Scott Peterson's appeal

[accordn2me]

She did say that her previous boyfriend Dave told her that he had lost his wife:

Quote

[Amber Frey: I had left him a message after learning the information about, that Kelly wasn't dead, and he later called me back, and I explained to him, I said Do you remember my friend Dave that I was telling you about, and about how he had lost his wife? And he said yes, and that I had ran into her, thinking that she was her twin sister, Shelly, and, and she, and she said Well, I'm sure he wished that I was, but no. And I was very shaken up by, by this whole situation that had happened, because he had told me three years prior, when I had ran into him at the Rib House, I had asked where Kelly was, and he said You, you didn't, you didn't hear? I said No, what? And he said Well, you know she had a heart condition, right? And I said Well, yeah. And he said she passed away last February, and, I didn't, I had never heard that, and so I was taken back a little bit by that. And I asked how he was, and he said that he was, you know, getting over it and it's been hard for him. And at that point I hadn't seen him for, I didn't really see him that often, and then I would, later on we became or established a friendship with each other, and he would often talk about, about Kelly and their relationship and, and the doctor bills that he was still paying, and had talked about..]

I have to run..I will address the rest of your post later..
Girl! What are you going to do without me when I'm gone? :punch: And I should be packing as I type....maybe I should request a ban from FW until I reach LA.:tongue:

Let me highlight this for you....and btw....WHERE did you get it from...Amber's book?

Amber Frey: I had left him a message after learning the information about, that Kelly wasn't dead, and he later called me back, and I explained to him, I said Do you remember my friend Dave that I was telling you about, and about how he had lost his wife? And he said yes, and that I had ran into her, thinking that she was her twin sister, Shelly, and, and she, and she said Well, I'm sure he wished that I was, but no. And I was very shaken up by, by this whole situation that had happened, because he had told me three years prior, when I had ran into him at the Rib House, I had asked where Kelly was, and he said You, you didn't, you didn't hear? I said No, what? And he said Well, you know she had a heart condition, right? And I said Well, yeah. And he said she passed away last February, and, I didn't, I had never heard that, and so I was taken back a little bit by that. And I asked how he was, and he said that he was, you know, getting over it and it's been hard for him. And at that point I hadn't seen him for, I didn't really see him that often, and then I would, later on we became or established a friendship with each other, and he would often talk about, about Kelly and their relationship and, and the doctor bills that he was still paying, and had talked about...

Do you see the difference here? This guy LIED and said his wife had a heart condition and had died "passed away"...in the past "last February." Amber used the word "lost" in the sense of death, not missing, understand.

SLP LIED and said that he had "lost" his wife....Amber later substituted the word "missing" when questioning SLP. SLP not only used the word LOST but said this would be his first holidays without her.....and this was before Laci was gone, you see. He made 2 predictions..."lost my wife" and "This will be my first holidays without her" while Laci was alive and well. Then those 2 things happened after he said they were going to! He murdered her.

[Miss Bootsie]

Are you now changing the argument..? LOL ;)

*Snipped*


hmmm, think I know of a certain person that suddenly changes the subject/argument quite often.;)

[Otter]

Let's add Ted Rowlands and Chuck Smithto the mix of people with poor hearing:

from Larry King Live:

TED ROWLANDS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, you know, this was something that when it came out, it was confusing to a lot of people. And I know the Rocha family was upset when Scott said publicly that the due date was different than the 10th, saying it was the 16th. He said that they had this later appointment on the 23rd and the doctor basically changed it. Now to find out that it was Amber's birthday, too, has this weird significance, I guess, in terms of well, Amber sure thinks it does. And that comes across in this tape.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/16/lkl.01.html

Remember the testimony where Dr. Tow-der said she did NOT change the due date?


CHUCK SMITH, FMR. SAN MATEO COUNTY PROSECUTOR: No, I disagree with Michael on that point. The importance of the testimony about what he did and whether he slept with his wife in the same bed on the evening of the 23rd, he could have easily said, hey, look, she's eight months pregnant, I wanted to let her have all the room. He didn't. Instead he suggested to Amber that there's a reason he's not sleeping with his wife. And he's deliberately distancing himself from his wife.

He does the same thing regarding his child. He never talks about it as my son, my child, our child. It's always her child or the child. And then later on today, even regarding the house, he says to Amber, oh, I'm at the house where she was abducted from. Not our house. He is deliberately distancing himself. And if I play amateur psychologist a little bit, I look at this and I say, here's a man who knows he's done something terribly wrong, and he can't come to grips with it even himself. So he's trying to really put himself outside it as if it's not him.

Lav, I've been pondering this post.

I realize we've segued into other territory but this just seems to have flown by and it touches on so many things.

I had NO idea that the "changed" due date was AF's birthday, and that came out of SP's mouth, no one else. No wonder Sharon was surprised, but she didn't have any idea about anyone else's birthdate at the time. She of course made the connection -- adding to her despair no doubt. :-( AF picked up on it, and it must have been chilling to her.

Chuck Smith is a good armchair psychologist IMO. "The" house, not "our" house or even "my" house.

Thanks for posting this -- it speaks volumes, as if I needed more.

[TopGunner]

hmmm, think I know of a certain person that suddenly changes the subject/argument quite often.;)



Not just changes the subject, but runs off when proven wrong. Again. :beer:

[TopGunner]

Girl! What are you going to do without me when I'm gone? :punch: And I should be packing as I type....maybe I should request a ban from FW until I reach LA.:tongue:

Let me highlight this for you....and btw....WHERE did you get it from...Amber's book?



Do you see the difference here? This guy LIED and said his wife had a heart condition and had died "passed away"...in the past "last February." Amber used the word "lost" in the sense of death, not missing, understand.

SLP LIED and said that he had "lost" his wife....Amber later substituted the word "missing" when questioning SLP. SLP not only used the word LOST but said this would be his first holidays without her.....and this was before Laci was gone, you see. He made 2 predictions..."lost my wife" and "This will be my first holidays without her" while Laci was alive and well. Then those 2 things happened after he said they were going to! He murdered her.


Amber what quite CLEAR in her book that ISP said "I lost my wife and this will be my first holiday without her". The fact that she said "missing" and "tragedy" while speaking with him on the telephone, points to NERVOUSNESS, not lying, or she would have LIED in her book !!!:biggrin:

[Lavindar]

Lav, I've been pondering this post.

I realize we've segued into other territory but this just seems to have flown by and it touches on so many things.

I had NO idea that the "changed" due date was AF's birthday, and that came out of SP's mouth, no one else. No wonder Sharon was surprised, but she didn't have any idea about anyone else's birthdate at the time. She of course made the connection -- adding to her despair no doubt. :-( AF picked up on it, and it must have been chilling to her.

Chuck Smith is a good armchair psychologist IMO. "The" house, not "our" house or even "my" house.

Thanks for posting this -- it speaks volumes, as if I needed more.

I believe the original due date (the 10th) was Amber's birthday. Nevertheless, no one seems to know of the changed date but Scott. Both OB /GYNs testified that a date is NOT changed unless it's 7 days difference.

[ekg]

ekg, no offense, but we seem to have a problem here on this forum in that certain posts for some reason are never addressed. I believe this problem has been mentioned before.

i.e. Reference to recent posts
Adnoid's post # 2927
Do you agree or disagree with post 2927? Why do you agree or disagree?

My posts # 2848 - 2855 - 2889 -2898

Do you agree or disagree with my posts? Why do you agree or disagree?

You are totally within your rights to ignore the posts if you choose to, but I'm curious why posts that are a little more indepth are never addressed.:shrug:

Miss Bootsie...

you seriously want me to comment on each and every one of those posts?

I have had many parts of my posts ignored, but since you need this....

adnoid-2927

I have no idea what the conversation is about in that ongoing 'conversation' which is probably why I didn't answer it...

give me the conversation and maybe I can make a comment on it...


your 2848, I have already listed why I think the tapes will be an appeal issue... post 2899 I believe.... which BTW you also have neglected to answer with anything other than "has little to do with the appeals"... you also did not answer my 2964, maybe you would like to now?

I think the tapes did effect the outcome of the trial.. and I don't believe the attorney will have to show the jury relied on them for their verdict.. just them having the tapes and hearing them are enough. The Andrea Yates jury only heard the misinformation about the L & O episode.. I don't recall her lawyer having to show that each juror relied on that to convict her..

what about the purchase of the boat
what about the bay
what about the 24th
what about the bodies being on the shore....

all of those issues I have addressed singularly in many other posts... why are you asking me to address them now? I do not think the boat was secret or bought with intention to dump and body, him going fishing is not a question to me, since Ron did it in the same weather and at the same time, I do not find it 'guilty' either,her going missing the same day he's 90 miles away has always been a 'weird' spot for me, but not enough to convict. The bodies being on the shore along with Cheng not being able to track Laci, and all those searches coming up empty, tell me they didn't come from where Scott was that day. I do not believe Laci washed up by the hand of God like it has been said on this board and I think the massive,"un-recreatable" storm would have obliterated what was left the baby.There was an unaccounted for person in a zodiac boat in the area around the same time the bodies washed up, a person that was described by the LE that was searching for him to be 'mysterious' because of the way he was dressed and the stuff in his boat. I think it's possible Laci may have been in the area of the albany bulb(where iirc her trajectory matches???).noone would need a boat to dump her there.all of these things would need to be answered for me to make a decision one way or the other on the bodies..


your 2855-2889

I disagree...... I think just the fact that they heard the tapes is enough to overrule th verdict..again, for the same reason as Andrea Yates won her appeal.... the jury heard something they shouldn't have.....

your-2898

I disagree.... I think with Chengs testimony on not being able to track Laci, the evidence on the baby, and the evidence around the bodies... there is enough to there to atleast give pause..and thought...I do agree that other evidence would have to also be proven to support the SODDI... and I think there is enough of that just on this board...so, I disagree with you.

why you are asking me to address question in a conversation you were having with another poster I don't know...... but if you would like me to comment on others, as just a courtesy thing please put the link up instead of making me go search for them by post number..just saying it would be alot easier on the person, who is not involved in the conversation, that you are asking to comment...

[TopGunner]

I believe the original due date (the 10th) was Amber's birthday. Nevertheless, no one seems to know of the changed date but Scott. Both OB /GYNs testified that a date is NOT changed unless it's 7 days difference.


