or somebody.
Long pause, listening to messages on phone.
BROCCHINI: Okay here.

--------------------------
Page 27 of 29
BROCCHINI: I saved it.
PETERSON: Saved today at 12:17 AM.
BROCCHINI: Is that what that says.
PETERSON: Yeah
BROCCHINI: I don’t know, let me listen, cause I have…
PETERSON: Either…
BROCCHINI: You didn’t save…
PETERSON: First time…
BROCCHINI: Oh really…
PETERSON: Well, I save it, then you saved it, I had to, then you saved it.
BROCCHINI: okay.
PETERSON: Then it said yesterday at 12:17 you’d be right.
BROCCHINI: Right, right.
Pause
BROCCHINI: Yeah, you’re right, Okay, it’s says when I saved it.

[attorneywan2be]

:beer: I totally agree! Good point!


Sorry to disappoint you..I posted the TS of the interview..Brocchini made both calls...:D

[TopGunner]

Sorry to disappoint you..I posted the TS of the interview..Brocchini made both calls...:D

AW2B, I have a hunch Adnoid's not disappointed, LOL...

Anyhow, so he made both calls, SO? I have lost (maybe never had) the point here.:D

[I'mSun]

Sorry to disappoint you..I posted the TS of the interview..Brocchini made both calls...:DWhy would that disappoint Adnoid? Or, anyone?

[attorneywan2be]

Aw2b - you're comment was that none of us were producing the SOURCE to back up what we said, i.e., comments were made that Laci's cell was dead. I took the time to do just that.

You can believe ISP, I wouldn't expect otherwise. I wouldn't believe his shoe size if he were to give it. We both entitled.:seeya:


I agree we are both entitled to our opinion..let me ask you this, according to the phone bill, Scott made several calls to Laci's cell during the month of December up until Dec 23rd, and we know he also made that call on Dec 24th...if Laci's phone was not working for weeks..IYO, why was he calling Laci on her cell phone throughout the month of December?

[woohoo]

no L it doesn't...

it in no way proves she put the dog up at that time.... it only proves how long it took her to get to the store....that's all.

It proves how long it took her to get to Austins on the day she did the reenactment. Not necessarily on Christmas Eve. And again, if she could duplicate the traffic and had a regulation stopwatch in good working order!

I didn't see a stopwatch placed in evidence.

[I'mSun]

what do you think it more reasonable?

That The Globe was wrong, as tabloid usually are

or Scott called Laci's phone on and off for the month of December so he could pretend like her phone worked?

if it wasn't working why did she still have it in the car?

if her phone wasn't working why did Ron call it?

if her phone wasn't working why didn't Sharon know?

You guys say you're only here for the truth....... we'll here's your chance... a rumor startedby a tabloid and mimicked by a profiteer has been proven false.... you can either believe that tabloid or you can believe the CE that proves noone knew her phone didn't work b/c it did work....
This was posted by TopGunner earlier and it should answer your questions.
And, as previously stated (several times):
*snip*
CC's Book - page 78

Around 4:30, Jackie and Lee Peterson arrived at the house. Scott's mother had just left the news conference. She was complaining about Chief Wasden's comment that it would be strage for Laci to go walking without her cell phone. "Everybody knows Laci's cell phone had been dead for weeks," she griped. "So why would she be taking it on walks with her?"

When I read this in the police report, I wondered why Jackie was already interpreting this comment as an indictment of her son. (CC speaking).

[attorneywan2be]

AW2B, I have a hunch Adnoid's not disappointed, LOL...

Anyhow, so he made both calls, SO? I have lost (maybe never had) the point here.:D

The point that frydaddy made that Scott made the second call to listen to the message to keep his story straight...

Hey...I was just joking about Adnoid being disappointed..:D

[TopGunner]

I agree we are both entitled to our opinion..let me ask you this, according to the phone bill, Scott made several calls to Laci's cell during the month of December up until Dec 23rd, and we know he also made that call on Dec 24th...if Laci's phone was not working for weeks..IYO, why was he calling Laci on her cell phone throughout the month of December?


AW2B, this is an excellent question, and one I can't answer. All I can do is suggest you ask Jackie, 'cause she's the one that said everyone knew it hadn't worked for weeks. I am just the messenger here. :biggrin:

[Lavindar]

This was posted by TopGunner earlier and it should answer your questions.
And, as previously stated (several times):
*snip*
CC's Book - page 78

Around 4:30, Jackie and Lee Peterson arrived at the house. Scott's mother had just left the news conference. She was complaining about Chief Wasden's comment that it would be strage for Laci to go walking without her cell phone. "Everybody knows Laci's cell phone had been dead for weeks," she griped. "So why would she be taking it on walks with her?"

When I read this in the police report, I wondered why Jackie was already interpreting this comment as an indictment of her son. (CC speaking).

Was Sharon ever asked this question to confirm or deny?

[adnoid]

AW2B, I have a hunch Adnoid's not disappointed...

:beer: I totally agree! Good point!

[adnoid]

Why would that disappoint Adnoid? Or, anyone?

:beer: I totally agree! Good point!

[adnoid]

...All I can do is suggest you ask Jackie, 'cause she's the one that said everyone knew it hadn't worked for weeks...


:beer: I totally agree! Good point!

[TopGunner]

:beer: I totally agree! Good point!


Why thank you Adnoid, now gimmie those car keys, LOL! :beer:

[attorneywan2be]

AW2B, this is an excellent question, and one I can't answer. All I can do is suggest you ask Jackie, 'cause she's the one that said everyone knew it hadn't worked for weeks. I am just the messenger here. :biggrin:

LOL..I didn't hear Jackie say it..no one provided a link to the TS of her direct statement...I would not rely on a report where someone is basically quoting her...it's hearsay...:D on the other hand, the phone bill (people's exhibit 203A-1) where his calls to her cell phone are reflected is hard evidence that her cell phone was being used...

[TopGunner]

LOL..I didn't hear Jackie say it..no one provided a link to the TS of her direct statement...I would not rely on a report where someone is basically quoting her...it's hearsay...:D on the other hand, the phone bill (people's exhibit 203A-1) where his calls to her cell phone are reflected is hard evidence that her cell phone was being used...


Oh no:no: no:no: no:no: you don't! It wasn't ONE report, heresay, at that. I posted 2 independent sources. Catherine Crier saying she herself read it in a police report is not what I would define as heresay, this is not a court of law.

I could provide more sources, but the information was stated. It was not made up as earlier implied. :no:

[frydaddy]

Not really ..Brocchini called both times:

Page 10 of 29
PETERSON: Right, right, it’s my, you know E-Bay, ATM, debit or credit card, combo, you Know.
BROCCHINI: Did, did you, you didn’t get something in the store?
PETERSON: Uh uh. (negative)
BROCCHINI: Okay when, when you got in the car what did you call you said?
PETERSON: I called Laci ah just as I was leaving the marina.
BROCCHINI: Home phone?
PETERSON: Told her where I was, ah, home and the mobile.
BROCCHINI: What’s your home number?
PETERSON: 524-2049.
BROCCHINI: You left a message?
PETERSON: Yes.
BROCCHINI: And then what’s your mobile?
PETERSON: 402-8806.
BROCCHINI: Do you know her, ah, do you know her password?
PETERSON: 8184.
BROCCHINI: So if we called, if you called her number and ah if they would tell you, Doesn’t it? Does it tell you what time the call comes in?
PETERSON: Ah I don’t know if it’s time stamped, try it out. Yesterday at 2:16.
BROCCHINI: Can I hear?
PETERSON: Yeah.
BROCCHINI: You know how to repeat it?
PETERSON: I think 9.
Long pause
BROCCHINI: How many messages did she have? Two?
PETERSON: Two new ones.
Page 11 of 29
BROCCHINI: Okay, I’ll save it, it was probably her dad or somebody.
Long pause, listening to messages on phone.
BROCCHINI: Okay here.

--------------------------
Page 27 of 29
BROCCHINI: I saved it.
PETERSON: Saved today at 12:17 AM.
BROCCHINI: Is that what that says.
PETERSON: Yeah
BROCCHINI: I don’t know, let me listen, cause I have…
PETERSON: Either…
BROCCHINI: You didn’t save…
PETERSON: First time…
BROCCHINI: Oh really…
PETERSON: Well, I save it, then you saved it, I had to, then you saved it.
BROCCHINI: okay.
PETERSON: Then it said yesterday at 12:17 you’d be right.
BROCCHINI: Right, right.
Pause
BROCCHINI: Yeah, you’re right, Okay, it’s says when I saved it.

I stand corrected and now that you've posted it, I recall this being discussed in the CTV days.

[I'mSun]

LOL..I didn't hear Jackie say it..no one provided a link to the TS of her direct statement...I would not rely on a report where someone is basically quoting her...it's hearsay...:D on the other hand, the phone bill (people's exhibit 203A-1) where his calls to her cell phone are reflected is hard evidence that her cell phone was being used...Her statement was in a police report.

[attorneywan2be]

Oh no:no: no:no: no:no: you don't! It wasn't ONE report, heresay, at that. I posted 2 independent sources. Catherine Crier saying she herself read it in a police report is not what I would define as heresay, this is not a court of law.

I could provide more sources, but the information was stated. It was not made up as earlier implied. :no:


I'm entitled to my opinion and you are entitled to yours...

[TopGunner]

I'm entitled to my opinion and you are entitled to yours...

Hmmm.......where have I heard THAT before??? :tongue:

[Wearing A Halo]

She wasn't THAT pregnant. She had a month and a half to go - and they were just at the doctor's office the day before. Yes...the dog was on it's leash, in the backyard - yet no one finds it strange that Servas wasn't concerned when she found the pregnant Laci's dog in the street with it's leash on. Her car was there - but that doesn't mean she hadn't walked to a neighbors to talk to them about something. It was only 4:45 - no lights kind of goes with no one having been home for 15 minutes or so when it started to get dark out. Of course the mop bucket would still be there - it would have still been full of water and if she was too pregnant to lift it while filling it, like Scott said, then she would have been too pregnant to lift it to dump it as well.

So what is the difference between "THAT pregnant" and "too pregnant"?

[TopGunner]

So what is the difference between "THAT pregnant" and "too pregnant"?


Man, I don't know any 8 month pregnant woman who'd call herself not THAT pregnant. Most are waddling like penguins. :D

[woohoo]

I disagree. Her receipt from Austins was at 10:34 - her phone call was at 10:38, both documented in court. She could not have gotten from her house to Austins, purchased some items and checked out in 4 minutes - particularly since she did two turns around of the B of A parking lot on her way.

Could she have found Mac at 10:18 - went thru the motions of returning him to the yard - drive on to the BOA - make 2 trips around looking for a parking place - then drive on to Austins, park, shop, & check out with purchase by 10:34?

[TopGunner]

Was Sharon ever asked this question to confirm or deny?


Sharon freaked out about this in her book. She overheard ISP saying to KP on the phone "we need to let the MEDIA know that Laci's due date is Feb. 16th, not the 10th".

He repeated it "Conner was going to be born on the 16th, not the 10th which is what everyone's reporting."

Now why would he CARE what the media was reporting???

[woohoo]

LOL..I didn't hear Jackie say it..no one provided a link to the TS of her direct statement...I would not rely on a report where someone is basically quoting her...it's hearsay...:D on the other hand, the phone bill (people's exhibit 203A-1) where his calls to her cell phone are reflected is hard evidence that her cell phone was being used...

There were many mistakes in CC's book. It makes for more salacious reading and sells books.

[deputydi]

LOL..I didn't hear Jackie say it..no one provided a link to the TS of her direct statement...I would not rely on a report where someone is basically quoting her...it's hearsay...:D on the other hand, the phone bill (people's exhibit 203A-1) where his calls to her cell phone are reflected is hard evidence that her cell phone was being used...
I think it was said somewhere on this thread that it is probable the phone did work, but only when it was plugged in to something. I have a phone that won't hold a charge and I keep it in my car. It works fine as long as it is plugged into my cigarette lighter (or a regular house plug) but I cannot just put it in my purse and carry it around because it will lose its charge within 30 minutes.

Laci's phone may or may not have that problem and this isn't an issue I thought particularly important at the time of trial. If her phone wouldn't hold a charge, the earlier calls could have been received while she was driving. I think a more important test of whether the phone worked would be whether she made any calls from that phone prior to the 24th. It has also been pointed out that even an uncharged or nonworking phone can RECEIVE messages.

When I jump into one of these conversations, I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone and something that seems so obvious to me has been the subject of debate for pages. I always think I've missed a very important point. LOL.

[thinkaboutit]

No comment AW2B because I wasn't here all day:

Here you go:

key. As Brocchini opens the cab door, it hits Laci Peterson's Land Rover parked beside the pickup truck. Brocchini states that he will be more careful, then searches the cab of Scott Peterson's truck. In the cab, he finds shopping bags with lures and a receipt, and several items of clothing that are later taken in as evidence. He also finds a handgun that he takes into evidence immediately. After searching the truck, Brocchini realizes he has misplaced his keys and asks Scott Peterson to unlock the truck again before locating the keys on the truck's wheel well. Brocchini also searches Laci Peterson's Land Rover and finds her cell phone with dead batteries. Doug Ridenour Jr. brings a Minolta 35mm flash camera to Brocchini. Modesto Police Department officials determine Laci Peterson is not someone who would have simply "run off," and they launch an immediate search of the neighborhood and East La Loma Park. Lt. Bruce Able and a half-dozen officers go into the park.


And, as previously stated (several times):

CC's Book - page 78

Around 4:30, Jackie and Lee Peterson arrived at the house. Scott's mother had just left the news conference. She was complaining about Chief Wasden's comment that it would be strage for Laci to go walking without her cell phone. "Everybody knows Laci's cell phone had been dead for weeks," she griped. "So why would she be taking it on walks with her?"

When I read this in the police report, I wondered why Jackie was already interpreting this comment as an indictment of her son. (CC speaking).


CC's book is not 100% accurate. Neither are the police reports.

But let's say this is true. Even if Laci's cell battery would no longer hold a charge - it may still have worked while plugged into the cigarette lighter - when my phone is "dead" it works once it's plugged in. And if this was the case - there would have been no point in Laci taking it out of the car - which is exactly where it was found.

[Otter]

Oh for crying out loud. Let's all have a beer. :beer:

Ewww. I'd prefer Sonoma Cutrer.

[Otter]

CC's book is not 100% accurate. Neither are the police reports.

But let's say this is true. Even if Laci's cell battery would no longer hold a charge - it may still have worked while plugged into the cigarette lighter - when my phone is "dead" it works once it's plugged in. And if this was the case - there would have been no point in Laci taking it out of the car - which is exactly where it was found.

But SP is? He's shown to be a proven liar. 100% accuracy IMO. What part of the police reports are inaccurate? I would agree that the inaccuracy of these reports are things like the false sightings of Laci. A police report is just that -- a report, what some citizen said to an officer.

Hearsay.

[woohoo]

I think it was said somewhere on this thread that it is probable the phone did work, but only when it was plugged in to something. I have a phone that won't hold a charge and I keep it in my car. It works fine as long as it is plugged into my cigarette lighter (or a regular house plug) but I cannot just put it in my purse and carry it around because it will lose its charge within 30 minutes.