That is correct Lavindar. ISP seems to be the ONLY one who knew about the date change that was never changed, nor testified to being changed. He also made this announcement to Kim Peterson in January, well after Laci disappeared. He wanted Kim to let the media know. I still don't know WHY he cared about the media. Why not tell friends and family, "hey, guess what, they baby's due date was changed!!!"

Nope, just like the boat, nobody knew.

[Lavindar]

EKG, I am glad you are back. Do you have the link to the decision by the 3 member appeal board on the insurance yet?

Originally Posted by ekg
huh.....

I just saw this....

since it hangs on the appeals..... and this is the 'appeals' thread... I figured this is where it should go...

If wrong, I apologize..




I think its fair.. besides the loss of his family, he's also lost his house and all of his and Laci's things.... stuff that he can never get back or replace..... even if tomorrow Brochinni proclaims him innocent of all charges and convictions and JD agrees, Scott would never get this stuff back...

so I think waiting for the appeals process to be over is fair....

Harris said the "the appeal of the verdict to take four to six years." I wonder if he meant 4-6 yrs from now.. or from when Scott was convicted...

anyway....I am shocked that the "three-judge panel of the 5th District Court of Appeal in Fresno" even seemed to agree with Harris on this..... it makes me feel a little more positive about his chance of an appeal thats for sure....

Where is their decision? I have heard of no decision from them. Link to their decision against Sharon getting the life insurance.

Scott did not lose everything. His mother and brother took a MOVIE VAN of furniture and stuff from the house. I am assuming they will not sell it and keep it for him.

[adnoid]

...maybe I should request a ban from FW until I reach LA...

I'll tell you what, if I started most of my responses to people I disagree with with a derisive "LOL" I'm sure I'D get one.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v468/adnoid/LOL.jpg

[caphill]

There were 174 witnesses against Scott Lee Peterson and 100s of pieces of evidence. Any appeals are strictly a formality. No new trial, no lesser sentence. He's permanently behind bars.


imo


Whoa. I would not dismiss the importance and seriousness of the higher courts so quickly. One of Peterson's lesser appellate issues regarding the insurance money going to Sharon has been heard and from the comments of the judges it well may go in Peterson's favor.

http://www.fresnobee.com/263/story/57640.html

[ekg]

When did I EVER say that?


Sure you can - when you are shown the FACTS. People change their mind all the time. The inability to do so shows a rigid, non-educated point of view. I thought Scott was innocent and I changed my mind. Others have too.
I don't think Amie could have identified Kim @ 2am in the morning, let alone identify the car she put things into. Street lights aren't that good on Covena


http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8909127&postcount=721

[ekg]

Where is their decision? I have heard of no decision from them. Link to their decision against Sharon getting the life insurance.

Scott did not lose everything. His mother and brother took a MOVIE VAN of furniture and stuff from the house. I am assuming they will not sell it and keep it for him.



when did I say anything about a decision?

I just posted the news as I read it. b/c it relates to this thread.......but I didn't say anything about a decision...

I did say I thought it was fair and that I surprised that they seemed to agree with Harris, but never mentioned anything about a ruling or a decision :confused:

[ekg]

There is no legal issue with this at all.

no offense and not debating you at all, but what qualifies you to make such a statement?

if this your opinion then fine...... but you are making such an absolute statement that I can't help but ask since there have been so many attorney's posting in these forums thru-out the trial...
:shrug:

[TopGunner]

Whoa. I would not dismiss the importance and seriousness of the higher courts so quickly. One of Peterson's lesser appellate issues regarding the insurance money going to Sharon has been heard and from the comments of the judges it well may go in Peterson's favor.

http://www.fresnobee.com/263/story/57640.html


Dismissing the importance and seriousness of "the higher courts" so quickly is easy.

Not only has the decision NOT been made, but let's say it was made and in ISP favor - this has NO bearing on his appeals what-so-ever. A decision in his favor means the courts are saying hold off until he's been through the process. They're not saying "hey, we think he's got a good shot at this, so let's bankroll this insurance payroll so he'll have something to live off of when he's released".

The two are entirely unrelated and this would not influence his appeal in any manner.

[Lavindar]

Whoa. I would not dismiss the importance and seriousness of the higher courts so quickly. One of Peterson's lesser appellate issues regarding the insurance money going to Sharon has been heard and from the comments of the judges it well may go in Peterson's favor.

http://www.fresnobee.com/263/story/57640.html
\
That's a totally different appeals court than will hear his trial appeal

[Lavindar]

when did I say anything about a decision?

I just posted the news as I read it. b/c it relates to this thread.......but I didn't say anything about a decision...

I did say I thought it was fair and that I surprised that they seemed to agree with Harris, but never mentioned anything about a ruling or a decision :confused:


You made it sound like a done deal imo

[Lavindar]

Whoa. I would not dismiss the importance and seriousness of the higher courts so quickly. One of Peterson's lesser appellate issues regarding the insurance money going to Sharon has been heard and from the comments of the judges it well may go in Peterson's favor.

http://www.fresnobee.com/263/story/57640.html The decision has not been reached so you can't say anything until the formal decision is made. I think the court will not want to change judicial history on this case.

By the way, this was not an automatic appeal. It's another case of the defense whining because they didn't get the answer they wanted from the first judge.

[TopGunner]

Are you now changing the argument..? LOL ;)

Where did I say they were feeding her constant things to say..the point was and remains to be that she was in the police station and the officers were passing her notes and suggestions...and she did tell Scott that he told her after Shawn's confrontation that his wife was missing and it is a tragedy..etc..which he strongly denied..



Snip (post 2960)

The bottom line is, he didn't say the word "Missing" after Shawn's confrontation....as I said, he denied it and she didn't testify to it...IMO, she was lying to get him to admit he used the word "missing"....that was the day she was sitting in the police station and officers were passing notes and suggestions to her as she was talking to Scott...I bet that statement was a note given to her by one of the officers...IMO, they wanted so bad for Scott to admit that he used the word missing 2 weeks before Laci went missing...

This is where you said it, why deny it?

They were putting QUESTIONS in front of Amber to ask ISP. That is clearly written about in her book. Why the twist?

[Lavindar]

no offense and not debating you at all, but what qualifies you to make such a statement?

if this your opinion then fine...... but you are making such an absolute statement that I can't help but ask since there have been so many attorney's posting in these forums thru-out the trial...
:shrug:
The taping was legal by california law and it has been posted here before

[Lavindar]

Snip (post 2960)

The bottom line is, he didn't say the word "Missing" after Shawn's confrontation....as I said, he denied it and she didn't testify to it...IMO, she was lying to get him to admit he used the word "missing"....that was the day she was sitting in the police station and officers were passing notes and suggestions to her as she was talking to Scott...I bet that statement was a note given to her by one of the officers...IMO, they wanted so bad for Scott to admit that he used the word missing 2 weeks before Laci went missing...

This is where you said it, why deny it?

They were putting QUESTIONS in front of Amber to ask ISP. That is clearly written about in her book. Why the twist?


Because they were not putting them in front of her constantly as she testified - from "time to time" is what she testified to. They could not hear his side of the conversation either. "Time to time" does not mean constantly as you seem to think it does

[ekg]

The taping was legal by california law and it has been posted here before


sure it was legal......

if she did it on her own...

but she didn't, she was getting questions from LE. They were asking Scott questions thru her..IMO it's bypassing the "You have the right to have an attorney present during any questioning"

I guess it's something we'll just have to wait and see

[ekg]

Because they were not putting them in front of her constantly as she testified - from "time to time" is what she testified to. They could not hear his side of the conversation either. "Time to time" does not mean constantly as you seem to think it does


IMO just telling her to ask just ONE was violating Scotts right to have his attorney present when being questioned by LE...... and Amber proves that it was LE asking the questions that day... whether continuously like TopGunner said, or whether randomly like you say..

[enlightenme]

It does.

Please cite this testimony. I have never seen where Amber said that. I "heard" that Amber was sort of involved with a married man who claimed his wife was dead, not "lost" but this man's wife was alive and well. SLP's prediction was just that...until he made it a reality which equals murder.

Different types of fish...to "shore up" his alibi - answer questions about where he was and what he was doing. Reports conveniently containing currents, tides, depth of water.....and locations of shipping channels. When someone's murdered wife turns up where they were...a LONG way from home.....the very day he reports her missing...the totality of that particular evidence points to someone searching for an appropriate dumping ground for her body..........especially in light of that ominious prediction made two weeks previous to the murder.

The previous owner used it for it's intended purpose. SLP used it, IMO, to locate the shipping channel to dump Laci's body.

OK. Until then, I'll just have to wonder why they didn't use the two experts they had...or anyone.....to refute the location of the bodies. :shrug:


I know why! They would also have to prove that Conner was removed from the top of Laci's uterus (didn't happen), that the bodies were stored differently and in an environment that mimicked the bay (didn't happen) and that the "real killer(s)" decided to move them after a 2 day storm, almost 4 months later, and place them a mile apart on the shore. That's a LOT of BS to prove.

The other reason is that no "expert" wants to be a laughing stock, even if the defense pays them well.

JMO

[TopGunner]

sure it was legal......

if she did it on her own...

but she didn't, she was getting questions from LE. They were asking Scott questions thru her..IMO it's bypassing the "You have the right to have an attorney present during any questioning"

I guess it's something we'll just have to wait and see



He wasn't booked with anything at that time. According to CA law, if murder is involved, only one party needs to consent to the recording which Amber did. Also, IIRC, she never asked ISP any of the questions the LE put in front of her that day as she went off on her own tangent.

[caphill]

Dismissing the importance and seriousness of "the higher courts" so quickly is easy.

Not only has the decision NOT been made, but let's say it was made and in ISP favor - this has NO bearing on his appeals what-so-ever. A decision in his favor means the courts are saying hold off until he's been through the process. They're not saying "hey, we think he's got a good shot at this, so let's bankroll this insurance payroll so he'll have something to live off of when he's released".

The two are entirely unrelated and this would not influence his appeal in any manner.

You apparently did not comprehend my post. The lower courts had awarded Sharon the insurance money and the court decision was appealed by Scott. The higher appellate court is considering the merits of his appeal. If you read the article it seems the higher court may favor Peterson.

Though this recently heard appeal has nothing to do with the appellate issues of reversal of the verdict, it was an appeal of a lower court decision that was heard.

The interesting part of the article was a timeline stated by one of Scott's attorneys of 4-5 years for the verdict appeals to be heard.

Why does everything become argumentive and the article that was posted for current info becomes a matter of debate. I didn't write the article but certainly feel I must dodge the bullets being shot at the messenger.

[accordn2me]

I know why! They would also have to prove that Conner was removed from the top of Laci's uterus (didn't happen), that the bodies were stored differently and in an environment that mimicked the bay (didn't happen) and that the "real killer(s)" decided to move them after a 2 day storm, almost 4 months later, and place them a mile apart on the shore. That's a LOT of BS to prove.

The other reason is that no "expert" wants to be a laughing stock, even if the defense pays them well.

JMOPlease...let's clarify something about the top of the uterus. It was mentioned by aw2b today...post 2895 and I wanted to address it then but didn't. Now, you've brought it up, of course in a different way...but maybe it needs to be said again:

Like you, I don't believe Conner was "removed" from the top of Laci's uterus. I do believe he exited there though. And that explains how Conner got out of Laci's body "while those pants magically REMAINED on Laci...."

[enlightenme]

Please...let's clarify something about the top of the uterus. It was mentioned by aw2b today...post 2895 and I wanted to address it then but didn't. Now, you've brought it up, of course in a different way...but maybe it needs to be said again:

Like you, I don't believe Conner was "removed" from the top of Laci's uterus. I do believe he exited there though. And that explains how Conner got out of Laci's body "while those pants magically REMAINED on Laci...."

Well, of course I agree with you! No one would do a c-section on that part of the uterus. Not even bumbling, body planting, burglars, abductors, homeless people, etc. No one.

[TopGunner]

You apparently did not comprehend my post. The lower courts had awarded Sharon the insurance money and the court decision was appealed by Scott. The higher appellate court is considering the merits of his appeal. If you read the article it seems the higher court may favor Peterson.

Though this recently heard appeal has nothing to do with the appellate issues of reversal of the verdict, it was an appeal of a lower court decision that was heard.

The interesting part of the article was a timeline stated by one of Scott's attorneys of 4-5 years for the verdict appeals to be heard.

Why does everything become argumentive and the article that was posted for current info becomes a matter of debate. I didn't write the article but certainly feel I must dodge the bullets being shot at the messenger.


And you apparently did not comprehend my reply. I said the two were unrelated, and I was addressing the contents of your post, not you personally, so why you're taking it that way is beyond me.:seeya:

[caphill]

It does.

Please cite this testimony. I have never seen where Amber said that. I "heard" that Amber was sort of involved with a married man who claimed his wife was dead, not "lost" but this man's wife was alive and well. SLP's prediction was just that...until he made it a reality which equals murder.

Different types of fish...to "shore up" his alibi - answer questions about where he was and what he was doing. Reports conveniently containing currents, tides, depth of water.....and locations of shipping channels. When someone's murdered wife turns up where they were...a LONG way from home.....the very day he reports her missing...the totality of that particular evidence points to someone searching for an appropriate dumping ground for her body..........especially in light of that ominious prediction made two weeks previous to the murder.

The previous owner used it for it's intended purpose. SLP used it, IMO, to locate the shipping channel to dump Laci's body.

OK. Until then, I'll just have to wonder why they didn't use the two experts they had...or anyone.....to refute the location of the bodies. :shrug:



Please cite and link where Scott located and dumped Laci in the shipping lane.

[Mysteri]

I know why! They would also have to prove that Conner was removed from the top of Laci's uterus (didn't happen), that the bodies were stored differently and in an environment that mimicked the bay (didn't happen) and that the "real killer(s)" decided to move them after a 2 day storm, almost 4 months later, and place them a mile apart on the shore. That's a LOT of BS to prove.

The other reason is that no "expert" wants to be a laughing stock, even if the defense pays them well.

JMO

There was enough of that anyway, wasn't there !?

The gestation and the cement fiascos ! Jordi and Katie's camera came in handy on the latter !

imo:D

[cookiewench]

IMO just telling her to ask just ONE was violating Scotts right to have his attorney present when being questioned by LE...... and Amber proves that it was LE asking the questions that day... whether continuously like TopGunner said, or whether randomly like you say..

That is not true.

There is no law against anyone asking anyone else a question - whether they've been asked to by LE or not.

Even if Amber had been an official "informant" it wouldn't have been illegal.

Criminals get tripped up by talking to the wrong people all the time - haven't you heard?

Scott's attorney may have told him not to talk to anyone - but Scott didn't pay attention to him. That's too bad for Scott.

According to your theory, Scott's civil rights have been violated by Diane Sawyer when she asked Scott, "did you have anything to do with your wife's disappearance?"

[Mysteri]

Please cite and link where Scott located and dumped Laci in the shipping lane.

The shipping lanes Scott searched were near Brooks Island, the spot said to be where the bodies went in :

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/05/peterson.trial/index.html?iref=newssearch

imo

[caphill]

Please...let's clarify something about the top of the uterus. It was mentioned by aw2b today...post 2895 and I wanted to address it then but didn't. Now, you've brought it up, of course in a different way...but maybe it needs to be said again:

Like you, I don't believe Conner was "removed" from the top of Laci's uterus. I do believe he exited there though. And that explains how Conner got out of Laci's body "while those pants magically REMAINED on Laci...."


To each their thoughts. Some think the storm caused turbulent waters so forceful that Conner was ripped out of the top of the uterus yet the pants, panties and bra remained on the body. What happened to the placenta and the umbilical cord. Wonder how that umbilical cord was cut away from the placenta and how the placenta was disengaged from the uterine wall. We know the uterus was vacant. That was a mightly shocking piece of medical evidence to those who have some medical knowledge and know a few things about "birthin' babies.

Even if he did exit from the top I am surprised he didn't get all hung in the rib cage. Especially dragging a placenta and an umbilical cord.

Laci's clean and vacant uterus was the first clue something very wrong with this picture. Never mind the size and condition of a baby boy that had been supposedly dead for almost 4 months. The little guy still had all his parts right down to eye lashes.

[Mysteri]

EKG, I am glad you are back. Do you have the link to the decision by the 3 member appeal board on the insurance yet?

Originally Posted by ekg
huh.....

I just saw this....

since it hangs on the appeals..... and this is the 'appeals' thread... I figured this is where it should go...

If wrong, I apologize..




I think its fair.. besides the loss of his family, he's also lost his house and all of his and Laci's things.... stuff that he can never get back or replace..... even if tomorrow Brochinni proclaims him innocent of all charges and convictions and JD agrees, Scott would never get this stuff back...

so I think waiting for the appeals process to be over is fair....

Harris said the "the appeal of the verdict to take four to six years." I wonder if he meant 4-6 yrs from now.. or from when Scott was convicted...

anyway....I am shocked that the "three-judge panel of the 5th District Court of Appeal in Fresno" even seemed to agree with Harris on this..... it makes me feel a little more positive about his chance of an appeal thats for sure....

Where is their decision? I have heard of no decision from them. Link to their decision against Sharon getting the life insurance.

Scott did not lose everything. His mother and brother took a MOVIE VAN of furniture and stuff from the house. I am assuming they will not sell it and keep it for him.

He's going to really need that ironing board, not !


imo:hat:

[caphill]

The shipping lanes Scott searched were near Brooks Island, the spot said to be where the bodies went in :

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/05/peterson.trial/index.html?iref=newssearch

imo


Maybe you posted the wrong link. That was an article by a reporter and there is no mention of the shipping lanes. To my knowledge there was no one that testified that Laci had been dumped in the shipping lanes that are very deep.

My recall the area the prosecution argued was the dumping area was in about 5 feet of water around Brooks Island. IIRC, Dr Cheng, the prosecution witness had a problem and could not explain how Laci could have ended up where she was found by floating from the Brooks island area. Seems the jury missed that very vital bit testimony about the ebb and flow of currents from Brooks Island

[woohoo]

Amber was in the police station..and officers were giving her questions to ask Scott..I still think that it would be an appeal issue..IMO, it's deception, he thought he was talking to a friend, in reality, Amber was a police agent..they were trying to go around talking to him in the presence of his attorney..

As to who said that Sharon was wrong about Scott using the word "missing"..I think you are probably thinking of that part of the trial where Geragos was asking Grogan about the issue surrounding the use of the word "missing" by Scott vs. Sharon..

BTW, which one of Laci's friend testified that Scott told her that Laci was missing?

Well for goodness sakes she WAS missing! Heaven help him if he had said "Laci's gone."

I suppose he could have said "Laci's not here" or "I can't find her" but actually he didn't know where she was. He called her mother before going up and down the street or calling people looking for her. So to say "I can't find her" would be incorrect - because he hadn't yet looked. Semantics. That's all.

[attorneywan2be]

Snip (post 2960)

The bottom line is, he didn't say the word "Missing" after Shawn's confrontation....as I said, he denied it and she didn't testify to it...IMO, she was lying to get him to admit he used the word "missing"....that was the day she was sitting in the police station and officers were passing notes and suggestions to her as she was talking to Scott...I bet that statement was a note given to her by one of the officers...IMO, they wanted so bad for Scott to admit that he used the word missing 2 weeks before Laci went missing...

This is where you said it, why deny it?

They were putting QUESTIONS in front of Amber to ask ISP. That is clearly written about in her book. Why the twist?

What twist? c'mon TopGunner..please before you accuse people of denying things they said..which I didn't do..I suggest you read the post you are quoting...I think it is clear that I was denying saying "feeding constant things" ....-----------> "Where did I say they were feeding her constant things to say".. the keyword here is CONSTANT..since I proceeded to explain that Amber was sitting in a police station and the officers were passing her notes and suggestions...I wrote that immediately after my question..

This is my post.. the one you quoted:

Are you now changing the argument..? LOL

Where did I say they were feeding her constant things to say..the point was and remains to be that she was in the police station and the officers were passing her notes and suggestions...and she did tell Scott that he told her after Shawn's confrontation that his wife was missing and it is a tragedy..etc..which he strongly denied..