Laci's phone may or may not have that problem and this isn't an issue I thought particularly important at the time of trial. If her phone wouldn't hold a charge, the earlier calls could have been received while she was driving. I think a more important test of whether the phone worked would be whether she made any calls from that phone prior to the 24th. It has also been pointed out that even an uncharged or nonworking phone can RECEIVE messages.

When I jump into one of these conversations, I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone and something that seems so obvious to me has been the subject of debate for pages. I always think I've missed a very important point. LOL.

I have a cell just like the one you have described....and I posted that earlier. But Lavinder just doesn't see that as possible.

[woohoo]

CC's book is not 100% accurate. Neither are the police reports.

But let's say this is true. Even if Laci's cell battery would no longer hold a charge - it may still have worked while plugged into the cigarette lighter - when my phone is "dead" it works once it's plugged in. And if this was the case - there would have been no point in Laci taking it out of the car - which is exactly where it was found.

By GARTH STAPLEY
BEE STAFF WRITER

Last Updated: March 13, 2005, 03:19:00 AM PST
Plenty of mistakes to point out
The author's "unparalleled access" to secret documents — not to mention ample public records — did not exempt her from myriad errors ranging from careless to sloppy.Police, tailing Peterson on a drive to the Berkeley Marina, "contacted an unidentified subject in the parking lot." Crier wrote that a source told her "it's possible money was exchanged" and added that police reported nothing more about "this clandestine meeting," not even the license plate of the other driver.
Crier added that she has no reason to believe Peterson had an accomplice.
"We (police) did not release any copies of those reports," Applegate said.

[thinkaboutit]

Been reading those very interesting phoen logs. Anyone else think this is a little strange?


Scott calls Laci's phone at 12:18am and 12:57am on Christmas day? He knows that Brocchini has seen that Laci's phone is in the Land Rover. I have to wonder if he left more "hi Beautiful messages" for her.

Also interesting is that it would appear that Brighton towers were not busy at all that day as most of his calls are through that tower.

I have found two more towers MUCH CLOSER TO THE high shopping area than the cell tower at 929 Woodland. I woudl think these towers would be utilized rather than the more distant one that WAS NOT utilized on Scott's call.

2701 Rumble which is right off Sisk (where Target, the Mall and Toys R Us) are located.

and

2012 W, Brigsmore which is between Sisk and Prescott (Walmart is a short distance from this location.

So anyone doing last minute shopping on the 23rd or 24th at any of the "high shopping" areas in Modesto would most likely NOT be utilizing the Woodland cell towers at all.




Daniel White - the AT&T Wireless "guy" said that the cell activity would have dropped dramatically on Christmas day - not many people shopping on Christmas day.

Any idea what the range of these cell towers are? I already stated in my previous post about the cell towers - that if there was too much activity on the Rumble and Brigsmore towers - Woodland may have been the tower to pick up the slack. But we'll never know this - because there was never any real investigation done to find out Scott's location....the MPD didn't want to know if it was possible for him to be at the warehouse, IMHO.

[TopGunner]

There were many mistakes in CC's book. It makes for more salacious reading and sells books.

I don't recall any. Can you be more specific?

[Otter]

Daniel White - the AT&T Wireless "guy" said that the cell activity would have dropped dramatically on Christmas day - not many people shopping on Christmas day.

Any idea what the range of these cell towers are? I already stated in my previous post about the cell towers - that if there was too much activity on the Rumble and Brigsmore towers - Woodland may have been the tower to pick up the slack. But we'll never know this - because there was never any real investigation done to find out Scott's location....the MPD didn't want to know if it was possible for him to be at the warehouse, IMHO.

His defense had plenty of money -- why didn't they investigate that?

[TopGunner]

By GARTH STAPLEY
BEE STAFF WRITER

Last Updated: March 13, 2005, 03:19:00 AM PST
Plenty of mistakes to point out
The author's "unparalleled access" to secret documents — not to mention ample public records — did not exempt her from myriad errors ranging from careless to sloppy.Police, tailing Peterson on a drive to the Berkeley Marina, "contacted an unidentified subject in the parking lot." Crier wrote that a source told her "it's possible money was exchanged" and added that police reported nothing more about "this clandestine meeting," not even the license plate of the other driver.
Crier added that she has no reason to believe Peterson had an accomplice.
"We (police) did not release any copies of those reports," Applegate said.


Haha...........this proves the book was full of misinformation? One mistake that she says she doesn't believe?:eek:

[I'mSun]

Oh for crying out loud. Let's all have a beer. :beer:

Ewww. I'd prefer Sonoma Cutrer.
Sounds good to me, Otter! :beer:

[thinkaboutit]

But SP is? He's shown to be a proven liar. 100% accuracy IMO. What part of the police reports are inaccurate? I would agree that the inaccuracy of these reports are things like the false sightings of Laci. A police report is just that -- a report, what some citizen said to an officer.

Hearsay.


What's hearsay? And what does Scott's lying have to do with what we're talking about? To my knowledge, I never heard Scott say - "Laci's cell wasn't dead." So his credibility doesn't really come in to play in this case.

A police report is only as accurate as the note taking of the police officer.

One "inaccuracy" I can think of was in Brocchini's report - when he reported that Grogan and another officer interviewed a witness who claimed to have seen Laci. Grogan testified he never talked to the witness.

Like I said - Laci's cell phone could have been "dead" but still worked when plugged in in the car.

[thinkaboutit]

His defense had plenty of money -- why didn't they investigate that?

Maybe because all this cell phone nonsense didn't even come into play until Brocchini was called on the stand about his claim that meringue was never mentioned on the 24th. The prosecution didn't start researching that telephone call until after they realized meringue was mentioned at (let me sure I'm accurate here) - approx. 9:48 and they came to the conclusion that Scott did not leave the house at 9:30 - but left after 9:48 instead.

[TopGunner]

You know, not only did CC see it written in a police report that Jackie said everyone knew Laci's phone hadn't been working FOR WEEKS, but did anybody else find ISP "hey beautiful" message over the top? I thought it was so OBVIOUS what he was up to. IMO of course. :biggrin:

[Otter]

What's hearsay? And what does Scott's lying have to do with what we're talking about? To my knowledge, I never heard Scott say - "Laci's cell wasn't dead." So his credibility doesn't really come in to play in this case.

A police report is only as accurate as the note taking of the police officer.

One "inaccuracy" I can think of was in Brocchini's report - when he reported that Grogan and another officer interviewed a witness who claimed to have seen Laci. Grogan testified he never talked to the witness.

Like I said - Laci's cell phone could have been "dead" but still worked when plugged in in the car.

Thank you for expounding on the definition of a "police report".

Now, onto your 3rd paragraph ... Brocchini --> Grogan --> another officer --> a witness who claimed. ..

Oh c'mon! Show some common sense here. Is everything, absolutely everything perfect? Who did you talk to last week? Everywhere you went when you were on a mission and someone you talked to was distracting and took you off your path? You don't think that Grogan could smell out someone well meaning however totally off base?

You won't give him some credit? We're all armchair quarterbacks here, with NO background in LE. Sheesh.

[thinkaboutit]

I don't recall any. Can you be more specific?


Here's one:

Page 9:

"Have you been working all day?" Evers asked.

"I went fishing," Scott replied. Pulling a piece of paper from his pocket, he volunteered it to the officer. It was a receipt from the Berkeley Marina for 12:54 P.M. that afternoon.

The officers exchanged glances. Scott was certainly quick to provide proof of his whereabouts without being asked.

Now I know many of you will say - big deal. But when I was reading the book I thought - whoa - wait a minute. He's showered and changed and he still has this receipt handy to give to the officers. That IS suspicious. Turns out the receipt wasn't in his pocket at all. He retrieved it from the ashtray of the truck after being asked numerous times that night where he had been fishing. After being asked as many times as he was - what were you fishing for, where were you fishing, what did you use as bait - I would have retrieved the receipt to prove I was telling the truth too.

[thinkaboutit]

Thank you for expounding on the definition of a "police report".

Now, onto your 3rd paragraph ... Brocchini --> Grogan --> another officer --> a witness who claimed. ..

Oh c'mon! Show some common sense here. Is everything, absolutely everything perfect? Who did you talk to last week? Everywhere you went when you were on a mission and someone you talked to was distracting and took you off your path? You don't think that Grogan could smell out someone well meaning however totally off base?

You won't give him some credit? We're all armchair quarterbacks here, with NO background in LE. Sheesh.


Yeah okay - me not remembering everyone I talked to last week is the same thing as a policeman writing down that an officer spoke to a witness he never spoke to.

So you agree that police reports aren't going to be 100% accurate?....that's the only point I was trying to make.

Oh - and actually, I don't believe I defined what a police report is in my post.

[Otter]

Maybe because all this cell phone nonsense didn't even come into play until Brocchini was called on the stand about his claim that meringue was never mentioned on the 24th. The prosecution didn't start researching that telephone call until after they realized meringue was mentioned at (let me sure I'm accurate here) - approx. 9:48 and they came to the conclusion that Scott did not leave the house at 9:30 - but left after 9:48 instead.


MG got plenty of postponements before, why would Judge D not grant this one. IIRC, he got one to go to Kirk Douglas's son's funeral. All he had to do was ask. IMO.

Also IIRC, the timing made the prosecution timeline that much tighter, so maybe MG didn't want to go there.

[Otter]

Yeah okay - me not remembering everyone I talked to last week is the same thing as a policeman writing down that an officer spoke to a witness he never spoke to.

So you agree that police reports aren't going to be 100% accurate?....that's the only point I was trying to make.


A police report is hearsay. Its as accurate as the person reciting "facts" as they see it to the recording officer.

The recording officer could be the best stenographer that ever lived, the information is as good as the person relating it. Garbage in, garbarge out. Don't blame the messenger. Your point is not valid. MOO.

What do you have to say about the 1,000's of tips received?

ETA: A police is hearsay UNLESS the reporting officer witnessed what is described in the report.

[thinkaboutit]

AW2B, this is an excellent question, and one I can't answer. All I can do is suggest you ask Jackie, 'cause she's the one that said everyone knew it hadn't worked for weeks. I am just the messenger here. :biggrin:

Actually - what we know is.....

CC says a police officer overheard Jackie saying this and wrote it in a report. Now let's say this police officer did overhear Jackie saying this. I bet he'd check that out. Because if he could prove that everyone knew the phone was dead - then that would certainly be something they'd want to use in the trial. Ron called Laci's phone on the 24th at 5:30. And Sharon mentions nothing in her book about Laci's phone being dead.

Like DeputyDi said - this wasn't an issue at trial. If Scott calling Laci's cell was something suspicious - it would have been an issue.

[thinkaboutit]

A police report is hearsay. Its as accurate as the person reciting "facts" as they see it to the recording officer.

The recording officer could be the best stenographer that ever lived, the information is as good as the person relating it. Garbage in, garbarge out. Don't blame the messenger. Your point is not valid. MOO.

What do you have to say about the 1,000's of tips received?

ETA: A police is hearsay UNLESS the reporting officer witnessed what is described in the report.

How is it that my point is not valid - when I am (I think) making the same point you're making.

Maybe I'm lost - are you saying police reports are accurate or not?

[I'mSun]

Like DeputyDi said - this wasn't an issue at trial. If Scott calling Laci's cell was something suspicious - it would have been an issue.Funny - it may not have been an issue at trial, but it is now more than a 3 page issue here, with us! :biggrin:

[Otter]

Actually - what we know is.....

CC says a police officer overheard Jackie saying this and wrote it in a report. Now let's say this police officer did overhear Jackie saying this. I bet he'd check that out. Because if he could prove that everyone knew the phone was dead - then that would certainly be something they'd want to use in the trial. Ron called Laci's phone on the 24th at 5:30. And Sharon mentions nothing in her book about Laci's phone being dead.

Like DeputyDi said - this wasn't an issue at trial. If Scott calling Laci's cell was something suspicious - it would have been an issue.

Thank you, more definition of a "police report". Except, you say an officer overheard it. That's a different story entirely then. JP could have been impeached by this officer testifying to what he heard under oath.

IMO, the prosecution cut his family "some slack".

Sharon had, IMO bigger fish to fry in her book. May she some day find peace.

[Otter]

How is it that my point is not valid - when I am (I think) making the same point you're making.

Maybe I'm lost - are you saying police reports are accurate or not?

You're following me just fine. :tongue:

[Otter]

Funny - it may not have been an issue at trial, but it is now more than a 2 page issue here, with us! :biggrin:

Only 2 pages? We must have different settings. :biggrin:

[cookiewench]

Actually - what we know is.....

CC says a police officer overheard Jackie saying this and wrote it in a report. Now let's say this police officer did overhear Jackie saying this. I bet he'd check that out. Because if he could prove that everyone knew the phone was dead - then that would certainly be something they'd want to use in the trial. Ron called Laci's phone on the 24th at 5:30. And Sharon mentions nothing in her book about Laci's phone being dead.

Like DeputyDi said - this wasn't an issue at trial. If Scott calling Laci's cell was something suspicious - it would have been an issue.

Maybe they did check it out, and find that it was just another one of Jackie's lies.

Just another "Jackie story" - like the one about Laci hating her car and wanting to get rid of it.

Jackie would have it believed that Laci confided things in her that she never bothered to tell the people she was actually close to.

[thinkaboutit]

Thank you, more definition of a "police report". Except, you say an officer overheard it. That's a different story entirely then. JP could have been impeached by this officer testifying to what he heard under oath.

IMO, the prosecution cut his family "some slack".

Sharon had, IMO bigger fish to fry in her book. May she some day find peace.

Thank YOU - more sarcasm.

Yep - supposedly Jackie said this. Maybe someone from the family immediately said to her - No Jackie - she got a new battery a week ago.

I doubt the prosecution cut the family any slack.

[thinkaboutit]

Maybe they did check it out, and find that it was just another one of Jackie's lies.

Just another "Jackie story" - like the one about Laci hating her car and wanting to get rid of it.

Jackie would have it believed that Laci confided things in her that she never bothered to tell the people she was actually close to.


Didn't the Rocha's say they didn't care about the car either?

[I'mSun]

Only 2 pages? We must have different settings. :biggrin:
Sorry, it is more than 3 pages... I hit the wrong key.

[Lavindar]

It proves how long it took her to get to Austins on the day she did the reenactment. Not necessarily on Christmas Eve. And again, if she could duplicate the traffic and had a regulation stopwatch in good working order!

I didn't see a stopwatch placed in evidence.
She gave the LATEST time that she could have put the dog in the yard. Garegos accepted it - he even tried to say that a witness saw Laci and hour before she stated in the preliminary to fit with Karen's timeline

[Lavindar]

Thank you, more definition of a "police report". Except, you say an officer overheard it. That's a different story entirely then. JP could have been impeached by this officer testifying to what he heard under oath.

IMO, the prosecution cut his family "some slack".

Sharon had, IMO bigger fish to fry in her book. May she some day find peace.



It would help her a lot if people would stop making up stuff and trying to say it's truth when it was never heart at trial. The poor woman is hounded on the internet daily. People claiming that her significant other is a child molester, that his alibi was not checked out. It's horrible for her

[Otter]

Thank YOU - more sarcasm.

Yep - supposedly Jackie said this. Maybe someone from the family immediately said to her - No Jackie - she got a new battery a week ago.

I doubt the prosecution cut the family any slack.