[caphill]

Lav, I've been pondering this post.

I realize we've segued into other territory but this just seems to have flown by and it touches on so many things.

I had NO idea that the "changed" due date was AF's birthday, and that came out of SP's mouth, no one else. No wonder Sharon was surprised, but she didn't have any idea about anyone else's birthdate at the time. She of course made the connection -- adding to her despair no doubt. :-( AF picked up on it, and it must have been chilling to her.

Chuck Smith is a good armchair psychologist IMO. "The" house, not "our" house or even "my" house.

Thanks for posting this -- it speaks volumes, as if I needed more.



http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trials/Trials/Guilt/Prosexhibits/63-1.jpg


Me thinks Amber places too much importance on herself and her birthday. These charts clearly show the EDC of 2-10-03 that is then later shown as 2-16-03.

I have no doubt Laci's Drs did not know of Amber and Amber's birthday had nothing to do with the due dates calculated by them for their patient. At the time these dates on noted on Laci's medical charts Scott had never heard of Amber Frey.

GMAB That silly Amber to think Scott had contrived Laci's due dates because of her birthday.

[attorneywan2be]

Which one? The first? The second? The State Supreme court? The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals?

I predict he will not win any appeal, since we're predicting here.

JMO


I predict he will win his appeal in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals...hopefully before..!

[cookiewench]

Well for goodness sakes she WAS missing! Heaven help him if he had said "Laci's gone."

I suppose he could have said "Laci's not here" or "I can't find her" but actually he didn't know where she was. He called her mother before going up and down the street or calling people looking for her. So to say "I can't find her" would be incorrect - because he hadn't yet looked. Semantics. That's all.

A normal person would say, "She's not here - have you seen her?"

[attorneywan2be]

Girl! What are you going to do without me when I'm gone? :punch: And I should be packing as I type....maybe I should request a ban from FW until I reach LA.:tongue:

Let me highlight this for you....and btw....WHERE did you get it from...Amber's book?

Snip

Amber's book? I don't read such books..

It's from her testimony..she did use the term "he had lost his wife" when she referred to Dave..so maybe that is a term she uses..OR Dave did tell her that he lost his wife, then he elaborated later as to how he lost her...who knows?

The bottom line is: "he lost his wife" was a term Amber used when she referred to Dave's statement and when she referred to Scott's... statement...!...

[accordn2me]

Amber's book? I don't read such books..

It's from her testimony..she did use the term "he had lost his wife" when she referred to Dave..so maybe that is a term she uses..OR Dave did tell her that he lost his wife, then he elaborated later as to how he lost her...who knows?

The bottom line is: "he lost his wife" was a term Amber used when she referred to Dave's statement and when she referred to Scott's... statement...!...The bottom line is: Dave used the term "passed away" but I'll give you "lost" if you want it that badly. Thanks for telling me this is Amber's testimony, too. Amber testified that Dave told her his wife was dead. Amber was shocked to run into Dave's wife...or ex :confused: whom Amber apparently knew.

Scott also told Amber his wife was dead....that's what he meant...when she, like Dave's wife, was actually alive. Imagine Amber's shock when she learned that indeed Scott's wife was, like Dave's wife, alive when the husband said she was dead.....yet Scott's wife actually turned up dead...and went "missing" exactly when Scott said she would...."first holidays without her." :eek: That's the tragic difference!

[attorneywan2be]

Different types of fish...to "shore up" his alibi - answer questions about where he was and what he was doing. Reports conveniently containing currents, tides, depth of water.....and locations of shipping channels. When someone's murdered wife turns up where they were...a LONG way from home.....the very day he reports her missing...the totality of that particular evidence points to someone searching for an appropriate dumping ground for her body..........especially in light of that ominious prediction made two weeks previous to the murder.

To shore up his alibi???

IMO, that is exactly what the law prevents the jury from doing..if there is a reasonable interpretation that points to innocence you must adopt that interpretation and reject the interpretation that points to guilt EVEN if is reasonable as well, I think it is not reasonable at all to conclude that he was looking for dumping places where the majority of the time was spent reading about different type of fish, fishing regulations and fishing reports..etc..etc...so no, the research of the internet indeed points to someone preparing to go on a fishing trip..

The previous owner used it for it's intended purpose. SLP used it, IMO, to locate the shipping channel to dump Laci's body.

IMO, the jury are not supposed to do what you just did..speculate that he bought a boat with a fishfinder to find a place to dump a body..as far as I remember, the prosecution didn't even suggest that

OK. Until then, I'll just have to wonder why they didn't use the two experts they had...or anyone.....to refute the location of the bodies. :shrug:

IMO, Mark Geragos did a lousy job..that would be taken care of in the next trial...new trial..new defense team..

[accordn2me]

Maybe you posted the wrong link. That was an article by a reporter and there is no mention of the shipping lanes. To my knowledge there was no one that testified that Laci had been dumped in the shipping lanes that are very deep.

My recall the area the prosecution argued was the dumping area was in about 5 feet of water around Brooks Island. IIRC, Dr Cheng, the prosecution witness had a problem and could not explain how Laci could have ended up where she was found by floating from the Brooks island area. Seems the jury missed that very vital bit testimony about the ebb and flow of currents from Brooks IslandShort of SLP testifying...how could anyone testify to where Laci was dumped?

Dr. Cheng did the best he could with computer simulations. No way the conditions could ever be replicated. No surprise a reputable expert wouldn't hang their hat on an "exact location." Cheng testified the area around Brooks Island had both shallow and deep areas---->shipping channels.

[caphill]

Short of SLP testifying...how could anyone testify to where Laci was dumped?

Dr. Cheng did the best he could with computer simulations. No way the conditions could ever be replicated. No surprise a reputable expert wouldn't hang their hat on an "exact location." Cheng testified the area around Brooks Island had both shallow and deep areas---->shipping channels.


Can you link to where Dr. Cheng indicates or even implies that Laci could have floated from the Brooks Island location and ended up where she was found.

IIRC, he seemed to think that Conner could have arrived at his final resting place by floating into shore but he could not explain how Laci arrived.

Also could you link where Dr. Cheng said Laci was in the shipping channels.

[accordn2me]

To shore up his alibi???

IMO, that is exactly what the law prevents the jury from doing..if there is a reasonable interpretation that points to innocence you must adopt that interpretation and reject the interpretation that points to guilt EVEN if is reasonable as well, I think it is not reasonable at all to conclude that he was looking for dumping places where the majority of the time was spent reading about different type of fish, fishing regulations and fishing reports..etc..etc...so no, the research of the internet indeed points to someone preparing to go on a fishing trip..



IMO, the jury are not supposed to do what you just did..speculate that he bought a boat with a fishfinder to find a place to dump a body..as far as I remember, the prosecution didn't even suggest that



IMO, Mark Geragos did a lousy job..that would be taken care of in the next trial...new trial..new defense team..That's right. Scott knew he would have some explaining to do.

The law allows the jury to decide what's reasonable in light of the evidence they are presented. In this particular case, they were presented with two bodies that happened to wash up in the same place the defendant went on Christmas Eve day....9O miles from home...where he'd never been fishing before. If they didn't have that fact to deal with...all of those things you say are reasonable might be intrepreted as such.

[woohoo]

I believe the original due date (the 10th) was Amber's birthday. Nevertheless, no one seems to know of the changed date but Scott. Both OB /GYNs testified that a date is NOT changed unless it's 7 days difference.

That's correct. The original due date was the 10th. So that report by Ted Rowlands was completely misleading!! The way it reads it makes you think Scott was placing the due date ON AMBER"S birthday - and that's not true.

They did have a later appt and the doctor DID suggest the 16th as the EDA, but no official "change" because the difference wasn't significant at the time.
Little did they know!

The State argued that Laci's doctors did not change her EDC to reflect the 2nd ultrasound, thus downplaying it's importance. David Harris elicited the following testimony from Dr. Tow-Der:

David Harris: The -- when they're only six days apart, do you change the estimated due dates based on that?

Esther Tow-Der: For clinical purposes we usually base it on the original due date, if it's within seven days. Which in this case was 2/10/03.

David Harris: So it's really -- there's kind of a window; babies are going to come when they decide to come, and within six days that's pretty close to a normal range for pregnancy?

Esther Tow-Der: Very normal range.

[accordn2me]

Can you link to where Dr. Cheng indicates or even implies that Laci could have floated from the Brooks Island location and ended up where she was found.

IIRC, he seemed to think that Conner could have arrived at his final resting place by floating into shore but he could not explain how Laci arrived.

Also could you link where Dr. Cheng said Laci was in the shipping channels.no. but i can tell you he said he gave a vicinity. and i saw it on a map...it was in red...but i'm not looking it up for you...you know why? it doesn't matter to me what Cheng said. his testimony wasn't important to me. were i on the jury...i could have done without it and still convicted SLP.

[attorneywan2be]

That's correct. The original due date was the 10th. So that report by Ted Rowlands was completely misleading!! The way it reads it makes you think Scott was placing the due date ON AMBER"S birthday - and that's not true.

They did have a later appt and the doctor DID suggest the 16th as the EDA, but no official "change" because the difference wasn't significant at the time.
Little did they know!

The State argued that Laci's doctors did not change her EDC to reflect the 2nd ultrasound, thus downplaying it's importance. David Harris elicited the following testimony from Dr. Tow-Der:

David Harris: The -- when they're only six days apart, do you change the estimated due dates based on that?

Esther Tow-Der: For clinical purposes we usually base it on the original due date, if it's within seven days. Which in this case was 2/10/03.

David Harris: So it's really -- there's kind of a window; babies are going to come when they decide to come, and within six days that's pretty close to a normal range for pregnancy?

Esther Tow-Der: Very normal range.

I don't think it was a mere suggestion...Laci's doctor, Dr. Yip, noted on Laci's medical records that the corrected EDC is 2/16

[attorneywan2be]

That's right. Scott knew he would have some explaining to do.

The law allows the jury to decide what's reasonable in light of the evidence they are presented. In this particular case, they were presented with two bodies that happened to wash up in the same place the defendant went on Christmas Eve day....9O miles from home...where he'd never been fishing before. If they didn't have that fact to deal with...all of those things you say are reasonable might be intrepreted as such.


IMO, the law requires the jury to decide which facts had been proven BARD..inferences could be drawn from those facts only..in other words, they should disregard facts that were not proven BARD..I don't think the jury did that in this case...

IMO, the fact that the bodies were there does not PROVE that it was Scott that dumped them there...without any other corroborating evidence.. it's pure speculation to conclude that he did....:

point 1: Scott went to the bay on the 24th
Point 2: about 4 months later.. Laci's body and Conner's body were found near his alibi

There was ZERO evidence linking point 1 and point 2...

[accordn2me]

IMO, the law requires the jury to decide which facts had been proven BARD..inferences could be drawn from those facts only..in other words, they should disregard facts that were not proven BARD..I don't think the jury did that in this case...

IMO, the fact that the bodies were there does not PROVE that it was Scott that dumped them there...without any other corroborating evidence.. it's pure speculation to conclude that he did....:

point 1: Scott went to the bay on the 24th
Point 2: about 4 months later.. Laci's body and Conner's body were found near his alibi

There was ZERO evidence linking point 1 and point 2...SLP said that he lost his wife...this would be his first holidays without her....two weeks later...he made that happen...by going to the bay....as evidenced by the bodies being discovered where he said he was the day they were "lost."

That's way more than ZERO evidence.

[Miss Bootsie]

IMO, the law requires the jury to decide which facts had been proven BARD..inferences could be drawn from those facts only..in other words, they should disregard facts that were not proven BARD..I don't think the jury did that in this case...

IMO, the fact that the bodies were there does not PROVE that it was Scott that dumped them there...without any other corroborating evidence.. it's pure speculation to conclude that he did....:

point 1: Scott went to the bay on the 24th
Point 2: about 4 months later.. Laci's body and Conner's body were found near his alibi

There was ZERO evidence linking point 1 and point 2...

You're right, the Law allows the Jury to determine what appears to them to be reasonable. The Jurors that decided the fate of Scott P. did just that.
After hearing all the evidence presented, there was not another rational conclusion.

The Jury followed the Law when determining beyond a reasonable doubt the bodies washed ashore.
I won't state imo, because it is a fact.

Your reference of zero evidence from point 1 to point 2 brings these words to mind that I quoted from Judge Delucchi's definition of reasonable doubt.
because everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt
I believe the planted on the shore theory is based on imaginary doubt. I don't think we want our Jurys to make decisions based on imaginary doubt, do we?

These pesky true circumstances just keep getting in the way. :tongue:
Purchase of the boat
Scott - boat - SF bay - Dec. 24
Laci - disappeared on Dec 24
Bodies washed ashore in same vicinity
True circumstantial evidence that -- proves a fact) from which the inference can be drawn) of the existence of the fact)- that the bodies washed ashore as a result of Scott Peterson disposing of the bodies in the Bay.

Condition of bodies:
True circumstantial evidence that - proves a fact) from which the inference can be drawn) of the existence of the fact) - that the bodies washed ashore as a result of Scott Peterson disposing of the bodies in the Bay.






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

Reasonable doubt is defined has follows: It is not a mere possible doubt, because everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge.

[Miss Bootsie]

To shore up his alibi???

IMO, that is exactly what the law prevents the jury from doing..if there is a reasonable interpretation that points to innocence you must adopt that interpretation and reject the interpretation that points to guilt EVEN if is reasonable as well,

No, lol, you are so misinformed.
The Jury gets to decide what to reject.
The Jury gets to decide what interpretion of the evidence is reasonable.

If, on the other hand, one interpretation of this evidence appears to you to be reasonable and the other interpretation to be unreasonable, you must accept the reasonable interpretation and reject the unreasonable.


I think it is not reasonable at all to conclude that he was looking for dumping places where the majority of the time was spent reading about different type of fish, fishing regulations and fishing reports..etc..etc...so no, the research of the internet indeed points to someone preparing to go on a fishing trip..
When all the evidence is considered, your opinion is not reasonable. imo
The Jury was within their right to reject your opinion on the computer research.


IMO, Mark Geragos did a lousy job..that would be taken care of in the next trial...new trial..new defense team..
If you think Geragos did such a lousy job, why did you adopt his theories? One can follow Geragos foxy examination of the expert witnesses and see very well how you created your theory.

If you think he did such a lousy job, why do you follow his every word and believe it to be true?

imo, you don't really think Geragos did a lousy job.
imo,You know as all most of us do. He did the best he could do with what he had.

Writing "Geragos did a lousy job" over and over, won't make ineffective counsel a viable appeal issue.imo

[Hey Paula]

No, lol, you are so misinformed.
The Jury gets to decide what to reject.
The Jury gets to decide what interpretion of the evidence is reasonable.




When all the evidence is considered, your opinion is not reasonable. imo
The Jury was within their right to reject your opinion on the computer research.


If you think Geragos did such a lousy job, why did you adopt his theories? One can follow Geragos foxy examination of the expert witnesses and see very well how you created your theory.

If you think he did such a lousy job, why do you follow his every word and believe it to be true?

imo, you don't really think Geragos did a lousy job.
imo,You know as all most of us do. He did the best he could do with what he had.

Writing "Geragos did a lousy job" over and over, won't make ineffective counsel a viable appeal issue.imo

I agree with your post. Given that Scott was so unprepared to fish, it would be unreasonable to believe his computer searches were to locate fishing spots, and given that the remains of Laci and Conner washed ashore where Scott where Scott was on the day Laci disappeared it is totally reasonable to conclude Scott was searching for locations to dispose of Laci's body.

I also believe Geragos was successful, behind the scenes, in preventing more evidence from being presented in court. We already know that some of the telecons between Scott and his family, which were highly incriminating, weren't played for the jury. There were many discussions which took place in chambers in addition to what Geragos was able to accomplish pre-trial. I think we will all be surprised at what we might learn, many years from now, when Scott's appellate process is exhausted, and the suppressed info is exposed.

I, for one, have always thought the telecon transcript, which Rita Cosby announced early on, when she was employed by Fox, was factual. I do believe Scott told Amber "I didn't do it, but I know who did, and I'll tell you when I see you." (Might be paraphrased). I think Geragos managed to keep the jury from hearing it. I have specific thoughts about it, and whom I believe he intended to accuse.

IMO

[TopGunner]

Amber's book? I don't read such books..

It's from her testimony..she did use the term "he had lost his wife" when she referred to Dave..so maybe that is a term she uses..OR Dave did tell her that he lost his wife, then he elaborated later as to how he lost her...who knows?

The bottom line is: "he lost his wife" was a term Amber used when she referred to Dave's statement and when she referred to Scott's... statement...!...


You don't read "such" books? Maybe you should since she was there, her conversations on tape with the killer are in there, not one thing has ever been disputed, and you'd make a lot more sense when you post.

[Miss Bootsie]

That's right. Scott knew he would have some explaining to do.

The law allows the jury to decide what's reasonable in light of the evidence they are presented. In this particular case, they were presented with two bodies that happened to wash up in the same place the defendant went on Christmas Eve day....9O miles from home...where he'd never been fishing before. If they didn't have that fact to deal with...all of those things you say are reasonable might be intrepreted as such.

You are so right Accord. It's those pesky true circumstances that we have to consider.;)

imo, taking into consideration the condition of the bodies and the fact there is no evidence whatsoever the bodies were handled by human hands - the planting theory is based on imaginary doubt. imo

[TopGunner]

What twist? c'mon TopGunner..please before you accuse people of denying things they said..which I didn't do..I suggest you read the post you are quoting...I think it is clear that I was denying saying "feeding constant things" ....-----------> "Where did I say they were feeding her constant things to say".. the keyword here is CONSTANT..since I proceeded to explain that Amber was sitting in a police station and the officers were passing her notes and suggestions...I wrote that immediately after my question..

This is my post.. the one you quoted:

Are you now changing the argument..? LOL

Where did I say they were feeding her constant things to say..the point was and remains to be that she was in the police station and the officers were passing her notes and suggestions...and she did tell Scott that he told her after Shawn's confrontation that his wife was missing and it is a tragedy..etc..which he strongly denied..


Constant was the operative word eh?

No - the POINT I made was you denied saying what you did, in fact, say !:no:

[Miss Bootsie]

You don't read "such" books? Maybe you should since she was there, her conversations on tape with the killer are in there, not one thing has ever been disputed, and you'd make a lot more sense when you post.

There can be no better book than Sharon Rocha's, "For Laci".
She was there from the day Scott & Laci married to the end of Laci's life.

[Miss Bootsie]

Maybe you posted the wrong link. That was an article by a reporter and there is no mention of the shipping lanes. To my knowledge there was no one that testified that Laci had been dumped in the shipping lanes that are very deep.

My recall the area the prosecution argued was the dumping area was in about 5 feet of water around Brooks Island. IIRC, Dr Cheng, the prosecution witness had a problem and could not explain how Laci could have ended up where she was found by floating from the Brooks island area. Seems the jury missed that very vital bit testimony about the ebb and flow of currents from Brooks Island

Caphill, perhaps you may want to keep this in mind.
The prosecution was not required to prove guilt beyond all doubt, or to a mathematical or scientific certainty.


Reasonable doubt is the kind of doubt that would cause a reasonable person, after careful and thoughtful reflection, to hesitate to act in the graver or more important matters in life. However, it is not an imaginary doubt, nor a doubt based on speculation or guesswork; it is a doubt based on reason. The government is not required to prove guilt beyond all doubt, or to a mathematical or scientific certainty. Its burden is to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[enlightenme]

There can be no better book than Sharon Rocha's, "For Laci".
She was there from the day Scott & Laci married to the end of Laci's life.


I agree with you on Sharon's book!

I did not read Amber's book. I thought it was very poor taste how fast it came out and I got the gist of most of it from other posters who did read it.

AW2B apparently read Sharon's book and found it not credible. :rolleyes:

I don't think I've noticed AW2B comment on Dalton's book, but I could be wrong.

[ekg]

Because they were not putting them in front of her constantly as she testified - from "time to time" is what she testified to. They could not hear his side of the conversation either. "Time to time" does not mean constantly as you seem to think it does


MG cross of AF
188 pages $218.00

August 23, 2004

Hon. ALFRED DELUCCHI, Judge


1203. Okay. Now, they asked you to come up there so they could monitor the calls, correct?

1204. Yes.

1205. And what they wanted to do when they monitored the calls is they wanted to be able to give you constant supervision as to what was going on; is that correct?