You're reading sarcasm into nothing. Believe me, you'll know when I'm being sarcastic because I'm not into subtle. :)

I've not commented on the JP statement. But somehow, I don't believe anyone ever had to prompt her nor would they dare correct her in her speech. IMO of course.

IMO, the family was cut slack. They had enough grief, they were shown mercy.

[cookiewench]

Didn't the Rocha's say they didn't care about the car either?

Huh? Sharon expressed that she had little interest in owning the car after Laci death, although she did appreciate the gesture of the dealer who gave it back to her.

I don't understand what this has to do with Jackie's claim that Laci had told her - and only her - that she hated the car and wanted to get rid of it.

I am not getting the connection.

[Lavindar]

Could she have found Mac at 10:18 - went thru the motions of returning him to the yard - drive on to the BOA - make 2 trips around looking for a parking place - then drive on to Austins, park, shop, & check out with purchase by 10:34? Obviously she did. She timed how long it took her to do it and then subtracted it from 10:34.

[Lavindar]

It proves how long it took her to get to Austins on the day she did the reenactment. Not necessarily on Christmas Eve. And again, if she could duplicate the traffic and had a regulation stopwatch in good working order!

I didn't see a stopwatch placed in evidence.

And I don't see you doing anything to disprove it either.

[Otter]

It would help her a lot if people would stop making up stuff and trying to say it's truth when it was never heart at trial. The poor woman is hounded on the internet daily. People claiming that her significant other is a child molester, that his alibi was not checked out. It's horrible for her

Nothing as horrible as what she lived through and continues to live through. The rest is fantasy. That's a rock-solid family that support each other from what I gather.

[Lavindar]

I have a cell just like the one you have described....and I posted that earlier. But Lavinder just doesn't see that as possible.I did not say that. Brocchini tried the phone and it shut down when he tried to power it up. You can't call out on a phone that shuts down when you try to power it up. She had made a trip across town to Trader Joes the day before - about a half an hour drive in Christmas Traffic - It was across the street from the mall in 2002. Her phone would have been charging for half an hour there and half an hour home - approximately. It still did not have enough charge to power up? There's no evidence she used it during that time.
I

[thinkaboutit]

Huh? Sharon expressed that she had little interest in owning the car after Laci death, although she did appreciate the gesture of the dealer who gave it back to her.

I don't understand what this has to do with Jackie's claim that Laci had told her - and only her - that she hated the car and wanted to get rid of it.

I am not getting the connection.

Now we're both confused....when did Jackie say that Laci told her and ONLY her that she hated the car and wanted to get rid of it?

[attorneywan2be]

She gave the LATEST time that she could have put the dog in the yard. Garegos accepted it - he even tried to say that a witness saw Laci and hour before she stated in the preliminary to fit with Karen's timeline


Geragos accepted her timeline???

From Geragos closing argument:

You've got no evidence of that. There's no evidence anywhere in that house she was strangled. And, remember, Karen Servas says she lives 15 feet away from that house. You've seen the pictures. 15 feet. Karen Servas was home that morning. Obviously there's a dispute as to what time she left, but Karen Servas was home. And she clearly was home, according to her, up until 10:18

[thinkaboutit]

I did not say that. Brocchini tried the phone and it shut down when he tried to power it up. You can't call out on a phone that shuts down when you try to power it up. She had made a trip across town to Trader Joes the day before - about a half an hour drive in Christmas Traffic - It was across the street from the mall in 2002. Her phone would have been charging for half an hour there and half an hour home - approximately. It still did not have enough charge to power up? There's no evidence she used it during that time.
I


Lavindar - you've said things that lead me to believe that you know Sharon Rocha. Does Sharon Rocha say that Laci was not using her cell phone in the weeks prior to her going missing?

[Lavindar]

what do you think it more reasonable?

That The Globe was wrong, as tabloid usually are

or Scott called Laci's phone on and off for the month of December so he could pretend like her phone worked?

if it wasn't working why did she still have it in the car?

if her phone wasn't working why did Ron call it?

if her phone wasn't working why didn't Sharon know?

You guys say you're only here for the truth....... we'll here's your chance... a rumor startedby a tabloid and mimicked by a profiteer has been proven false.... you can either believe that tabloid or you can believe the CE that proves noone knew her phone didn't work b/c it did work....
She was also overheard by others inthe police department. I would believe Crier and apolice report before an anonymous poster with an agenda on a message board. Can you prove that it worked? Are there any lengthly (like over a minute) phone calls by scott to her phone - you know he spent more time calling himself than anyone else

[Lavindar]

Huh? Sharon expressed that she had little interest in owning the car after Laci death, although she did appreciate the gesture of the dealer who gave it back to her.

I don't understand what this has to do with Jackie's claim that Laci had told her - and only her - that she hated the car and wanted to get rid of it.

I am not getting the connection. The car is in the possession of the Rocha family. So thinkabout that for a while. Didn't one of Laci's friend call that car "so Laci." Seems to me that if it wasn't a Mercedes or a Jaguar in the PEterson mind, it was crap.

[cookiewench]

Now we're both confused....when did Jackie say that Laci told her and ONLY her that she hated the car and wanted to get rid of it?


She didn't.

I did.

Jackie claimed that Laci told her she hated that car.

Her friends and family said that Laci had never told them that she hated the car.

Jackie lied habitually. The car lie is just one example.

I don't think that anyone believes that Laci confided things in Jackie that she never bothered telling the people she was actually close to.

[thinkaboutit]

She was also overheard by others inthe police department. I would believe Crier and apolice report before an anonymous poster with an agenda on a message board. Can you prove that it worked? Are there any lengthly (like over a minute) phone calls by scott to her phone - you know he spent more time calling himself than anyone else

That must have been when he was retrieving all those voice-mails from Amber Frey.

Who's the poster with the agenda? And what is that agenda?

[Lavindar]

Or after the cleaning woman left, and before the haircut. You're right, we'll never know.Lacoo's doctor's appt was @ 2:45. and Nava testified she spent the afternoon sitting with her feet elevated. It would have had to have been after the haircut and Scott said they ate pizza and watched a movie and went to bed. Nothing about preparing anything.

[woohoo]

Haha...........this proves the book was full of misinformation? One mistake that she says she doesn't believe?:eek:

For example, she wrote that San Bernardino County — east of Los Angeles County — is a neighbor to Stanislaus County. More than once, she staged the trial in "Redwood," a mistake that irks residents of Redwood City. And she incorrectly wrote that Peterson awaits formal sentencing in Stanislaus County Jail; he remains behind bars in Redwood City.

Also, she inexplicably misspelled or used wrong names for numerous players in the case, including Distaso, juror Julie Zanartu, Carole Sund-Carrington memorial Reward Foundation Executive Director Kim Petersen, prosecution investigator Kevin Bertalotto, Dr. Tina Edraki, Peterson neighbor Amie Krigbaum, relative Darrin Grantski, New York Post correspondent Howard Breuer and scent-dog handler Cindee Valentin.

I guess if she used the wrong players in the case, she could have certainly used the wrong "quote."

[Lavindar]

There were many mistakes in CC's book. It makes for more salacious reading and sells books.

you have a right to your opinion and I disagree with it heartily, You have no proof that this was a lie or an error.

[thinkaboutit]

She didn't.

I did.

Jackie claimed that Laci told her she hated that car.

Her friends and family said that Laci had never told them that she hated the car.

Jackie lied habitually. The car lie is just one example.

I don't think that anyone believes that Laci confided things in Jackie that she never bothered telling the people she was actually close to.

I just don't understand why Laci mentioning in a conversation with the Petersons that the Landrover was a piece of (you know what) and that they were thinking of getting a new car when the baby came - and not having had that conversation with anyone in her own family is considered "confiding" in Jackie.

I don't agree that there is proof to your allegation that Jackie lied habitually. But we've been round and round about that - no point in going there. So I respectfully disagree.

[Lavindar]

For example, she wrote that San Bernardino County — east of Los Angeles County — is a neighbor to Stanislaus County. More than once, she staged the trial in "Redwood," a mistake that irks residents of Redwood City. And she incorrectly wrote that Peterson awaits formal sentencing in Stanislaus County Jail; he remains behind bars in Redwood City.

Also, she inexplicably misspelled or used wrong names for numerous players in the case, including Distaso, juror Julie Zanartu, Carole Sund-Carrington memorial Reward Foundation Executive Director Kim Petersen, prosecution investigator Kevin Bertalotto, Dr. Tina Edraki, Peterson neighbor Amie Krigbaum, relative Darrin Grantski, New York Post correspondent Howard Breuer and scent-dog handler Cindee Valentin.

I guess if she used the wrong players in the case, she could have certainly used the wrong "quote."
page numbers for all these errors please

[attorneywan2be]

Snip

Can you prove that it worked? Are there any lengthly (like over a minute) phone calls by scott to her phone

Snip



Over a minute calls

On Dec 10th at 11:35 am duration 2 minutes
On Dec 12th at 10:25 am duration 3 minutes

[woohoo]

And I don't see you doing anything to disprove it either.

Disprove what?? That there was no stopwatch in evidence??

[thinkaboutit]

The car is in the possession of the Rocha family. So thinkabout that for a while. Didn't one of Laci's friend call that car "so Laci." Seems to me that if it wasn't a Mercedes or a Jaguar in the PEterson mind, it was crap.

I don't know - did they? Can you provide a quote or a link or something?

I'd appreciate it, Lavindar, if you wouldn't mock my nic.

When Grogan contacted Sharon and told her that Scott had sold the Landrover - she told him she didn't care about the car - but she was concerned about some other sentimental items in Scott's possession.

[Lavindar]

Maybe they did check it out, and find that it was just another one of Jackie's lies.

Just another "Jackie story" - like the one about Laci hating her car and wanting to get rid of it.

Jackie would have it believed that Laci confided things in her that she never bothered to tell the people she was actually close to.


Crier does NOT say it was OVERHEARD by a police officer. She said it was in a police report.

[Lavindar]

Disprove what?? That there was no stopwatch in evidence??

You say Karen was wrong - yet how do you disprove her re-enactment. Did you drive that route? Yet you assume she is WRONG

[Lavindar]

Disprove what?? That there was no stopwatch in evidence??

You say Karen was wrong - yet how do you disprove her re-enactment. Did you drive that route? Yet you assume she is WRONG becasue you WANT it to be and nothing more

[Lavindar]

Lavindar - you've said things that lead me to believe that you know Sharon Rocha. Does Sharon Rocha say that Laci was not using her cell phone in the weeks prior to her going missing? I try not to discuss this with her as the wound is still too fresh. And I was not mocking you - I have a sticky keyboard and am disabled so have to work hard at typing. Sharon does not have the car, but the family does

[woohoo]

You say Karen was wrong - yet how do you disprove her re-enactment. Did you drive that route? Yet you assume she is WRONG becasue you WANT it to be and nothing more

You make a lot of assumptions about what I think. Is that why you said it twice?

Just so you are not confused about what I think:
I think to be able to do all she said she did in her reenactment in that length of time, based on a time stamp at Austins is not reliable.

[woohoo]

page numbers for all these errors please

I didn't read the book!!! You quoted THE GLOBE so I figured it was okay to quote Garth at ModBee!

[woohoo]

But here's the link with all those errors listed:
http://www.modbee.com/reports/peterson/trial/story/10121381p-10938502c.html

[Lavindar]

I didn't read the book!!! You quoted THE GLOBE so I figured it was okay to quote Garth at ModBee! EXCEPT YOUR ORIGINAL POST DID NOT STATE THE MODESTO BEE:

Originally Posted by woohoo
For example, she wrote that San Bernardino County — east of Los Angeles County — is a neighbor to Stanislaus County. More than once, she staged the trial in "Redwood," a mistake that irks residents of Redwood City. And she incorrectly wrote that Peterson awaits formal sentencing in Stanislaus County Jail; he remains behind bars in Redwood City.

Also, she inexplicably misspelled or used wrong names for numerous players in the case, including Distaso, juror Julie Zanartu, Carole Sund-Carrington memorial Reward Foundation Executive Director Kim Petersen, prosecution investigator Kevin Bertalotto, Dr. Tina Edraki, Peterson neighbor Amie Krigbaum, relative Darrin Grantski, New York Post correspondent Howard Breuer and scent-dog handler Cindee Valentin.

I guess if she used the wrong players in the case, she could have certainly used the wrong "quote."

I don't see the bee inthere anywhere.

[woohoo]

I did not say that. Brocchini tried the phone and it shut down when he tried to power it up. You can't call out on a phone that shuts down when you try to power it up. She had made a trip across town to Trader Joes the day before - about a half an hour drive in Christmas Traffic - It was across the street from the mall in 2002. Her phone would have been charging for half an hour there and half an hour home - approximately. It still did not have enough charge to power up? There's no evidence she used it during that time.
I

None of the above applies to my response to DD. I was speaking about your comments concerning my personal cell phone.

It may not be obvious to you, but when you use terms like "if what you say is true....." (which is what tou directed at me) and then go on to comment as to why my phone wouldn't or couldn't react in that way it becomes personal. And you know you meant it to be, so lets just leave it there.

[Lavindar]

I didn't read the book!!! You quoted THE GLOBE so I figured it was okay to quote Garth at ModBee! You are supposed to support a quote instead of stating it as a fact. I gave that information up front. You did not.

[Lavindar]

Just noticed something in Crier's book. Jackie's "alleged" statement was given as she was leaving a press conference. Imagine the number of people who could back up that quote!!!!! All the reporters, tv cameras, etc. who were there.

certainly more than just one police report

[woohoo]

You are supposed to support a quote instead of stating it as a fact. I gave that information up front. You did not.

I posted the link to the story as support. Did it not go thru? Here 'tis again.
http://www.modbee.com/reports/peterson/trial/story/10121381p-10938502c.html

[woohoo]

This was posted at the very top of my post where I posted 1 error according to ModBee. Then someone made a joke about 1 little error - so I posted the rest. I think it was covered.

By GARTH STAPLEY
BEE STAFF WRITER

Last Updated: March 13, 2005, 03:19:00 AM PST

Is that not considered support?

[adnoid]

I think it was said somewhere on this thread that it is probable the phone did work, but only when it was plugged in to something. I have a phone that won't hold a charge and I keep it in my car. It works fine as long as it is plugged into my cigarette lighter (or a regular house plug) but I cannot just put it in my purse and carry it around because it will lose its charge within 30 minutes.

Laci's phone may or may not have that problem and this isn't an issue I thought particularly important at the time of trial. If her phone wouldn't hold a charge, the earlier calls could have been received while she was driving. I think a more important test of whether the phone worked would be whether she made any calls from that phone prior to the 24th. It has also been pointed out that even an uncharged or nonworking phone can RECEIVE messages.

When I jump into one of these conversations, I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone and something that seems so obvious to me has been the subject of debate for pages. I always think I've missed a very important point. LOL.

:beer: I totally agree! Good point!

[adnoid]

Oh for crying out loud. Let's all have a beer. :beer:

Ewww. I'd prefer Sonoma Cutrer.

:beer: I totally agree! Good point!

[woohoo]

Just noticed something in Crier's book. Jackie's "alleged" statement was given as she was leaving a press conference. Imagine the number of people who could back up that quote!!!!! All the reporters, tv cameras, etc. who were there.

certainly more than just one police report

Right! And I'll bet we can find a "report" on this press conference and check it out. If Crier says Jackie and Lee had just arrived at the house it would have been the December 25th press conference.