1206. Yes.

1207. And they also wanted to give you constant suggestions as to what you should ask, right?

1208. Yes.

1209. And there was a -- who was present during this -- the first confrontation call that you made, in the room with you?

1210. Detective Jon Buehler and Sharon --

1211. Hagan?

1212. Hagan.

1213. Okay. From the Department of Justice?

1214. Yes.

1215. Okay. Now, she would sit there and she would tell you -- kind of whisper in your ear or tell you things that you should say, correct?

1216. I believe most of it was on paper.

1217. Post-its?

1218. It was -- just paper, legal paper.

1219. Okay. Did they sit there and tell you Okay, I want you to ask these questions or want you to ask those questions and kind of feed you the questions, so to speak?

1220. Yes.








1249. Okay. And starting on the 6th, wasn't that as a result of the prompting that you were getting from Miss Hagan, Buehler, and who else was present?

1250. That was it.

1251. Okay. Wasn't that from Hagan and Buehler?

1252. Yes.

1253. Okay. And they were telling you what to say and how to say it; is that correct? By writing it down on pieces of paper?

1254. They would have suggestions in front of me, yes.

this is why I believe she was acting a LE...sure she can question Scott on her own and tape him on her own... that's not my issue...but LE was constantly giving her questions to ask him while they were sitting right there....IMO that is a LE interrogation, that's not a personal call from Amber...

I think with the (partially)false affidavit for the wiretaps, the fast and loose play with Amber directly working for LE using their questions while she's on the phone with Scott in the police station and the fact that IMO the calls were 100% prejudicial and 100% not probative.... I think they this can and will be appealed and won...

[ekg]

To each their thoughts. Some think the storm caused turbulent waters so forceful that Conner was ripped out of the top of the uterus yet the pants, panties and bra remained on the body. What happened to the placenta and the umbilical cord. Wonder how that umbilical cord was cut away from the placenta and how the placenta was disengaged from the uterine wall. We know the uterus was vacant. That was a mightly shocking piece of medical evidence to those who have some medical knowledge and know a few things about "birthin' babies.

Even if he did exit from the top I am surprised he didn't get all hung in the rib cage. Especially dragging a placenta and an umbilical cord.

Laci's clean and vacant uterus was the first clue something very wrong with this picture. Never mind the size and condition of a baby boy that had been supposedly dead for almost 4 months. The little guy still had all his parts right down to eye lashes.


Hiya Cappy:seeya:

that is a very good point..... one I've never thought of....... how in the world did he get out of the ribs with all that stuff attached to him??? seems unlikely doesn't it..you'd think he'd get hung up on something and then stay attached to her body and with that massive storm that was so massive it can't be re-created and him being so decomposed, he'd be ripped to pieces...

thank you for bringing that up........... it is a very good point!:patriot:

[USAHICK]

Hiya Cappy:seeya:

that is a very good point..... one I've never thought of....... how in the world did he get out of the ribs with all that stuff attached to him??? seems unlikely doesn't it..you'd think he'd get hung up on something and then stay attached to her body and with that massive storm that was so massive it can't be re-created and him being so decomposed, he'd be ripped to pieces...

thank you for bringing that up........... it is a very good point!:patriot:


Not to be graphic but when Laci was found, she was a wide open cavity. The umbilical cord was ripped, not cut. It's not all that difficult to understand.

[ekg]

You don't read "such" books? Maybe you should since she was there, her conversations on tape with the killer are in there, not one thing has ever been disputed, and you'd make a lot more sense when you post.

who is there to dispute it? Scott?? IMO he's got more important things to worry about than what a profiter has to say in her book.

[Lavindar]

no offense and not debating you at all, but what qualifies you to make such a statement?

if this your opinion then fine...... but you are making such an absolute statement that I can't help but ask since there have been so many attorney's posting in these forums thru-out the trial...
:shrug: Ca Penal Code 633

[attorneywan2be]

No, lol, you are so misinformed.
The Jury gets to decide what to reject.
The Jury gets to decide what interpretion of the evidence is reasonable.

LOL..you're forgetting that the judge gave the jury instructions to follow..the jury gets to decide within the guidelines of those instructions..IMO, the jury clearly didn't follow the instructions..


When all the evidence is considered, your opinion is not reasonable. imo
The Jury was within their right to reject your opinion on the computer research.

IMO, if the jury followed the law and started with the premise that he is innocent, then their interpretation of the internet search would have been that he was preparing to go fishing..it is BEYOND unreasonable to conclude that he was searching for a dumping place just because a chart of currents and tides downloaded as he was searching for information regarding fishing..and why was is it downloaded? because it is information fishermen would be interested in anyway..


If you think Geragos did such a lousy job, why did you adopt his theories? One can follow Geragos foxy examination of the expert witnesses and see very well how you created your theory.

If you think he did such a lousy job, why do you follow his every word and believe it to be true?

imo, you don't really think Geragos did a lousy job.
imo,You know as all most of us do. He did the best he could do with what he had.

Writing "Geragos did a lousy job" over and over, won't make ineffective counsel a viable appeal issue.imo

Following his every word and believe it to be true?? FYI, Geragos didn't testify..in addition, my theories were developed based on the evidence in this case which was basically presented by the prosecution....IMO, Geragos was everywhere, he pointed his finger at Amber..he pointed his finger at Kim McGregor..he pointed his finger at the homeless...he pointed his finger at the sex offenders...he pointed his finger at the burglars...I disagree with this strategy..I think he should have focused on one theory and backed it up with evidence...he is way overrated...I think "ineffective assistance of counsel" will be an appeal issue...

[Lavindar]

You don't read "such" books? Maybe you should since she was there, her conversations on tape with the killer are in there, not one thing has ever been disputed, and you'd make a lot more sense when you post.

Hot to mention it, but Scott admits he told her that on page 5 of the January 6 transcript - a link which I provided and was obviously not read.

[attorneywan2be]

Hiya Cappy:seeya:

that is a very good point..... one I've never thought of....... how in the world did he get out of the ribs with all that stuff attached to him??? seems unlikely doesn't it..you'd think he'd get hung up on something and then stay attached to her body and with that massive storm that was so massive it can't be re-created and him being so decomposed, he'd be ripped to pieces...

thank you for bringing that up........... it is a very good point!:patriot:


I second that..I think it is an excellent point...:beer:

In addition, somehow her pants MAGICALLY stayed on her..

[ekg]

Not to be graphic but when Laci was found, she was a wide open cavity. The umbilical cord was ripped, not cut. It's not all that difficult to understand.


not to be graphic either....

but that wide open cavity had many 'endings' for a baby,placenta and umbilical cord to get caught on.. and it didn't..how is that possible........... especially with both of them being so severely jostled around by that storm....he would have been bumping into the side of the 'wide open cavity' from the turbulent waters..

just isn't believable that he could get out in those conditions given the conditions he was in..... IMO he would get hung up on a rib or any of the bones for that matter...and be torn apart by the storm..

[USAHICK]

LOL..you're forgetting that the judge gave the jury instructions to follow..the jury gets to decide within the guidelines of those instructions..IMO, the jury clearly didn't follow the instructions..




IMO, if the jury followed the law and started with the premise that he is innocent, then their interpretation of the internet search would have been that he was preparing to go fishing..it is BEYOND unreasonable to conclude that he was searching for a dumping place just because a chart of currents and tides downloaded as he was searching for information regarding fishing..and why was is it downloaded? because it is information fishermen would be interested in anyway..

Following his every word and believe it to be true?? FYI, Geragos didn't testify..in addition, my theories were developed based on the evidence in this case which was basically presented by the prosecution....IMO, Geragos was everywhere, he pointed his finger at Amber..he pointed his finger at Kim McGregor..he pointed his finger at the homeless...he pointed his finger at the sex offenders...he pointed his finger at the burglars...I disagree with this strategy..I think he should have focused on one theory and backed it up with evidence...he is way overrated...I think "ineffective assistance of counsel" will be an appeal issue...

I suppose it's a good thing that those really trained and educated in the law disagree with you. Hate to see a murderer set free.

The jury followed instructions to the letter.

[Lavindar]

who is there to dispute it? Scott?? IMO he's got more important things to worry about than what a profiter has to say in her book.


You can't worry about what Profiter has to say in her book. Maybe read the link to the transcripts at CTV that I posted.

[Lavindar]

not to be graphic either....

but that wide open cavity had many 'endings' for a baby,placenta and umbilical cord to get caught on.. and it didn't..how is that possible........... especially with both of them being so severely jostled around by that storm....he would have been bumping into the side of the 'wide open cavity' from the turbulent waters..

just isn't believable that he could get out in those conditions given the conditions he was in..... IMO he would get hung up on a rib or any of the bones for that matter...and be torn apart by the storm..
I disagree with you based on the anatomy period. The uterus is attached at the bottom to teh body, not the top. If you think it would be so easy for Conner to get hung up on a rib, then you are saying that a c-section would have been impossible from the fundus. I think you just hung yourself with your own words. JMO

[ekg]

I disagree with you based on the anatomy period. The uterus is attached at the bottom to teh body, not the top. If you think it would be so easy for Conner to get hung up on a rib, then you are saying that a c-section would have been impossible from the fundus. I think you just hung yourself with your own words. JMO


we'll just have to disagree again..

[USAHICK]

I disagree with you based on the anatomy period. The uterus is attached at the bottom to teh body, not the top. If you think it would be so easy for Conner to get hung up on a rib, then you are saying that a c-section would have been impossible from the fundus. I think you just hung yourself with your own words. JMO


You are correct Lavindar. Thank you. :beer:

[frydaddy]

That's correct. The original due date was the 10th. So that report by Ted Rowlands was completely misleading!! The way it reads it makes you think Scott was placing the due date ON AMBER"S birthday - and that's not true.

They did have a later appt and the doctor DID suggest the 16th as the EDA, but no official "change" because the difference wasn't significant at the time.
Little did they know!

The State argued that Laci's doctors did not change her EDC to reflect the 2nd ultrasound, thus downplaying it's importance. David Harris elicited the following testimony from Dr. Tow-Der:

David Harris: The -- when they're only six days apart, do you change the estimated due dates based on that?