It would be interesting to see if Wasden even said that. Or for that matter if the Petersons even attended that news conference.

[adnoid]

Sounds good to me, Otter! :beer:

:beer: I totally agree! Good point!

[Wearing A Halo]

KS was absolutely truthful and honest, unlike DRISP who told Det. Brocchini that, "(KS) she’s the one that was tellin’ me about the dog come runnin’ up to her with a leash."

DRISP was sure wanting to let Det. Brocchini believe that Laci was walking Mackenzie in the park that morning of 12/24/02.

[PsychNurse;~)]

I didn't say Geragos would never lie. I said I don't see how you can accuse Geragos of lying in this particular circumstance - when Austin said he was there when the no sales receipts were rung up - and they were done on the same day. I don't care if they were rung up 10 minutes apart or 20 minutes apart - they were rung up on the same day and the receipts had different dates on them.

the investigator was seen "on a couple of occasions" but you're sure the receipts were from the same day?

sorry, but with all of geragos' smoke and mirrors work i don't have any trouble believing that he had two receipts done 10 minutes apart one day and then have someone go back later for another receipt to use in court.

cyn

[thinkaboutit]

the investigator was seen "on a couple of occasions" but you're sure the receipts were from the same day?

sorry, but with all of geragos' smoke and mirrors work i don't have any trouble believing that he had two receipts done 10 minutes apart one day and then have someone go back later for another receipt to use in court.

cyn

The only thing I'm sure about when it comes to the "no sale receipts" is that there were two - and Bill Austin said he was there when two "no sales receipts" were rung up - and both were on the same day.

[frydaddy]

The only thing I'm sure about when it comes to the "no sale receipts" is that there were two - and Bill Austin said he was there when two "no sales receipts" were rung up - and both were on the same day.

Haven't we discussed this already? Maybe it was while you were off regaining your composure recently, but I could have sworn you were in the midst of the conversation about Austin's. The test receipts taken by the defense investigator were done some fourteen months later and the cash registers had to be taken out of storage to test them. One of the receipts had no date, IIRC, it was cut off. So on the receipt issue, it proves nothing to discredit KS and her timeline.

[frydaddy]

1. Does anyone recall the dates of the Bay visits Scott made...I believe the agreed upon number was five, but I could have that wrong.

2. Does anyone have cell tower information that they recall in the format of 233Stockton11-A?

3. Did Scott ever call 911 and talk to LE or was Ron the only one that spoke to them?

[thinkaboutit]

Haven't we discussed this already? Maybe it was while you were off regaining your composure recently, but I could have sworn you were in the midst of the conversation about Austin's. The test receipts taken by the defense investigator were done some fourteen months later and the cash registers had to be taken out of storage to test them. One of the receipts had no date, IIRC, it was cut off. So on the receipt issue, it proves nothing to discredit KS and her timeline.

I was off regaining my composure? That's what I was doing? Okay - if you say so.

Funny....that's exactly what I said....the receipts printed in 2004 don't prove the receipt from 2002 is inaccurate. Just like Jacobsen's cell tower experiments in June 2004 are not an accurate representation of how the cell towers acted on Christmas Eve 2002.

THAT's why we are discussing the receipts - oh yes - and because a poster of the OP (that would be OP to me - not the OP to you) said that Geragos "lied" about the two no sale receipts being printed 10 minutes apart.

[thinkaboutit]

1. Does anyone recall the dates of the Bay visits Scott made...I believe the agreed upon number was five, but I could have that wrong.

2. Does anyone have cell tower information that they recall in the format of 233Stockton11-A?

3. Did Scott ever call 911 and talk to LE or was Ron the only one that spoke to them?


1. Don't recall the dates

2. Stockton would be a switch - not a cell tower

3. There is a call to 911 from Scott's cell at 6:10 p.m. - but that would have been right around the time when Evers showed up at the park - the call is only 3 seconds long.

[frydaddy]

I was off regaining my composure? That's what I was doing? Okay - if you say so.

Funny....that's exactly what I said....the receipts printed in 2004 don't prove the receipt from 2002 is inaccurate. Just like Jacobsen's cell tower experiments in June 2004 are not an accurate representation of how the cell towers acted on Christmas Eve 2002.

THAT's why we are discussing the receipts - oh yes - and because a poster of the OP (that would be OP to me - not the OP to you) said that Geragos "lied" about the two no sale receipts being printed 10 minutes apart.

I thought regaining your composure was more kind than pouting. So much for me trying to be politically correct.

I'm not really sure what you are arguing on the receipts. There's two separate issues. 1) Did MG prove anything to discredit KS' timeline by testing the machines 14 months after the fact? and 2) Is there proof that the two receipts discussed by Austin were the two entered as exhibits? The answer to both questions is no.

What cannot be proven is whether or not a defense investigator went back a different day, got a receipt and exchanged THAT one with one of the two test ones. Given the dates and the "couple of occasions", one could conclude that MG lied, which is what Lavindar did. The testimony does NOT prove MG didn't lie, nor does it prove the exhibits were the same two Austin testified about, so why go on and on about it?

Thanks for answering the questions I posed, by the way. The 911 call is kinda curious, IMO. Why would he call 911 at that moment?

[Lavindar]

1. Does anyone recall the dates of the Bay visits Scott made...I believe the agreed upon number was five, but I could have that wrong.

2. Does anyone have cell tower information that they recall in the format of 233Stockton11-A?

3. Did Scott ever call 911 and talk to LE or was Ron the only one that spoke to them?

I see a call at 9:10 for 3 seconds to 911 on the 24th. 9:10 being EST which would be 6:10 pacific time

[thinkaboutit]

I thought regaining your composure was more kind than pouting. So much for me trying to be politically correct.

I'm not really sure what you are arguing on the receipts. There's two separate issues. 1) Did MG prove anything to discredit KS' timeline by testing the machines 14 months after the fact? and 2) Is there proof that the two receipts discussed by Austin were the two entered as exhibits? The answer to both questions is no.

What cannot be proven is whether or not a defense investigator went back a different day, got a receipt and exchanged THAT one with one of the two test ones. Given the dates and the "couple of occasions", one could conclude that MG lied, which is what Lavindar did. The testimony does NOT prove MG didn't lie, nor does it prove the exhibits were the same two Austin testified about, so why go on and on about it?

Thanks for answering the questions I posed, by the way. The 911 call is kinda curious, IMO. Why would he call 911 at that moment?

Nope - wasn't pouting either. Didn't have anything to pout about. But I won't get into why I wasn't posting - I was kind of hoping that was all in the past - but I'm not surprised that it was brought up again.

Hmm...well - this will be my last word on the allegations that the receipts were rung up on different days....

Bill Austin says he rang up two on the same day. Didn't testify that he rang any up on any other day. But in order for there to be "proof" that MG didn't lie - you would require (I guess) every employee of Bill Austin's to testify that they themselves never pulled the cash register from storage and rang up a no sale receipt for the investigator. That's quite a burden of proof. And yet the bodies turning up in the bay 4 months later is sufficient for you?

And I'm going on and on about it? I guess I'm just sitting here, arguing with myself - on some kind of rant. Why is it that the going on and on about this is put all on me?

So go for it - comment again about the receipts - you can have the last word - I'm done.

I think Scott made the 911 call because he was anxious for the police to get there and they weren't there yet. But I'm sure the op will have a different opinion.

[Lavindar]

Haven't we discussed this already? Maybe it was while you were off regaining your composure recently, but I could have sworn you were in the midst of the conversation about Austin's. The test receipts taken by the defense investigator were done some fourteen months later and the cash registers had to be taken out of storage to test them. One of the receipts had no date, IIRC, it was cut off. So on the receipt issue, it proves nothing to discredit KS and her timeline.
GERAGOS: Okay. Did he make, or have somebody ring up two no-sales receipts while you were there?

AUSTIN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Those two no-sales receipts, just show you, are these, do those look familiar?

AUSTIN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Mark this as a defense.

JUDGE: Want this as a Defense Exhibit.

GERAGOS: Defense Exhibit.

JUDGE: All right. That will be Defense H. No-sale receipts from Austin's

GERAGOS: Defense H?

JUDGE: Right.

GERAGOS: Now, these two receipts, you see the one says 1:35 and the other says 2:26? Do you see that?

AUSTIN: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Isn't it true that those two, even though they show approximately being 50 minutes apart, or 49 minutes apart, were actually run up just ten minutes apart?

AUSTIN: I have no recollection of how far apart those were rung up.

GERAGOS: Isn't that what Mr. Jensen was doing is to check the accuracy of the machine and see if it self-programs?

AUSTIN: I don't know how close together those were rung up. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, who changes the time on the, on the Christmas register? Is that also Mr. Jared Jensen?

AUSTIN: It doesn't get changed.

GERAGOS: Okay. So he's the one who programs it initially; is that correct?

AUSTIN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Thank you. I have no further questions.


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

HERE's the KICKER:


Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:09 pm Post subject: Geragos lies cash register

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

Cross Examination by Mark Geragos



JUDGE: Mr. Geragos.

GERAGOS: Mr. Austin, you don't set up the -- program the machine, do you?

AUSTIN: I didn't program this one, no.

GERAGOS: It's a gentleman by the name of Jared Jensen is the one who did it?

AUSTIN: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Jared Jensen is an employee of yours?

AUSTIN: Yes, he is.

GERAGOS: There's actually four cash registers in the store on December 24th of 2002, correct?

AUSTIN: No, sir.

GERAGOS: You had,

AUSTIN: Three.

GERAGOS: Three, you had four cash registers. One that was computerized, three that were standard; is that correct?

AUSTIN: There's three cash registers at that time. Two were standard and one is computerized. GERAGOS: The computerized cash register would have been attended to by Mr. Jensen?

AUSTIN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And he's the one who would have set up that cash register back in 2002; is that correct?

AUSTIN: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. You did not set it up?

AUSTIN: No, I did not.

GERAGOS: Do you recognize my Mr. Jensen over here, can you stand up for a second, Paul? Do you recognize him?

AUSTIN: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. He's talked to you and been in your store?

AUSTIN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Did he make, or have somebody ring up two no-sales receipts while you were there?

AUSTIN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Those two no-sales receipts, just show you, are these, do those look familiar?

AUSTIN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Mark this as a defense.

JUDGE: Want this as a Defense Exhibit.

GERAGOS: Defense Exhibit.

JUDGE: All right. That will be Defense H. No-sale receipts from Austin's

GERAGOS: Defense H?

JUDGE: Right.

GERAGOS: Now, these two receipts, you see the one says 1:35 and the other says 2:26? Do you see that?

AUSTIN: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Isn't it true that those two, even though they show approximately being 50 minutes apart, or 49 minutes apart, were actually run up just ten minutes apart?

AUSTIN: I have no recollection of how far apart those were rung up.

GERAGOS: Isn't that what Mr. Jensen was doing is to check the accuracy of the machine and see if it self-programs?

AUSTIN: I don't know how close together those were rung up. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, who changes the time on the, on the Christmas register? Is that also Mr. Jared Jensen?

AUSTIN: It doesn't get changed.

GERAGOS: Okay. So he's the one who programs it initially; is that correct?

AUSTIN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Thank you. I have no further questions.


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



Redirect Examination by Dave Harris



JUDGE: May this witness be excused?

HARRIS: No, I have some questions.

JUDGE: Okay.

HARRIS: Mr. Austin, just so we're clear about this, the date, you were asked about the time on these particular exhibits.

AUSTIN: Uh-huh.

HARRIS: I'll let you look at it. This was done in 2004; is that correct?

AUSTIN: Yes.

HARRIS: And that was done in January?

AUSTIN: Oh, according to this one was on the 14th, one was on the 20th.
HARRIS: Of January of 2004?

AUSTIN: Yes.


Nice try, Geragos

[Miss Bootsie]

Boat Rockers???????

Do you perhaps mean the Jurors that examined the boat???;)

Nah, the Jurors weren't conducting an experiment nor were they doing an investigation.

I ran across a case that went before the Appeals Court with similar circumstances. One of the appeal issues had to do with the Jurors doing their own experiment.

I think the Appellate Judges opinion on the issue of the Jurors conducting an experiment is very interesting.

Going out right now, but later on tonight or tomorrow, I will find the case and post a link.



Let me first say, I am fully aware this is a burglary case that did not involve the Jurors examination of a boat, etc.


However, the Appeal Courts opinion on the issue of the Peterson Jurors examination of the boat will be much the same. IMO


FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State ...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2003_app/286289maj&invol=3
Derrick Kirkwood, Appellant File Date: 12/09/2003 SOURCE OF APPEAL ... II STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 28628-9-II Respondent, v. DERRICK KIRKWOOD AKA WARRICK ...


The court treated the affidavits as an offer of proof to determine whether the jury misconduct allegations necessitated a new trial. The trial court found that the jurors did not introduce extraneous evidence.
We agree.




Also, Dr. Loftus, Kirkwood's witness, testified that poor lighting affects one's ability to perceive relevant visual aspects of the scene and might also affect one's memory. The jurors examined Eloise Utlican's and Dr. Loftus's testimony when they turned off the jury room lights.


Although the jury used a different coat than the defendant's to determine whether she could pull out a knife from her coat, the court held that such a reenactment was a critical examination of the evidence and the difference in coat sizes was not material because the jury is presumed to use their common sense and reasoning power to compensate for the variable.

The trial court did not err in denying Kirkwood's motion.

Why does the Appellate Judges opinions reflect my opinion the jurors did not introduce extraneous evidence by their examination of the boat?

Reenactment of the crime scene is different from reconstruction of the crime scene.
The Peterson Jurors did not reconstruct.
Reenactment of the crime scene, does not constitute conducting an experiment or an investigation. Case Law - Court opinion
the court held that such a reenactment was a critical examination of the evidence



BERATLIS: Because there were questions about the stability of the boat that when we listened to the experts, I don't think those questions were answered in our minds. We needed to have a little bit more to that. And I climbed in the boat.

Beratlis cleary states we listened to the testimony of the experts. I believe it is the opinion of the SII's this statement somehow reflects the Jurors intentions in a negative way. I disagree. IMO, it is a positive - proof the Jurors based their examination of the boat on expert testimony.
Case Law - Court opinion
The jurors examined Eloise Utlican's and Dr. Loftus's testimony when they turned off the jury room lights..


The testimony of Cuanang, not to exclude other expert testimony, comes to mind.

DISTASO: If, once you get the Sturgeon into the boat, even a big Sturgeon, say, like the one we saw on the cover of your book, People's 170, even a big Sturgeon like that, if you got it into the boat and, say, you determined that it was too big to keep and you needed to release it, could you go ahead and release it and get it back out of the boat?

CUANANG: Yes.

DISTASO: How would you do that?

CUANANG: First, I would put the, lift the head up, get the head up on to the gunwale, start pushing from the back. Once the head is up on the gunwale, usually the pectoral fins will flare. When they are like that, it won't slide back. Pectoral fins will keep it then from sliding back. Eventually lift enough body weight forward, it slides right in.

Scott Peterson's boat was introduced as evidence.

The jury scrutinized the evidence related to it by witnesses and it is allowed some latitude during deliberations to analyze evidence using their common sense.
Such a reenactment, was a critical examination of the evidence

The jury is presumed to use their common sense and reasoning power to compensate for the variable.

This is my opinion on the issue of the Jurors conducting an experiment, investigation, and introducing new evidence.
Of course, my lay opinion is no better than the lay opinion of anyone else. I may be totally wrong.:D

Play it again John.:tongue:

[deputydi]

<snip>Such a reenactment, was a critical examination of the evidence

The jury is presumed to use their common sense and reasoning power to compensate for the variable.

This is my opinion on the issue of the Jurors conducting an experiment, investigation, and introducing new evidence.
Of course, my lay opinion is no better than the lay opinion of anyone else. I may be totally wrong.:D

Play it again John.:tongue:

Good work! This is my opinion also. :patriot:

[Lavindar]

Good work! This is my opinion also. :patriot:

Now IF the jurors had attempted to toss a 150 lb dummy off the side of the boat - THAT WOULD BE AN EXPERIMENT imo

[attorneywan2be]

Snip

The test receipts taken by the defense investigator were done some fourteen months later and the cash registers had to be taken out of storage to test them. One of the receipts had no date, IIRC, it was cut off. So on the receipt issue, it proves nothing to discredit KS and her timeline.


I have to agree on that..IMO, those "no sale" receipts were useless...Mark should have authenticated those receipts...he should have asked the owner to put his signature on them, the date and the exact time those receipts were rung..then they could have compared the time the owner rung those receipts to the time reflected on them..to see if there was a discrepancy....with that said, IMO, the prosecution didn't present evidence to prove that the time on the receipt that Karen used was accurate, as far as I remember, the time on the receipt was not even legible..

[USAHICK]

I thought regaining your composure was more kind than pouting. So much for me trying to be politically correct.

I'm not really sure what you are arguing on the receipts. There's two separate issues. 1) Did MG prove anything to discredit KS' timeline by testing the machines 14 months after the fact? and 2) Is there proof that the two receipts discussed by Austin were the two entered as exhibits? The answer to both questions is no.

What cannot be proven is whether or not a defense investigator went back a different day, got a receipt and exchanged THAT one with one of the two test ones. Given the dates and the "couple of occasions", one could conclude that MG lied, which is what Lavindar did. The testimony does NOT prove MG didn't lie, nor does it prove the exhibits were the same two Austin testified about, so why go on and on about it?

Thanks for answering the questions I posed, by the way. The 911 call is kinda curious, IMO. Why would he call 911 at that moment?


:tongue: :tongue: :beer: LOL!

ITA FD, ^5!!!:patriot:

[deputydi]

I have to agree on that..IMO, those "no sale" receipts were useless...Mark should have authenticated those receipts...he should have asked the owner to put his signature on them, the date and the exact time those receipts were rung..then they could have compared the time the owner rung those receipts to the time reflected on them..to see if there was a discrepancy....with that said, IMO, the prosecution didn't present evidence to prove that the time on the receipt that Karen used was accurate, as far as I remember, the time on the receipt was not even legible..
I don't recall anyone, other than a poster here, who said the time on the receipt was not legible. IIRC, the testimony was that the ink was faded, but certainly not illegible. I'm not certain of this, but if I'm wrong I'm sure you'll correct me. :)

[woohoo]

I thought regaining your composure was more kind than pouting. So much for me trying to be politically correct.

I'm not really sure what you are arguing on the receipts. There's two separate issues. 1) Did MG prove anything to discredit KS' timeline by testing the machines 14 months after the fact? and 2) Is there proof that the two receipts discussed by Austin were the two entered as exhibits? The answer to both questions is no.

What cannot be proven is whether or not a defense investigator went back a different day, got a receipt and exchanged THAT one with one of the two test ones. Given the dates and the "couple of occasions", one could conclude that MG lied, which is what Lavindar did. The testimony does NOT prove MG didn't lie, nor does it prove the exhibits were the same two Austin testified about, so why go on and on about it?

Thanks for answering the questions I posed, by the way. The 911 call is kinda curious, IMO. Why would he call 911 at that moment?

IMO Neither Mark Geragos nor an investigator representing him would risk such an action as switching the receipts. It would be a serious risk to try and falsify a record or to represent a false one to be true just to further his case.

The time of the call to 911 made by Scott has always been a curiosity. At one time the TS reflected testimony by Evers that he was talking face-to-face with Scott at that time. So I don't see how (one of) the times could be
correct.

[enlightenme]

Let me first say, I am fully aware this is a burglary case that did not involve the Jurors examination of a boat, etc.


However, the Appeal Courts opinion on the issue of the Peterson Jurors examination of the boat will be much the same. IMO


Why does the Appellate Judges opinions reflect my opinion the jurors did not introduce extraneous evidence by their examination of the boat?

Reenactment of the crime scene is different from reconstruction of the crime scene.
The Peterson Jurors did not reconstruct.
Reenactment of the crime scene, does not constitute conducting an experiment or an investigation.




Beratlis cleary states we listened to the testimony of the experts. I believe it is the opinion of the SII's this statement somehow reflects the Jurors intentions in a negative way. I disagree. IMO, it is a positive - proof the Jurors based their examination of the boat on expert testimony.



The testimony of Cuanang, not to exclude other expert testimony, comes to mind.



Scott Peterson's boat was introduced as evidence.

The jury scrutinized the evidence related to it by witnesses and it is allowed some latitude during deliberations to analyze evidence using their common sense.
Such a reenactment, was a critical examination of the evidence

The jury is presumed to use their common sense and reasoning power to compensate for the variable.

This is my opinion on the issue of the Jurors conducting an experiment, investigation, and introducing new evidence.
Of course, my lay opinion is no better than the lay opinion of anyone else. I may be totally wrong.:D

Play it again John.:tongue:

Great post Miss Bootsie!

The fact that this all happened in front of all parties and the judge made an admonishment right away, will also make it a none appeal issue. It would be different if it was discovered that the jurors did some type on illegal experiment in the deliberation room, IMO.

[attorneywan2be]

I don't recall anyone, other than a poster here, who said the time on the receipt was not legible. IIRC, the testimony was that the ink was faded, but certainly not illegible. I'm not certain of this, but if I'm wrong I'm sure you'll correct me. :)


I don't consider this evidence proved that the time on the receipt was validated and was correct..


David Harris: And what is it that People's 28 is, and how do you recognize it?

Jon Buehler: Well, it's taped to a piece of blue copy machine paper. It's got my handwriting on it. It's the receipt I remember. It is substantially more faded here today than it was when I picked it up. I have a photocopy of it in my binder that I believe might more clearly show the time. But time was documented in the report. And this is what I remember. This is what I had.

David Harris: You said there is some writing on here that you recognize. Is that your writing?

Jon Buehler: It is.

David Harris: Looking to the right of the receipt, is there a date and time that's there?

Jon Buehler: There is.

David Harris: And that date and time that you wrote on the blue paper, where did you get that from?

Jon Buehler: That was straight off the receipt.

David Harris: Showing you putting People's 28 up there. You are indicating that the information that you got was right off of the receipt. So the information you wrote is what I'm highlighting now to the right?

Jon Buehler: That's correct.

David Harris: And the date and time information that's on the receipt, that's this date right there, this time right there?

Jon Buehler: It's that faded-out printing just to the left of the 12 that's handwritten

[Lavindar]

IMO Neither Mark Geragos nor an investigator representing him would risk such an action as switching the receipts. It would be a serious risk to try and falsify a record or to represent a false one to be true just to further his case.

The time of the call to 911 made by Scott has always been a curiosity. At one time the TS reflected testimony by Evers that he was talking face-to-face with Scott at that time. So I don't see how (one of) the times could be
correct.

I have some swampland in Florida for sale. I Think it is done all the time. Since lawyers are not under oath, anything they say means nothing. He just got caught this time.

[Miss Bootsie]

More Case Law

Although Cox's coat may have been larger than Brown's, jurors are presumed to use their common sense and reasoning powers to compensate for this variable. See Balisok, 123 Wn.2d at 119 (jury's simulation of self-defense claim was not misconduct merely because the juror simulating the defendant's actions did not match the defendant's proportions).

The jurors' reenactment was simply a critical examination of Brown's self-defense theory with evidence already admitted at trial. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion by denying Brown's motion for a new trial.

FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State ...Although Cox's coat may have been larger than Brown's, jurors are presumed to use their common sense and reasoning powers to compensate for this variable. ...
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=670242&invol=o01 caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=670242&invol=o01

[woohoo]

Redirect Examination by Dave Harris

JUDGE: May this witness be excused?

HARRIS: No, I have some questions.

JUDGE: Okay.

HARRIS: Mr. Austin, just so we're clear about this, the date, you were asked about the time on these particular exhibits.

AUSTIN: Uh-huh.

HARRIS: I'll let you look at it. This was done in 2004; is that correct?

AUSTIN: Yes.

HARRIS: And that was done in January?

AUSTIN: Oh, according to this one was on the 14th, one was on the 20th.
HARRIS: Of January of 2004?

AUSTIN: Yes.


Nice try, Geragos

GERAGOS: Okay. How many times have you talked to the investigator?

AUSTIN: A couple of occasions.

GERAGOS: And you ran the receipts for him on one occasion; isn't that correct?

AUSTIN: Excuse me?

GERAGOS: You ran the receipts for him on one occasion; is that correct?

AUSTIN: That's what I recall.

GERAGOS: Right. Same day?

AUSTIN: As far as I can recall, yes.

GERAGOS: Thank you. No further questions.

Which makes it even more clear that the register was really messed up when recording times and dates!!

It doesn't matter how many times the investigator came to talk to Bill Austin, he only ran receipts for him ONCE as per Austin's testimony.

[Lavindar]

GERAGOS: Okay. How many times have you talked to the investigator?

AUSTIN: A couple of occasions.

GERAGOS: And you ran the receipts for him on one occasion; isn't that correct?

AUSTIN: Excuse me?

GERAGOS: You ran the receipts for him on one occasion; is that correct?

AUSTIN: That's what I recall.

GERAGOS: Right. Same day?

AUSTIN: As far as I can recall, yes.

GERAGOS: Thank you. No further questions.

Which makes it even more clear that the register was really messed up when recording times and dates!!

It doesn't matter how many times the investigator came to talk to Bill Austin, he only ran receipts for him ONCE as per Austin's testimony.


That AUSTIN ran for him - who's to say they didn't ask another clerk. If you can assume, so can I. You assume that Garegos entered two receipts that were 6 DAYS AND 59 MINUTES OFF AND THEY WERE RUN THE SAME DAY - WITHIN 10 MINUTES. The day would not have changed in 10 minutes imo.

GERAGOS: Now, these two receipts, you see the one says 1:35 and the other says 2:26? Do you see that?

AUSTIN: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Isn't it true that those two, even though they show approximately being 50 minutes apart, or 49 minutes apart, were actually run up just ten minutes apart?

AUSTIN: I have no recollection of how far apart those were rung up.

Machines don't change dates at 1:35 and 2:26 - they change at 00:00. AND THEY DONT't JUMP SIX DAYS

[attorneywan2be]

Snip

I may be totally wrong.:D

Play it again John.:tongue:


You may very well be totally wrong...:D

In the case you quoted, IMO, the experts did testify about the lighting, so the jury tested the light issue as per the testimony..however, in Scott's case, according to Beratlis, the expert didn't address the questions the jury had in their minds, so they took it upon themselves to get the answers to those questions..IMO, that's creating new facts not in evidence..

[thinkaboutit]

You may very well be totally wrong...:D

In the case you quoted, IMO, the experts did testify about the lighting, so the jury tested the light issue as per the testimony..however, in Scott's case, according to Beratlis, the expert didn't address the questions the jury had in their minds, so they took it upon themselves to get the answers to those questions..IMO, that's creating new facts not in evidence..

:beer: You go AW2B!

[I'mSun]

More Case Law



FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State ...Although Cox's coat may have been larger than Brown's, jurors are presumed to use their common sense and reasoning powers to compensate for this variable. ...
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=670242&invol=o01 caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=670242&invol=o01Good job, Miss Bootsie :beer:

[attorneywan2be]

IMO Neither Mark Geragos nor an investigator representing him would risk such an action as switching the receipts. It would be a serious risk to try and falsify a record or to represent a false one to be true just to further his case.

The time of the call to 911 made by Scott has always been a curiosity. At one time the TS reflected testimony by Evers that he was talking face-to-face with Scott at that time. So I don't see how (one of) the times could be
correct.


I agree that they would not intentionally falsify the record...with that said, Mark Geragos should have known better, he should have authenticated those receipts by asking the owner to put his signature on them and put the date, the time they were rung..after all, he was planning to use them in the court of law to disprove the validity of the time reflected on the Austin's receipt that Karen used..

[Miss Bootsie]

Great post Miss Bootsie!

The fact that this all happened in front of all parties and the judge made an admonishment right away, will also make it a none appeal issue. It would be different if it was discovered that the jurors did some type on illegal experiment in the deliberation room, IMO.

ITA. The Jurors in the case law I provided even used a different coat than the one in evidence.
The Peterson Jurors used nothing, but the boat that was presented as evidence and their common sense.

Perhaps they had Cuanang's testimony in mind when doing the examination.

We don't know.

[frydaddy]

Nope - wasn't pouting either. Didn't have anything to pout about. But I won't get into why I wasn't posting - I was kind of hoping that was all in the past - but I'm not surprised that it was brought up again.

Hmm...well - this will be my last word on the allegations that the receipts were rung up on different days....

Bill Austin says he rang up two on the same day. Didn't testify that he rang any up on any other day. But in order for there to be "proof" that MG didn't lie - you would require (I guess) every employee of Bill Austin's to testify that they themselves never pulled the cash register from storage and rang up a no sale receipt for the investigator. That's quite a burden of proof. And yet the bodies turning up in the bay 4 months later is sufficient for you?

And I'm going on and on about it? I guess I'm just sitting here, arguing with myself - on some kind of rant. Why is it that the going on and on about this is put all on me?

So go for it - comment again about the receipts - you can have the last word - I'm done.

I think Scott made the 911 call because he was anxious for the police to get there and they weren't there yet. But I'm sure the op will have a different opinion.

Okay - MG did nothing to impeach the time of 10:34 a.m. on the receipt, so I think it can be assumed as fact that she was there at 10:34.

I do have a different opinion on the 911 call.

[frydaddy]

I have to agree on that..IMO, those "no sale" receipts were useless...Mark should have authenticated those receipts...he should have asked the owner to put his signature on them, the date and the exact time those receipts were rung..then they could have compared the time the owner rung those receipts to the time reflected on them..to see if there was a discrepancy....with that said, IMO, the prosecution didn't present evidence to prove that the time on the receipt that Karen used was accurate, as far as I remember, the time on the receipt was not even legible..

Not legible by the overhead projector. And I'm no expert at trial testimony, but the receipt was entered as fact and unless someone can impeach that, which Geragos did not, it's reasonable for a juror to consider it as fact. And yes, if MG's investigator had done his job, we may not be having this conversation. Too bad there isn't Ineffective Assistance of Counsel's Assistant. I don't think there will be appellate success based on a bad hire by MG though.

[frydaddy]

IMO Neither Mark Geragos nor an investigator representing him would risk such an action as switching the receipts. It would be a serious risk to try and falsify a record or to represent a false one to be true just to further his case.