Esther Tow-Der: For clinical purposes we usually base it on the original due date, if it's within seven days. Which in this case was 2/10/03.

David Harris: So it's really -- there's kind of a window; babies are going to come when they decide to come, and within six days that's pretty close to a normal range for pregnancy?

Esther Tow-Der: Very normal range.

Wonder what Scott meant by "Um, February 16th is the last date"?

Think maybe the doctor gave Scott and Laci a range between the 10th and 16th and that everyone used the original date of the 10th until Scott decided to use the 16th some two weeks after Laci disappeared? That creates the very real possibility he used it due to Amber's birthday. I agree it's odd that he's the ONLY one who professed it (the 16th, twice), and both times at least two weeks AFTER Laci disappeared. The first time, was on January 6th, when he uttered the statement above to Amber. Then he says on January 15th, 2003 (per Sharon's book) that the press has been getting the due date wrong - why'd he wait three weeks to protest that? Think Scott had a copy of the medical records, the ones where it shows the corrected EDC of 2-16-03? Did McAllister have it and if so, when did he get it? I just can't figure out why there'd be misinformation out there (in the media) regarding the due date and that it wouldn't come up until three weeks later and only from Scott. What do people use to determine that he was told it was definitely the 16th and when was he told this? Is this just assumed to be the 23rd of December?

Tons of questions on this EDC deal, tons of assumptions, but not many answers. I won't argue the obvious corrected EDC date on the records, it's the communication portion that is the unknown.

[Mysteri]

Whoa. I would not dismiss the importance and seriousness of the higher courts so quickly. One of Peterson's lesser appellate issues regarding the insurance money going to Sharon has been heard and from the comments of the judges it well may go in Peterson's favor.

http://www.fresnobee.com/263/story/57640.html


Salient point, thank you, albeit it has no bearing on Scott's permanent penal housing.

imo

[adnoid]

You can't worry about what Profiter has to say in her book. Maybe read the link to the transcripts at CTV that I posted.

I find it funny as hell that people who claim to be intellectual & have an open mind will admit they wouldn't read a book that might challenge their prejudices.

I've got Dalton's book, my opinions come from reading it myself, not what I've been told to think about it in order to retain posting rights at some worthless closed to the public message board.

[enlightenme]

not to be graphic either....

but that wide open cavity had many 'endings' for a baby,placenta and umbilical cord to get caught on.. and it didn't..how is that possible........... especially with both of them being so severely jostled around by that storm....he would have been bumping into the side of the 'wide open cavity' from the turbulent waters..

just isn't believable that he could get out in those conditions given the conditions he was in..... IMO he would get hung up on a rib or any of the bones for that matter...and be torn apart by the storm..


He wasn't in pristine condition. Conner did have a very large gash on him. No one can do experiments to prove how this could happen in a storm.

However, no one can prove Conner was "cut out" of Laci's uterus, esp. since the ME testified there were no cut marks, but rather an "abraded" area.

One thing the jurors saw up and close are those autopsy photos. I think they probably explained a lot to them about the conditions of the bodies that we do not know.

JMO

[woohoo]

Hiya Cappy:seeya:

that is a very good point..... one I've never thought of....... how in the world did he get out of the ribs with all that stuff attached to him??? seems unlikely doesn't it..you'd think he'd get hung up on something and then stay attached to her body and with that massive storm that was so massive it can't be re-created and him being so decomposed, he'd be ripped to pieces...

thank you for bringing that up........... it is a very good point!:patriot:

I have always been curious about the placenta! Where did it go? I'm not an expert on marine life, but even if Connor was "off limits" to fish feeding, it seems the placenta would definitely be an enticement. (In the wild) feline world it's what keeps mama kitty alive for days.

[Lavindar]

Wonder what Scott meant by "Um, February 16th is the last date"?

Think maybe the doctor gave Scott and Laci a range between the 10th and 16th and that everyone used the original date of the 10th until Scott decided to use the 16th some two weeks after Laci disappeared? That creates the very real possibility he used it due to Amber's birthday. I agree it's odd that he's the ONLY one who professed it (the 16th, twice), and both times at least two weeks AFTER Laci disappeared. The first time, was on January 6th, when he uttered the statement above to Amber. Then he says on January 15th, 2003 (per Sharon's book) that the press has been getting the due date wrong - why'd he wait three weeks to protest that? Think Scott had a copy of the medical records, the ones where it shows the corrected EDC of 2-16-03? Did McAllister have it and if so, when did he get it? I just can't figure out why there'd be misinformation out there (in the media) regarding the due date and that it wouldn't come up until three weeks later and only from Scott. What do people use to determine that he was told it was definitely the 16th and when was he told this? Is this just assumed to be the 23rd of December?

Tons of questions on this EDC deal, tons of assumptions, but not many answers. I won't argue the obvious corrected EDC date on the records, it's the communication portion that is the unknown.

There was tons of defensive mis-information out there being reported. The biggest one in my opinion was that Laci had an Ultrasound on her Dec 23rd appr. The was reported ad nausdeum in all media. Dr. Yip finally wrote a letter to the Modesto Bee saying that was untrue and she had NOT had an ultrasound on Dec 23rd

[frydaddy]

Hiya Cappy:seeya:

that is a very good point..... one I've never thought of....... how in the world did he get out of the ribs with all that stuff attached to him??? seems unlikely doesn't it..you'd think he'd get hung up on something and then stay attached to her body and with that massive storm that was so massive it can't be re-created and him being so decomposed, he'd be ripped to pieces...

thank you for bringing that up........... it is a very good point!:patriot:

So where'd the placenta and umbilical cord go...hefty bags in the real murderer's trash?

Explain this to me...

Burglars abduct Laci. They hold her for fear of being caught. She dies, thus Conner dies. They decide to perform a crude C-section, dispose of the placenta and cord to appear as if the bodies were in the bay, they somehow simulate the bodies being in the bay, and they place the bodies separately a distance apart to also simulate their separation in a storm. Is this what you believe? Aside from the basics, that it would be nearly impossible to simulate things as they were supposedly simulated, why wouldn't burglars take Laci and Conner in tact and dump them? How would they know all this science that is being argued would be necessary to frame Scott?

You see, the problem with folks arguing against individual pieces of this case is that one argument contradicts another. When asked for the full picture of what happened, the full pictures given become much more unreasonable than the Scott did it theory. Either I'm missing something, or people are purposely carrying on these arguements for other reasons than feeling sorry for someone they believe was falsely convicted.

[Mysteri]

Wonder what Scott meant by "Um, February 16th is the last date"?

Think maybe the doctor gave Scott and Laci a range between the 10th and 16th and that everyone used the original date of the 10th until Scott decided to use the 16th some two weeks after Laci disappeared? That creates the very real possibility he used it due to Amber's birthday. I agree it's odd that he's the ONLY one who professed it (the 16th, twice), and both times at least two weeks AFTER Laci disappeared. The first time, was on January 6th, when he uttered the statement above to Amber. Then he says on January 15th, 2003 (per Sharon's book) that the press has been getting the due date wrong - why'd he wait three weeks to protest that? Think Scott had a copy of the medical records, the ones where it shows the corrected EDC of 2-16-03? Did McAllister have it and if so, when did he get it? I just can't figure out why there'd be misinformation out there (in the media) regarding the due date and that it wouldn't come up until three weeks later and only from Scott. What do people use to determine that he was told it was definitely the 16th and when was he told this? Is this just assumed to be the 23rd of December?

Tons of questions on this EDC deal, tons of assumptions, but not many answers. I won't argue the obvious corrected EDC date on the records, it's the communication portion that is the unknown.


Didn't Peterson love to correct his betters ? Ann Bird said he scoffed during the search of the Bay, saying, "They're looking in the wrong place", of course they weren't but he enjoyed the chance to feign superiority.

He brushed aside Diane Sawyer's observations as if she were born yesterday and he was The Sage.

He talked down to Sharon and even Jackie and ordered those fake diplomas to impress the conquests he was contemplating.

The due date gave him a point to pontificate on instead of what a loving husband would have done; go on camera pleading with the abductor to return his beloved.

He thought the general public and jury too ignorant to see past his false declarations.

Even now he must ponder how long it will take for his Inferiors to realise his version of events is fool proof.

imo

:seeya:

[Lavindar]

I have always been curious about the placenta! Where did it go? I'm not an expert on marine life, but even if Connor was "off limits" to fish feeding, it seems the placenta would definitely be an enticement. (In the wild) feline world it's what keeps mama kitty alive for days.


Placenta was torn off, not cut. Had conner been born alive, he would have bled to death and there was no evidence of that.
Brian Peterson: I did. The, the margin of the cord, in other words, the part farthest away from Conner, I described as being soft and friable without evidence of knot or cutting. Friable means crumbly. It was falling apart.
149) David Harris: Now, when you say no evidence of knot or cutting, what does that mean?
150) Brian Peterson: Well, there, once a baby's born, the umbilical cord has to be closed or else the baby will bleed to death. Typically in a hospital setting that's done by putting clamps, two clamps on the cord and cutting in between. So what you end up with is a placenta and an umbilical cord that has a clamp on it, and a baby and cord with a clamp on it. In this case there was no evidence that, there was obviously no clamp. Had the cord been cut, as with a knife, that will typically leave a sharp margin. The margin was not sharp. Sometimes there can be knots in the cord. That can actually be a cause of death in the uterus. A true knot in the cord. There was no knot in this cord. So to make a long story short, there was no evidence that it had been cut, there was no evidence that it had been clamped, there was no evidence that there was a knot there. All there was was a crumbly end.


I don't believe it was the good doctor's job to speculate about things that were missing with no evidence.

[Mysteri]

There was tons of defensive mis-information out there being reported. The biggest one in my opinion was that Laci had an Ultrasound on her Dec 23rd appr. The was reported ad nausdeum in all media. Dr. Yip finally wrote a letter to the Modesto Bee saying that was untrue and she had NOT had an ultrasound on Dec 23rd

For sure !