The time of the call to 911 made by Scott has always been a curiosity. At one time the TS reflected testimony by Evers that he was talking face-to-face with Scott at that time. So I don't see how (one of) the times could be
correct.

I'd normally agree with you, but until someone can offer a reasonable explanation of "couple of occasions", it remains fishy. MG could have bought Austin another cash register and took that one to court and done all the demonstrations he wanted. Or, he could have gotten the test receipts signed as was suggested. What he did proved nothing significant.

There's a number of explanations that could explain the 911 call timing. Clocks from two computer systems may not be 100% on the money. Evers testimony is confusing without actually seeing his report, Spurlock's report, and both logs. In my opinion, Evers was there when Scott called 911. At any rate, Evers has 1802 and 1804 in his report and Spurlock says he got there at 6:11 and Evers was already there talking to Scott and Sharon. Without logs and reports, I couldn't argue one way or the other what the 6:11 entry from Evers was.

There's a notation of SP next to the 911 call...speed dial? Call was 0:03 and yet it doesn't show up on the cell records in Pros 203A-1. It is on 203A and 207G, but 207G looks like a manually created report. Could he have called it just to get it on his recent calls list on his phone?

[Miss Bootsie]

You may very well be totally wrong...:D

In the case you quoted, IMO, the experts did testify about the lighting, so the jury tested the light issue as per the testimony..however, in Scott's case, according to Beratlis, the expert didn't address the questions the jury had in their minds, so they took it upon themselves to get the answers to those questions..IMO, that's creating new facts not in evidence..

Well, obviously the expert didn't address the questions the Jury had in their minds or they would not have taken it upon themselves to reenact the crime scene.
They had to see for themselves.
The Peterson Jurors had to see for themselves.
They had to get in that boat and move around.

What facts did the Jurors create that were not in evidence?
Is it not a fact, the fishing expert testified that he could pull a large sturgeon into the boat and then release the sturgeon from the boat. Did he not explain the method he used? Do you know exactly what expert testimony the Jurors had in mind and what they were actually trying to determine for themselves?

The Appellate Court certainly won't take that statement from Bertalis to form their opinions. If indeed, it even goes this far. The Jurors will have a chance to explain their actions via affidavits. It won't be as cut and dried as you think. imo

The court treated the affidavits as an offer of proof to determine whether the jury misconduct allegations necessitated a new trial.



The consideration of novel or extrinsic evidence by a jury is misconduct and can be grounds for a new trial. But '{w}here the jurors attempt to re-enact the crime during their deliberations in accordance with their own recollection of the testimony,their conduct constitutes nothing more than an application of everyday perceptions and common sense to the issues presented in the trial.

Note: in accordance with their own recollection of the testimony.
Note:Everyday perceptions and common sense to the issues presented in the trial.

imo, you are going to be disappointed on the outcome of this particular appeal issue.

Play it again John.:beer:

[ekg]

Ekg, start suspended the scott-is-innocent-at-all-costs and start listening to what you are saying.
snipped


this little snip struck a chord with me..I'll do it as soon as you all give up on the 'scott is guilty at all costs'....and for once become the only truly impartial side that you all have claimed that you are...

I have given into many many things that I find 'guilty' in this case but have yet to come across a G that will do the same........ every single thing in this case must be b/c Scott is guilt, Scott wanted it to look like, Scott lied about.., Scott tried to hide.... etc etc

listen to myself? Listen to ya'll....... "Scott knew it was dead so he pretend to call her phone for a month so he could say he didn't know it was dead, he planned everything else out so well.."

or maybe noone, including Scott and Ron didn't know it was broken b/c it wasn't broken and The Globe printed a false rumor..(yeah, hard to believe they'd do something like that)

the fact that you would risk your credibility over a tabloid rumor repeated by a blood-money profiteer, instead of just admitting that the only thing we know for certain was the battery was low, is shocking to me....altho why it's shocking I just don't know..... as I have said, I've never seen one ounce given to the believability of anything having to do with Scott Peterson.

you would rather believe triple+ hearsay on an issue to prove your point......"someone said that someone else said and she wrote about it..."

but then in another thread go on to demand only trial testimony when others want to prove theirs...'What Wecht said on a TV program, his book, or print media isn't good enough, give me his trial testimony or stop using him.... who cares if it's not at all hearsay since it's him saying it, we want sworn testimony that has been given in a court of law!'

and I believe you even used your LARGE BOLD FONT to tell me that OS aren't testimony, therefore not a good enough source.

So, if I have to accept The Globe and the profiteer as the Gods honest truth, truth you all are so willing to risk your credibility on, I would ask that you do not ask me for trial ts.... since Pre-lims should be just as good as The Globe and the profiteer..

I would ask that you do not ask me for trial ts since opening statements should be just as reliable as The Globe and the profiteer.

same goes with any other resource I may need to prove whatever point I am trying to make..any of them will either be better or atleast on par with The Globe and the profiteer.

or at the very least, hold yourselves to the standard you've set for me and every other SII/SNG...


I'm not angry..... just speaking my peace.http://www.laughinglizards.com/images/ll810-200.jpg

[Lavindar]

Not legible by the overhead projector. And I'm no expert at trial testimony, but the receipt was entered as fact and unless someone can impeach that, which Geragos did not, it's reasonable for a juror to consider it as fact. And yes, if MG's investigator had done his job, we may not be having this conversation. Too bad there isn't Ineffective Assistance of Counsel's Assistant. I don't think there will be appellate success based on a bad hire by MG though.Witness testified that he had a copy of Karen's receipt in his notebook, taken BEFORE it faded. Sounds like good backup to me - and since he had a copy taken earlier, you can bet the defense did too. Not even Garegos would go there.

[ekg]

IMO, the 12:18 call was Brocchini using Scott's cell phone to check the voice mails per the interview transcript. The call at 12:57 was Scott reviewing them to keep his story straight or deleting them, also MO. I also believe the cell phone worked so long as Laci was in the car with it running, or at least the car was powering the cell phone.

http://www.joshilynjackson.com/mt/archives/surprised!.jpeg

http://download.gallery.start.com/d.dll/2~23~819~16528/LARGE.jpg


you're my 1st FD......:chicken:

why am I not surprised.....:D

[ekg]

Or after the cleaning woman left, and before the haircut. You're right, we'll never know.

no cuz he would have mentioned it as something else she had done that night/day...... there would have been no reason to hide it.

like the comp usage at the house that morning...

[Lavindar]

this little snip struck a chord with me..I'll do it as soon as you all give up on the 'scott is guilty at all costs'....and for once become the only truly impartial side that you all have claimed that you are...

I have given into many many things that I find 'guilty' in this case but have yet to come across a G that will do the same........ every single thing in this case must be b/c Scott is guilt, Scott wanted it to look like, Scott lied about.., Scott tried to hide.... etc etc

listen to myself? Listen to ya'll....... "Scott knew it was dead so he pretend to call her phone for a month so he could say he didn't know it was dead, he planned everything else out so well.."

or maybe noone, including Scott and Ron didn't know it was broken b/c it wasn't broken and The Globe printed a false rumor..(yeah, hard to believe they'd do something like that)

the fact that you would risk your credibility over a tabloid rumor repeated by a blood-money profiteer, instead of just admitting that the only thing we know for certain was the battery was low, is shocking to me....altho why it's shocking I just don't know..... as I have said, I've never seen one ounce given to the believability of anything having to do with Scott Peterson.

you would rather believe triple+ hearsay on an issue to prove your point......"someone said that someone else said and she wrote about it..."

but then in another thread go on to demand only trial testimony when others want to prove theirs...'What Wecht said on a TV program, his book, or print media isn't good enough, give me his trial testimony or stop using him.... who cares if it's not at all hearsay since it's him saying it, we want sworn testimony that has been given in a court of law!'

and I believe you even used your LARGE BOLD FONT to tell me that OS aren't testimony, therefore not a good enough source.

So, if I have to accept The Globe and the profiteer as the Gods honest truth, truth you all are so willing to risk your credibility on, I would ask that you do not ask me for trial ts.... since Pre-lims should be just as good as The Globe and the profiteer..

I would ask that you do not ask me for trial ts since opening statements should be just as reliable as The Globe and the profiteer.

same goes with any other resource I may need to prove whatever point I am trying to make..any of them will either be better or atleast on par with The Globe and the profiteer.

or at the very least, hold yourselves to the standard you've set for me and every other SII/SNG...


I'm not angry..... just speaking my peace.http://www.laughinglizards.com/images/ll810-200.jpg I must point out that this is an APPEALS thread. Nothing that is not in the testimony can be considered as an appeal in the first appeal process. So WEcht is useless information on this thread. He did not testify.

That is what is so infuriating...the bringing in of information that cannot be used until the first appeal is over. What Wecht, Garegos, anyone said cannot be used in this appeal. So it's inappropriate on an appeals thread. If Scott should not be granted an appeal on the first step, THEN NEW evidence can be entered. But not on the first step. The first appeal step is JUDICIAAL REVIEW - and only what when on at trial can be used in this appeal. At least that is how I understand it. BTW I have not used large bod font at the same time - you must be thinking of saraliba. I have enlarged to make a point and I have bolded, but NEVER at the same time. If you can show me same, I'd appreciate it.

[ekg]

And I think it totally lays the foundation for his alibi. His mother knew the phone didn't work, Laci knew it didn't work and it just isn't reasonable to think Scott didn't know it was not working.

if Laci didn't know it worked, then why did she have it in the car?

why is it such a huge issue when it comes to "would pregnant woman leave the house without her mace,purse,keys and phone?"

and link to where Laci knew it didn't work please...

[deputydi]

<snip>I have given into many many things that I find 'guilty' in this case but have yet to come across a G that will do the same........ every single thing in this case must be b/c Scott is guilt, Scott wanted it to look like, Scott lied about.., Scott tried to hide.... etc etc
<snip>

Now my feelings are hurt. :( I've said many times that a lot of the evidence that got Scott convicted -- taken singularly -- could point to his innocence. The problem I have is when they are looked at in their entirety combined with where we know the bodies were found, that proves (to me) beyond ANY doubt that Scott is guilty. I have not heard or read ONE SINGLE REASONABLE explanation regarding the location of the bodies. The operative word here is REASONABLE. All this talk about her being in a bathtub for two months would be hilarious if the whole thing weren't so sad and you guys weren't really serious about it.

Honest, I can find a reasonable rationalization for almost everything EXCEPT the location of the bodies. That single fact put all the other circumstantial stuff into perspective for me and, taken as a whole made everything point toward a guilty man.

Scott IMO doesn't deserve all the serious advocates here. Would he appreciate your defense of him? I doubt it.

[ekg]

I must point out that this is an APPEALS thread. Nothing that is not in the testimony can be considered as an appeal in the first appeal process. So WEcht is useless information on this thread. He did not testify.

That is what is so infuriating...the bringing in of information that cannot be used until the first appeal is over. What Wecht, Garegos, anyone said cannot be used in this appeal. So it's inappropriate on an appeals thread. If Scott should not be granted an appeal on the first step, THEN NEW evidence can be entered. But not on the first step. The first appeal step is JUDICIAAL REVIEW - and only what when on at trial can be used in this appeal. At least that is how I understand it. BTW I have not used large bod font at the same time - you must be thinking of saraliba.

and you guys bringing up triple hearsay from The Globe and the Profiteer is what then?

[Lavindar]

if Laci didn't know it worked, then why did she have it in the car?

why is it such a huge issue when it comes to "would pregnant woman leave the house without her mace,purse,keys and phone?"

and link to where Laci knew it didn't work please...
Can you provide phone records that show she used it at all duing the month of december. Scott's records only prove that he called in for durations of less than a minute. The only call of any substance to her cell phone was on the 11 or 12th of December and lasted for 2+ minutes/ There were several of 0 seconds after than and one on the 13th for 2 sec. However HE did call home and a 19 second call on the 15th and a 51 sec call to the house on the 13th. He sure wasn't talking to her for long IF her cell phone was working at all.

[Miss Bootsie]

Now IF the jurors had attempted to toss a 150 lb dummy off the side of the boat - THAT WOULD BE AN EXPERIMENT imo

You're right, imo.

That would be considered an experiment conducted from reconstruction of the crime scene.

The Jurors did not reconstruct.

[ekg]

This was posted by TopGunner earlier and it should answer your questions.
And, as previously stated (several times):
*snip*
CC's Book - page 78

Around 4:30, Jackie and Lee Peterson arrived at the house. Scott's mother had just left the news conference. She was complaining about Chief Wasden's comment that it would be strage for Laci to go walking without her cell phone. "Everybody knows Laci's cell phone had been dead for weeks," she griped. "So why would she be taking it on walks with her?"

When I read this in the police report, I wondered why Jackie was already interpreting this comment as an indictment of her son. (CC speaking).

no, it doesn't answer it at all....

where is this police report? can I see it?

who heard Jackie say it in her house? and who reported it to LE?

why didn't RD use it?

[attorneywan2be]

You're right, imo.

That would be considered an experiment conducted from reconstruction of the crime scene.

The Jurors did not reconstruct.


IMO, they did exactly that...at least there is a couple of appeal issues due to Guinasso's statement:

Geragos later tried to use that incident to ask for a mistrial. But the real buzz among jurors was prompted by Peterson's reaction when the juror sat in the boat, Guinasso said.

"(The juror) reached over like he wanted to see if he could toss somebody overboard," Guinasso said, "and Scott Peterson dropped his chin almost to his chest."

http://www.modbee.com/reports/peterson/trial/story/10107564p-10931862c.html

[ekg]

Can you provide phone records that show she used it at all duing the month of december. Scott's records only prove that he called in for durations of less than a minute. The only call of any substance to her cell phone was on the 11 or 12th of December and lasted for 2+ minutes/ There were several of 0 seconds after than and one on the 13th for 2 sec. However HE did call home and a 19 second call on the 15th and a 51 sec call to the house on the 13th. He sure wasn't talking to her for long IF her cell phone was working at all.


so I ask for link proving that she knew it was broken....... and you answer by asking me to prove she used it?

[attorneywan2be]

Can you provide phone records that show she used it at all duing the month of december. Scott's records only prove that he called in for durations of less than a minute. The only call of any substance to her cell phone was on the 11 or 12th of December and lasted for 2+ minutes/ There were several of 0 seconds after than and one on the 13th for 2 sec. However HE did call home and a 19 second call on the 15th and a 51 sec call to the house on the 13th. He sure wasn't talking to her for long IF her cell phone was working at all.

I don't think Scott called Laci on her cell phone to chat..he probbaly was calling her to inform her briefly of whatever he needed to tell her

[attorneywan2be]

no, it doesn't answer it at all....

where is this police report? can I see it?

who heard Jackie say it in her house? and who reported it to LE?

why didn't RD use it?


Exactly!! :beer:

[ekg]

Could she have found Mac at 10:18 - went thru the motions of returning him to the yard - drive on to the BOA - make 2 trips around looking for a parking place - then drive on to Austins, park, shop, & check out with purchase by 10:34?


you forgot going back in her house to wash up..

I would assume that she had to get the the keys out of the car's ignition to unlock her door?

so that means she walked back across Laci and Scott's yard, across her yard, out to her car in the street, got the keys, left the car... walked back thru her yard, unlocked her door and went in to wash her hands...then came out, locked up and walked back down the street and got back into her car and left..

I assume she locked the door b/c as she said it wasn't unusual to have strange ppl walk by her house..

either way, this was all done in 16 minutes??

she accomplished all of this and yet someone couldn't have abducted Laci in approx the same amt of time???

[ekg]

Sharon freaked out about this in her book. She overheard ISP saying to KP on the phone "we need to let the MEDIA know that Laci's due date is Feb. 16th, not the 10th".

He repeated it "Conner was going to be born on the 16th, not the 10th which is what everyone's reporting."

Now why would he CARE what the media was reporting???

Im sorry, but what does this have to do with whether Sharon knew the phone worked or not?
:confused:

[ekg]

Haha...........this proves the book was full of misinformation? One mistake that she says she doesn't believe?:eek:

how many mistakes do we need to find to prove CC book has mistakes in it?

rough estimate will do:tongue:

[attorneywan2be]

you forgot going back in her house to wash up..

I would assume that she had to get the the keys out of the car's ignition to unlock her door?

so that means she walked back across Laci and Scott's yard, across her yard, out to her car in the street, got the keys, left the car... walked back thru her yard, unlocked her door and went in to wash her hands...then came out, locked up and walked back down the street and got back into her car and left..

I assume she locked the door b/c as she said it wasn't unusual to have strange ppl walk by her house..

either way, this was all done in 16 minutes??

she accomplished all of this and yet someone couldn't have abducted Laci in approx the same amt of time???


Let's examine the reasonableness of her revised timeline, I will go through her motions on Dec 24th as she described them at the trial.

According to Karen Servas, at 10:18 am, she saw McKenzie as she was backing out of her driveway..

-She pulled her car over to the curb..

-She walked over to McKenzie, as he was standing there staring at her..

-She looked at his tag to make sure it was actually McKenzie..

-She noticed that his leash was attached, she grabbed his leash and walked with him..

-She walked across her lawn to the Peterson's front gate..

-She tried the gate and found it locked..

-She continued to walk across their lawn and went around the corner to the side gate..

-She found the side gate open, she walked with McKenzie into the backyard..

-She walked with McKenzie along the cement by the pool up to the end of the house, and looked to the left.

-She walked back with Mckenzie and went under the covered patio..

-She said to Mckenzie "stay ..bye-bye", she left and closed the gate..

-She walked across both lawns..

-She realized that her hands were dirty, and decided to go back to her house..

-She washed her hands..

-She walked back to her car that was parked by the curb, and she drove away..!

IMO, It would probably have taken her 4 minutes to do all that..... that would mean that she left at 10:22 am to do her errands...

Using Mapquest:

At 10:22 am, she departed from 517 Covena ave ( her house)

At 10:27 am, she arrived at 1601 I st ( Bank of America), she circled the parking lot twice, could not find a parking space, that indicates to me that the traffic was quite heavy that day, obviously, mapquest didn't take that into consideration..( let's say it took her 1 minute to do that)

At 10:28 am, she departed from 1601 I st. (BOA)

At 10:31 am, she arrived at 701 I st (Austin's).

According to the receipt, she completed her purchase at 10:34 am..

Here is the question: how was it possible for Karen Servas to do the following in 3 minutes:

Find a parking space, park her car, walk to the store, find two Christmas ornaments, stand in line, and pay for her purchase.

IMO, it is even more problematic in light of what she testified to in regards to a phone call she made..let's take a look at that, she testified at the preliminary hearing that she left the store, went back to her car and made a phone call, here is the problem, according to her cell records, that phone call was placed at 10:38 am, so it took her 4 minutes to walk from the store to her car!! well, at the trial she testified that she made that phone call when she was between Austin's and Starbuck's, however, according to mapquest, the trip from Austin's to Starbuck's would only take 1 minute, even if we are to believe her testimony at the trial, then IMO, we can safely conclude that it took her 3 1/2 minutes to walk from the store, to get in her car, and to pull out of her parking place. Yet, it only took her 3 minutes from the moment she arrived at Austin's address until she paid for her purchase.

[adnoid]

IMO Neither Mark Geragos nor an investigator representing him would risk such an action as switching the receipts...

Because Geragos has such a great track record (http://www.courttv.com/trials/ryder/) with receipts, right?

[adnoid]

More Case Law



FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State ...Although Cox's coat may have been larger than Brown's, jurors are presumed to use their common sense and reasoning powers to compensate for this variable. ...
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=670242&invol=o01 caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=670242&invol=o01

:beer: I totally agree! Great post!

[deputydi]

Let's examine the reasonableness of her revised timeline, I will go through her motions on Dec 24th as she described them at the trial.

According to Karen Servas, at 10:18 am, she saw McKenzie as she was backing out of her driveway..

-She pulled her car over to the curb..

-She walked over to McKenzie, as he was standing there staring at her..

-She looked at his tag to make sure it was actually McKenzie..

-She noticed that his leash was attached, she grabbed his leash and walked with him..

-She walked across her lawn to the Peterson's front gate..

-She tried the gate and found it locked..

-She continued to walk across their lawn and went around the corner to the side gate..

-She found the side gate open, she walked with McKenzie into the backyard..

-She walked with McKenzie along the cement by the pool up to the end of the house, and looked to the left.

-She walked back with Mckenzie and went under the covered patio..

-She said to Mckenzie "stay ..bye-bye", she left and closed the gate..

-She walked across both lawns..

-She realized that her hands were dirty, and decided to go back to her house..

-She washed her hands..

-She walked back to her car that was parked by the curb, and she drove away..!

IMO, It would probably have taken her 4 minutes to do all that..... that would mean that she left at 10:22 am to do her errands...

Using Mapquest:

At 10:22 am, she departed from 517 Covena ave ( her house)

At 10:27 am, she arrived at 1601 I st ( Bank of America), she circled the parking lot twice, could not find a parking space, that indicates to me that the traffic was quite heavy that day, obviously, mapquest didn't take that into consideration..( let's say it took her 1 minute to do that)

At 10:28 am, she departed from 1601 I st. (BOA)

At 10:31 am, she arrived at 701 I st (Austin's).

According to the receipt, she completed her purchase at 10:34 am..

Here is the question: how was it possible for Karen Servas to do the following in 3 minutes:

Find a parking space, park her car, walk to the store, find two Christmas ornaments, stand in line, and pay for her purchase.

IMO, it is even more problematic in light of what she testified to in regards to a phone call she made..let's take a look at that, she testified at the preliminary hearing that she left the store, went back to her car and made a phone call, here is the problem, according to her cell records, that phone call was placed at 10:38 am, so it took her 4 minutes to walk from the store to her car!! well, at the trial she testified that she made that phone call when she was between Austin's and Starbuck's, however, according to mapquest, the trip from Austin's to Starbuck's would only take 1 minute, even if we are to believe her testimony at the trial, then IMO, we can safely conclude that it took her 3 1/2 minutes to walk from the store, to get in her car, and to pull out of her parking place. Yet, it only took her 3 minutes from the moment she arrived at Austin's address until she paid for her purchase.
Oh, good grief. Even Garagos when referring to the 10:18 time says APPROXIMATELY.

[attorneywan2be]

#1 - I never said she was driving when she saw McK.

She pulled out of her driveway so her front end was facing SOUTH - toward Encina. Her car would not have been closer to the Peterson house than the Medina house. She saw Mac out of her driver side window. She pulled over to the curb - she says that by then he had moved to her back driver's side bumper - which means her car is pulled over south of her driveway - facing south.

Who said she walked across neighbor's yards - why would she need to?

I don't have access to anything more than you do. In fact you have access to more than I do - since you claim to be from the Modesto area - or lived there at one time and seen the Medina house with your own eyes. I don't live anywhere near there - nor have I ever been to Modesto.

Look at the google map you provided. Servas' driveway is the curvy one - directly across the street from the south side of the Medina home where the red vehicle is parked in the map you provided.

Here's the pic you asked for.

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/27D.jpg

Here is her testimony:



For more clarification - her pre-lim testimony:




http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/33.JPG


You are absolutely correct TAI..

Karen Servas testified that when she found Mckenzie, she grabbed his leash and walked ACROSS HER LAWN...her driveway is on the side of her property that is away from Scott's and Laci's house...this would mean that she found McKenzie close to her driveway because she had to walk across her lawn to get to the front gate of the Petersons house..

Rick Distaso: And we'll talk about the receipts in a minute. So after you found the dog and you checked his tags, what did you do next?
Karen Servas: I took his leash in my hand and I walked across my lawn and across to Scott and Laci's house and I tried to open the front gate.
Rick Distaso: Okay. So you went here across your lawn?
Karen Servas: Correct.


http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i231/dream777/karenServasshouse.jpg

[USAHICK]

You are absolutely correct TAI..

Karen Servas testified that when she found Mckenzie, she grabbed his leash and walked ACROSS HER LAWN...her driveway is on the side of her property that is away from Scott's and Laci's house...this would mean that she found McKenzie close to her driveway because she had to walk across her lawn to get to the front gate of the Petersons house..

Rick Distaso: And we'll talk about the receipts in a minute. So after you found the dog and you checked his tags, what did you do next?
Karen Servas: I took his leash in my hand and I walked across my lawn and across to Scott and Laci's house and I tried to open the front gate.
Rick Distaso: Okay. So you went here across your lawn?
Karen Servas: Correct.


http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i231/dream777/karenServasshouse.jpg


There is lawn on both sides of the driveway.

[woohoo]

you forgot going back in her house to wash up..

I would assume that she had to get the the keys out of the car's ignition to unlock her door?

so that means she walked back across Laci and Scott's yard, across her yard, out to her car in the street, got the keys, left the car... walked back thru her yard, unlocked her door and went in to wash her hands...then came out, locked up and walked back down the street and got back into her car and left..

I assume she locked the door b/c as she said it wasn't unusual to have strange ppl walk by her house..

either way, this was all done in 16 minutes??

she accomplished all of this and yet someone couldn't have abducted Laci in approx the same amt of time???

Yes I did leave out the wash up-didn't mean to.

But actually the trip and other actions prior to arriving at the store would have been 11 minutes because she said she had been in the store 5 minutes shopping.

[Lavindar]

you forgot going back in her house to wash up..

I would assume that she had to get the the keys out of the car's ignition to unlock her door?

so that means she walked back across Laci and Scott's yard, across her yard, out to her car in the street, got the keys, left the car... walked back thru her yard, unlocked her door and went in to wash her hands...then came out, locked up and walked back down the street and got back into her car and left..

I assume she locked the door b/c as she said it wasn't unusual to have strange ppl walk by her house..

either way, this was all done in 16 minutes??

she accomplished all of this and yet someone couldn't have abducted Laci in approx the same amt of time???

you are assuming that Laci went willingly with an abductor also. A screaming or struggling victim requires more time than someone willingly walking into their house, washing their hands, getting in their car and making a 2 mile drive

[Lavindar]

Oh, good grief. Even Garagos when referring to the 10:18 time says APPROXIMATELY.
Mapquest is VERY inaccurate. The distance is close, but the lights are not timed and she would be making a left turn onto 9th from I street - never a quick thing to do. Day, night, rush hour, holiday - anytime. Then a light at 9th and J that is also not timed and then a light at 9th & K. Distance - not far - driving difficult. Parking at Starbucks - on the street only.

[Miss Bootsie]

IMO, they did exactly that...at least there is a couple of appeal issues due to Guinasso's statement:

Geragos later tried to use that incident to ask for a mistrial. But the real buzz among jurors was prompted by Peterson's reaction when the juror sat in the boat, Guinasso said.

"(The juror) reached over like he wanted to see if he could toss somebody overboard," Guinasso said, "and Scott Peterson dropped his chin almost to his chest."

http://www.modbee.com/reports/peterson/trial/story/10107564p-10931862c.html

They did exactly what?

If those were actually the words by Guinasso, then Scott dropped his head when the Jurors were conducting a critical examination of the boat which is allowed in a Court of Law.

How do you determine that merely sitting in the boat could possibly constitute anything other than the Juror reenacting a person sitting in the boat?

imo, I believe, if it even gets this far, it will be the Appeals Court opinion, SP had a reaction when the Jurors were conducting a critical examination of the boat. Nothing more.

As for the Juror leaning over the boat - Refer back to my post where I cited the case law.
Same thing I wrote above applies to Scott's reaction.

I also believe a sworn affidivit by the Jurors will be what the Appeals Court base their opinion on. If it even gets to this point.

[Lavindar]

this little snip struck a chord with me..I'll do it as soon as you all give up on the 'scott is guilty at all costs'....and for once become the only truly impartial side that you all have claimed that you are...

I have given into many many things that I find 'guilty' in this case but have yet to come across a G that will do the same........ every single thing in this case must be b/c Scott is guilt, Scott wanted it to look like, Scott lied about.., Scott tried to hide.... etc etc

listen to myself? Listen to ya'll....... "Scott knew it was dead so he pretend to call her phone for a month so he could say he didn't know it was dead, he planned everything else out so well.."

or maybe noone, including Scott and Ron didn't know it was broken b/c it wasn't broken and The Globe printed a false rumor..(yeah, hard to believe they'd do something like that)

the fact that you would risk your credibility over a tabloid rumor repeated by a blood-money profiteer, instead of just admitting that the only thing we know for certain was the battery was low, is shocking to me....altho why it's shocking I just don't know..... as I have said, I've never seen one ounce given to the believability of anything having to do with Scott Peterson.

you would rather believe triple+ hearsay on an issue to prove your point......"someone said that someone else said and she wrote about it..."

but then in another thread go on to demand only trial testimony when others want to prove theirs...'What Wecht said on a TV program, his book, or print media isn't good enough, give me his trial testimony or stop using him.... who cares if it's not at all hearsay since it's him saying it, we want sworn testimony that has been given in a court of law!'

and I believe you even used your LARGE BOLD FONT to tell me that OS aren't testimony, therefore not a good enough source.

So, if I have to accept The Globe and the profiteer as the Gods honest truth, truth you all are so willing to risk your credibility on, I would ask that you do not ask me for trial ts.... since Pre-lims should be just as good as The Globe and the profiteer..

I would ask that you do not ask me for trial ts since opening statements should be just as reliable as The Globe and the profiteer.

same goes with any other resource I may need to prove whatever point I am trying to make..any of them will either be better or atleast on par with The Globe and the profiteer.

or at the very least, hold yourselves to the standard you've set for me and every other SII/SNG...


I'm not angry..... just speaking my peace.http://www.laughinglizards.com/images/ll810-200.jpg Again, please show me where I posted in a Large bold font? I don't recall ever doing that and if you are going to accuse me of something, I would like to see some proof of same

[thinkaboutit]

Mapquest is VERY inaccurate. The distance is close, but the lights are not timed and she would be making a left turn onto 9th from I street - never a quick thing to do. Day, night, rush hour, holiday - anytime. Then a light at 9th and J that is also not timed and then a light at 9th & K. Distance - not far - driving difficult. Parking at Starbucks - on the street only.


So Lavindar, are you saying it would have taken her longer?

[Lavindar]

There is lawn on both sides of the driveway.

These pictures are taken with a wide-angle lens. If you could see the lawns, they are not nearly as large as they look.


25) Mark Geragos: Okay. And would you estimate that it's less than 15 from the dining room area to your house?
26) Karen Servas: Yes. Less than 15.

this is very close - not a lot of yard to cover to get to the gate and back to Karen's house

[woohoo]

Oh, good grief. Even Garagos when referring to the 10:18 time says APPROXIMATELY.

But by allowing this timeline of 10:18 as when she found the dog to be carved in stone, and in people's minds, it had a domino effect all down through the trial.

It was the reason given for disregarding some of the witnesses who said they saw Laci at a given time and MORE importantly it effected the "Aponte evidence." If the 10:18 time that Mac was found is to be believed, that would negate the statement that Laci interrupted Todd & Pearce in the Medina burglary. Because the burglary couldn't have taken place before the Medinas left at approximately 10:33 based on the record of the cell phone call Susan Medina made.

And I feel confident that the "Aponte evidence" will prove out.

[Lavindar]

But by allowing this timeline of 10:18 as when she found the dog to be carved in stone, and in people's minds, it had a domino effect all down through the trial.

It was the reason given for disregarding some of the witnesses who said they saw Laci at a given time and MORE importantly it effected the "Aponte evidence." If the 10:18 time that Mac was found is to be believed, that would negate the statement that Laci interrupted Todd & Pearce in the Medina burglary. Because the burglary couldn't have taken place before the Medinas left at approximately 10:33 based on the record of the cell phone call Susan Medina made.

And I feel confident that the "Aponte evidence" will prove out. Karen's original time line would discount the witnesses even more as most of them saw Laci at about the time Karen said she was putting the dog in the yard. Garegos sure loved the 10:18 time when he tried to get Diane Campos's siting changed from 10:45 to 9:45


It also means the burglars still couldn't have been there at 10:30 as Medinas were still home at that point. So it has garbage to do with the Medina time line

[attorneywan2be]

Oh, good grief. Even Garagos when referring to the 10:18 time says APPROXIMATELY.


I think he only used that term "APPROXIMATELY" once as it relates to the "10:18" timeline...so we need to look at it in context of what he said...guess what??? she changed her timeline yet again.....LOL...if it is an approximate time, why bother changing it again for 2 minutes difference..???


Mark Geragos: And then she said that she was in Austin's for five minutes. And then she estimates that's when she came up with approximately 10:18 on the 3rd of January, correct?

Jon Buehler: That's what her estimate was when retracing those things, yes.

Mark Geragos: Then you called her the next day; is that right? Or she called you on the 4th. I'm looking at Bates stamp1097. Was that Brocchini that she talked to?

Jon Buehler: I don't think I have that one.

Mark Geragos: Okay. Looks like Detective Brocchini talked to her the next day?

Jon Buehler: On the report stamp 1097 it's got Brocchini's name at the bottom, that's correct.

Mark Geragos: In that report she says that it's now 10:20. So the following day she had moved the time again to 10:20?

Jon Buehler: Well, it's not accurate, because she says around 10:20. At least that's what he put in his report that her - - clearly was around 10:20. So that's ten minutes -- correction -- two minutes later than what she told me the day before.

Mark Geragos: Twelve minutes earlier than what she had said the week before, correct?

Jon Buehler: Yes.

[woohoo]

Because Geragos has such a great track record (http://www.courttv.com/trials/ryder/) with receipts, right?

Winona Winona! Did he ever try and enter that receipt into the court record?

[woohoo]

Let's examine the reasonableness of her revised timeline, I will go through her motions on Dec 24th as she described them at the trial.

According to Karen Servas, at 10:18 am, she saw McKenzie as she was backing out of her driveway..

-She pulled her car over to the curb..

-She walked over to McKenzie, as he was standing there staring at her..

-She looked at his tag to make sure it was actually McKenzie..

-She noticed that his leash was attached, she grabbed his leash and walked with him..

-She walked across her lawn to the Peterson's front gate..

-She tried the gate and found it locked..

-She continued to walk across their lawn and went around the corner to the side gate..

-She found the side gate open, she walked with McKenzie into the backyard..

-She walked with McKenzie along the cement by the pool up to the end of the house, and looked to the left.

-She walked back with Mckenzie and went under the covered patio..

-She said to Mckenzie "stay ..bye-bye", she left and closed the gate..

-She walked across both lawns..

-She realized that her hands were dirty, and decided to go back to her house..

-She washed her hands..

-She walked back to her car that was parked by the curb, and she drove away..!

IMO, It would probably have taken her 4 minutes to do all that..... that would mean that she left at 10:22 am to do her errands...

Using Mapquest:

At 10:22 am, she departed from 517 Covena ave ( her house)

At 10:27 am, she arrived at 1601 I st ( Bank of America), she circled the parking lot twice, could not find a parking space, that indicates to me that the traffic was quite heavy that day, obviously, mapquest didn't take that into consideration..( let's say it took her 1 minute to do that)

At 10:28 am, she departed from 1601 I st. (BOA)

At 10:31 am, she arrived at 701 I st (Austin's).

According to the receipt, she completed her purchase at 10:34 am..

Here is the question: how was it possible for Karen Servas to do the following in 3 minutes:

Find a parking space, park her car, walk to the store, find two Christmas ornaments, stand in line, and pay for her purchase.

IMO, it is even more problematic in light of what she testified to in regards to a phone call she made..let's take a look at that, she testified at the preliminary hearing that she left the store, went back to her car and made a phone call, here is the problem, according to her cell records, that phone call was placed at 10:38 am, so it took her 4 minutes to walk from the store to her car!! well, at the trial she testified that she made that phone call when she was between Austin's and Starbuck's, however, according to mapquest, the trip from Austin's to Starbuck's would only take 1 minute, even if we are to believe her testimony at the trial, then IMO, we can safely conclude that it took her 3 1/2 minutes to walk from the store, to get in her car, and to pull out of her parking place. Yet, it only took her 3 minutes from the moment she arrived at Austin's address until she paid for her purchase.

According to her note she spent 5 minutes shopping:
Detective Buehler:

Enclosed is my receipt from Austins on 12/24/02.

After I found the Peterson’s dog and put it back in their yard, I went in briefly to wash my hands at my house. I then went to Bank of America, couldn’t find a parking spot; then drove to Austin’s.

I have retraced my trip; timed it from the time I found the dog to parking at Austin’s. I approximated the time it took was about 11 minutes. I was in Austin’s for five minutes before I made my purchase. I went to the second cash register furthest away from the front door.

So I estimate I found the dog at 10:18 a.m., based on the receipt and working the timing backwards.

If you need any more info, please call me at 480-1744.

Thanks,

Karen Servas

[Lavindar]

Winona Winona! Did he ever try and enter that receipt into the court record?
No, because there was no receipt to enter. He just waved the paper around, just like he did with the paper that he said Diane Jackson said "safe" on. It was never entered into evidence either. More smoke and mirrors from the master of suggestion

[attorneywan2be]

There is lawn on both sides of the driveway.

So what is your point?.. she had to walk across the lawn that is closer to the Peterson side, which is the one on the right side of the driveway...which is the wider lawn...

[woohoo]

If she "approximated" - surely it wouldn't have been LESS time than 11 minutes to accomplish all that.

And every minute of "approximation" added widens that 10-minute window.

[thinkaboutit]

These pictures are taken with a wide-angle lens. If you could see the lawns, they are not nearly as large as they look.


25) Mark Geragos: Okay. And would you estimate that it's less than 15 from the dining room area to your house?
26) Karen Servas: Yes. Less than 15.

this is very close - not a lot of yard to cover to get to the gate and back to Karen's house

Yes - the first time I saw a pic of the Medina home - I was shocked how small the front yard was. I thought - no way Todd and Pearce loaded that safe up on the 26th with media present.

[thinkaboutit]

But by allowing this timeline of 10:18 as when she found the dog to be carved in stone, and in people's minds, it had a domino effect all down through the trial.

It was the reason given for disregarding some of the witnesses who said they saw Laci at a given time and MORE importantly it effected the "Aponte evidence." If the 10:18 time that Mac was found is to be believed, that would negate the statement that Laci interrupted Todd & Pearce in the Medina burglary. Because the burglary couldn't have taken place before the Medinas left at approximately 10:33 based on the record of the cell phone call Susan Medina made.

And I feel confident that the "Aponte evidence" will prove out.


Absolutely - I am confident of that as well!!

[attorneywan2be]

According to her note she spent 5 minutes shopping:
Detective Buehler:

Enclosed is my receipt from Austins on 12/24/02.

After I found the Peterson’s dog and put it back in their yard, I went in briefly to wash my hands at my house. I then went to Bank of America, couldn’t find a parking spot; then drove to Austin’s.

I have retraced my trip; timed it from the time I found the dog to parking at Austin’s. I approximated the time it took was about 11 minutes. I was in Austin’s for five minutes before I made my purchase. I went to the second cash register furthest away from the front door.

So I estimate I found the dog at 10:18 a.m., based on the receipt and working the timing backwards.

If you need any more info, please call me at 480-1744.

Thanks,

Karen Servas


Exactly...but I'm not buying that it took her 11 minutes to do all that..that's why I said in my post that I'm examining the reasonableness of her new timeline..regardless, whether she had 3 minutes or 5 minutes to shop at the store, IMO, that is not enough time by any stretch of imagination..

[Lavindar]

no, it doesn't answer it at all....

where is this police report? can I see it?

who heard Jackie say it in her house? and who reported it to LE?

why didn't RD use it? Jackie said it AFTER a press conference, not at the house so many people were there.

[woohoo]

No, because there was no receipt to enter. He just waved the paper around, just like he did with the paper that he said Diane Jackson said "safe" on. It was never entered into evidence either. More smoke and mirrors from the master of suggestion

Not officially "entered into evidence" but it is a court record based on a motion filed. Both by Geragos and in opposition by Distaso.

Did you see him waving something?? I missed that.

[woohoo]

Exactly...but I'm not buying that it took her 11 minutes to do all that..that's why I said in my post that I'm examining the reasonableness of her new timeline..regardless, whether she had 3 minutes or 5 minutes to shop at the store, IMO, that is not enough time by any stretch of imagination..

It is NOT reasonable and like I said earlier it had a domino effect all thru the trial.

[attorneywan2be]

If she "approximated" - surely it wouldn't have been LESS time than 11 minutes to accomplish all that.

And every minute of "approximation" added widens that 10-minute window.

Exactly..according to my estimate, it would have taken her at least 13 minutes to accomplish what she said she did..which would leave her 3 minutes at the store to shop based on the 10:18 timeline..IMO, it is totally ridiculous..

[Lavindar]

It is NOT reasonable and like I said earlier it had a domino effect all thru the trial.

Yet the defense did not argue it at all. Hmmmmmm

[accordn2me]

Absolutely - I am confident of that as well!!

Hey tai :seeya:


Can the Aponte tip be called "evidence?" I'd say it falls more on the hearsay side of the fence. :shrug:

[thinkaboutit]

Hey tai :seeya:


Can the Aponte tip be called "evidence?" I'd say it falls more on the hearsay side of the fence. :shrug:

Hi A2Me! :seeya:

I don't know - I don't know all those ins and outs. Are there any circumstances in which Aponte could testify to what he heard?

[accordn2me]

Hi A2Me! :seeya:

I don't know - I don't know all those ins and outs. Are there any circumstances in which Aponte could testify to what he heard?Good question. Because he was available to be called in the first trial but wasn't, I don't think he can be used in an appeal.....only a new trial.

I find Aponte extremely curious that when inteviewed he refused to let the interview be taped. What makes you think he would testify?

[Lavindar]

Good question. Because he was available to be called in the first trial but wasn't, I don't think he can be used in an appeal.....only a new trial.

I find Aponte extremely curious that when inteviewed he refused to let the interview be taped. What makes you think he would testify?

ALL telephone calls in and out of CA prisons are recorded. The fact they can't find it tells me that it doesn't exist.

[Lavindar]

If she "approximated" - surely it wouldn't have been LESS time than 11 minutes to accomplish all that.

And every minute of "approximation" added widens that 10-minute window.

I don't call the exact retracing of her steps with a stop watch an approximation. I call it a re-enactment. and it's entirely possible as the route to Austins is all timed stoplights and only 2 miles

[TopGunner]

Exactly...but I'm not buying that it took her 11 minutes to do all that..that's why I said in my post that I'm examining the reasonableness of her new timeline..regardless, whether she had 3 minutes or 5 minutes to shop at the store, IMO, that is not enough time by any stretch of imagination..


I can get up to CVS, make a purchase, and back home here in under 10 minutes. It's about 10 blocks away. How far was this store she went to?

[TopGunner]

Exactly..according to my estimate, it would have taken her at least 13 minutes to accomplish what she said she did..which would leave her 3 minutes at the store to shop based on the 10:18 timeline..IMO, it is totally ridiculous..

AW2B, how does your estimate differ from the LE's? Did you drive it? Time it while you drove it? Am I understanding that this bickering is over a few minutes? This will get him out? :confused:

[TopGunner]

so I ask for link proving that she knew it was broken....... and you answer by asking me to prove she used it?


ekg, this is like asking for a link saying Laci said Scott didn't kill her.

The original statement, that Jackie Peterson said everyone knew her cell phone hadn't worked for weeks has turned into ONCE AGAIN a "link?" tirade. It clearly states it in Crier's book, which has also been stated - page number included. Crier says in her book she read it in a police report. If all of you want to call Crier a liar (hey that rymes!), fine - who cares? I don't believe she lied, and I'm sure 98% of the population doesn't believe it either. I said it was said. It WAS said. It's IN writing. I said I read it in Criers book, it IS in Crier's book, so what's the argument?

[Lavindar]

I can get up to CVS, make a purchase, and back home here in under 10 minutes. It's about 10 blocks away. How far was this store she went to? about 2 miles I think she said- my guess is more like 3

[TopGunner]

about 2 miles I think she said- my guess is more like 3


Well, in this case, I'll eat my grits. :D

[thinkaboutit]

ekg, this is like asking for a link saying Laci said Scott didn't kill her.

The original statement, that Jackie Peterson said everyone knew her cell phone hadn't worked for weeks has turned into ONCE AGAIN a "link?" tirade. It clearly states it in Crier's book, which has also been stated - page number included. Crier says in her book she read it in a police report. If all of you want to call Crier a liar (hey that rymes!), fine - who cares? I don't believe she lied, and I'm sure 98% of the population doesn't believe it either. I said it was said. It WAS said. It's IN writing. I said I read it in Criers book, it IS in Crier's book, so what's the argument?

Well....if Crier says that Jackie said it....then it MUST be true. :eek:

[thinkaboutit]

ALL telephone calls in and out of CA prisons are recorded. The fact they can't find it tells me that it doesn't exist.

So Lt. Aponte lied? Why would he do that?

[cookiewench]

Well....if Crier says that Jackie said it....then it MUST be true. :eek:


You don't have to believe it. We still all know that Jackie is a habitual liar. She trained Scott in lying from infancy - although both of them remained amateurs at their favorite passtime, and were regularly busted.

[Otter]

You don't have to believe it. We still all know that Jackie is a habitual liar. She trained Scott in lying from infancy - although both of them remained amateurs at their favorite passtime, and were regularly busted.

Except for the time when she said something like "no one is that stupid, not even you Scott."

That was kind of the truth. In a sick sort of way. :-(