The red-herring that annoyed me almost the most was that wretched Croton watch the ragged Renfro girl was supposed to have pilfered from Laci.
Beside Laci's grandmother's pristine and polished jewelery it looked like something out of a CrackerJack box ! Geragos waved the pawn ticket like it was the Holy Grail. It didn't even match the official description of Mrs. Roca's watch.

imo

[attorneywan2be]

this is why I believe she was acting a LE...sure she can question Scott on her own and tape him on her own... that's not my issue...but LE was constantly giving her questions to ask him while they were sitting right there....IMO that is a LE interrogation, that's not a personal call from Amber...

I think with the (partially)false affidavit for the wiretaps, the fast and loose play with Amber directly working for LE using their questions while she's on the phone with Scott in the police station and the fact that IMO the calls were 100% prejudicial and 100% not probative.... I think they this can and will be appealed and won...


I totally agree..great post...:beer:

[frydaddy]

Didn't Peterson love to correct his betters ? Ann Bird said he scoffed during the search of the Bay, saying, "They're looking in the wrong place", of course they weren't but he enjoyed the chance to feign superiority.

He brushed aside Diane Sawyer's observations as if she were born yesterday and he was The Sage.

He talked down to Sharon and even Jackie and ordered those fake diplomas to impress the conquests he was contemplating.

The due date gave him a point to pontificate on instead of what a loving husband would have done; go on camera pleading with the abductor to return his beloved.

He thought the general public and jury too ignorant to see past his false declarations.

Even now he must ponder how long it will take for his Inferiors to realise his version of events is fool proof.

imo

:seeya:

Fortunately, he is left to permanently debate the nutritional merits of a sirloin with a prison issued boot print embedded in it. That's expertise some of us don't need! ;)

[Mysteri]

Fortunately, he is left to permanently debate the nutritional merits of a sirloin with a prison issued boot print embedded in it. That's expertise some of us don't need! ;)

No more than toothpaste sculpture ! :D

I do know that wiser individuals connected to this saga are certain he's a lifer and the appeals are only going to be antagonizing for his parents, IOW, meritless.


imo

[Lavindar]

YHe wasn't in pristine condition. Conner did have a very large gash on him. No one can do experiments to prove how this could happen in a storm.

However, no one can prove Conner was "cut out" of Laci's uterus, esp. since the ME testified there were no cut marks, but rather an "abraded" area.

One thing the jurors saw up and close are those autopsy photos. I think they probably explained a lot to them about the conditions of the bodies that we do not know.

JMO
You couldn't be more right if you tried. In addition to the large tear on his chest,
110) Brian Peterson: Sure. This is a picture of Conner taken from his left. So this would be his left shoulder and arm right here. Over on the right you can get an idea of that tear that we were talking about a little bit earlier. The head doesn't look normally shaped because it's not.

His brain was liquified and his skull plates were moving. I don't even want to think what he looked like

[woohoo]

Wonder what Scott meant by "Um, February 16th is the last date"?
*snipped for response*
Think maybe the doctor gave Scott and Laci a range between the 10th and 16th and that everyone used the original date of the 10th until Scott decided to use the 16th some two weeks after Laci disappeared? That creates the very real possibility he used it due to Amber's birthday. I agree it's odd that he's the ONLY one who professed it (the 16th, twice), and both times at least two weeks AFTER Laci disappeared. Tons of questions on this EDC deal, tons of assumptions, but not many answers. I won't argue the obvious corrected EDC date on the records, it's the communication portion that is the unknown.

IMO using the phrase "the last date" would mean that previously they had been given a date of February 10th then on December 23. they were given the 16th as a due date. That would be the "last date" that was gioven to them.

Possibly the reason ONLY Scott quoted the new date was because he was with Laci at the doctor's visit. If they were told of the possibility of a date change, I'm sure they mulled it over, talked about it, but knew as most people do, that babies come when they decide to. And I'm sure they were hoping for a December 10th date because they were anxious for the baby to get here.

I believe that with ALL that happened in the short span of time (from Dec23 to Dec 24) that a 6 day adjustment to the due date wasn't really the topic of conversation.

Did he have medical records supplied to him by McAllister? Why would he need that if he was with Laci when the doctor spoke to them about it on December 23rd.

You mention the media having wrong information and only Scott bringing up the new due date - suppose he had never mentioned it, and in interviews with Laci's doctors, it was learned that they had given Scott and Laci an adjusted due date and he had never mentioned that fact. IMO that would be another addition to the "lie list."
Again, IMO

[Miss Bootsie]

LOL..you're forgetting that the judge gave the jury instructions to follow..the jury gets to decide within the guidelines of those instructions..IMO, the jury clearly didn't follow the instructions..
lol, Oh No, I'm not forgetting. I even quoted Judge D.'s instruction for you to read. It is very clear.
Judge D: If, on the other hand, one interpretation of this evidence appears to you to be reasonable and the other interpretation to be unreasonable, you must accept the reasonable interpretation and reject the unreasonable.

AW, I have been observing your posts for quite awhile, and imo, you are trying to prove Scott got an unfair trial based on standards you, yourself, have set - or maybe standards that have been set by someone else.

It is either that or perhaps you just don't understand that the prosecution was not required to prove guilt beyond all doubt, or to a mathematical or scientific certainty.

The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt has to do not with the details or the various pieces of evidence considered separately, but with the evidence as a whole on which the Prosecution's case is based.
You really have a problem giving consideration to the evidence as a whole.

The part of your post I quoted below proves that. You completely shut out the circumstances surrounding the computer research.
You have to understand the Jury considered the testimony presented by the Prosecution as a whole. This is what they were supposed to do. There would be very few convictions if Jurors gave consideration to each piece of the evidence separately, instead of giving consideration as a whole.
The reason being, everything relating to human affairs is open to other possibilities. You consider the evidence as a whole to form your final conclusion. This is what the Jury did, and they could not come up with another reasonable rational conclusion for the many, many circumstances involving no one else, BUT---- Scott Peterson.
But, then again, if you gave consideration to the evidence as a whole, you wouldn't have an argument period. Would you?;)


IMO, if the jury followed the law and started with the premise that he is innocent, then their interpretation of the internet search would have been that he was preparing to go fishing..it is BEYOND unreasonable to conclude that he was searching for a dumping place just because a chart of currents and tides downloaded as he was searching for information regarding fishing..and why was is it downloaded? because it is information fishermen would be interested in anyway..

I also believe you have a fixation regarding your theory involving the burglars - bodies being stored in a bathtub - submerged in a plastic bag - planted on the shore.
imo, your theory is based from fictitious and imaginary doubt.

Following his every word and believe it to be true?? FYI, Geragos didn't testify..in addition, my theories were developed based on the evidence in this case which was basically presented by the prosecution....IMO, Geragos was everywhere, he pointed his finger at Amber..he pointed his finger at Kim McGregor..he pointed his finger at the homeless...he pointed his finger at the sex offenders...he pointed his finger at the burglars...I disagree with this strategy..I think he should have focused on one theory and backed it up with evidence...he is way overrated...I think "ineffective assistance of counsel" will be an appeal issue...

I think we are all aware Geragos didn't testify.
You are not the only one who has been reading and quoting from the testimony for years. I am well aware of where your theory came from.

So, just because "attorney wannabe" disagrees with Geragos strategy, of course we have a viable appeal issue here. Okie Dokie :rolleyes:

[Lavindar]

IMO using the phrase "the last date" would mean that previously they had been given a date of February 10th then on December 23. they were given the 16th as a due date. That would be the "last date" that was gioven to them.

Possibly the reason ONLY Scott quoted the new date was because he was with Laci at the doctor's visit. If they were told of the possibility of a date change, I'm sure they mulled it over, talked about it, but knew as most people do, that babies come when they decide to. And I'm sure they were hoping for a December 10th date because they were anxious for the baby to get here.

I believe that with ALL that happened in the short span of time (from Dec23 to Dec 24) that a 6 day adjustment to the due date wasn't really the topic of conversation.

Did he have medical records supplied to him by McAllister? Why would he need that if he was with Laci when the doctor spoke to them about it on December 23rd.

You mention the media having wrong information and only Scott bringing up the new due date - suppose he had never mentioned it, and in interviews with Laci's doctors, it was learned that they had given Scott and Laci an adjusted due date and he had never mentioned that fact. IMO that would be another addition to the "lie list."
Again, IMO

Dr. Tow-der did not testify that she told them of a date change that was made in September. In fact she testified that a date change of less than 7 days was not considered a change.

17) David Harris: And does it indicate there was an appointment or a visit on December 23rd of 2002?
18) Esther Tow-Der: Yes.
19) David Harris: Who was the doctor that saw Ms. Peterson on that date
20) Esther Tow-Der: Myself.

use in your practice?
11) Esther Tow-Der: Delivery date. Estimated date of confinement.
12) David Harris: And you had two notations in the file, one the first one was February 10th?
13) Esther Tow-Der: Correct.
14) David Harris: And that was a gestational measurement based on the last menses, and that's calculated when they first come in?
15) Esther Tow-Der: Correct.
16) David Harris: And then the second date was the February 16th, and you indicated that was based on the second ultrasound?
17) Esther Tow-Der: Correct.
18) David Harris: And that was done by Dr. Yip in your office?
19) Esther Tow-Der: Correct.
20) David Harris: The -- when they're only six days apart, do you change the estimated due dates based on that?
21) Esther Tow-Der: For clinical purposes we usually base it on the original due date, if it's within seven days. Which in this case was 2/10/03.

[woohoo]

For sure !

The red-herring that annoyed me almost the most was that wretched Croton watch the ragged Renfro girl was supposed to have pilfered from Laci.
Beside Laci's grandmother's pristine and polished jewelery it looked like something out of a CrackerJack box ! Geragos waved the pawn ticket like it was the Holy Grail. It didn't even match the official description of Mrs. Roca's watch.

imo

If the pawned watch was NOT Laci's, I find it curious that the croton watch has never been accounted for. The watch issue becomes even more curious when you add to the mix, that the Renfro son was interviewed by the police (on the rape of a woman issue) exactly 1 day before the watch shows up pawned!

[accordn2me]

<snipped>

..it is BEYOND unreasonable to conclude that he was searching for a dumping place just because a chart of currents and tides downloaded as he was searching for information regarding fishing..

<snipped>...:no: Given the bodies of his murdered wife and son turned up where he was fishing......the ominious predictions of losing his wife and the first holidays without her....the boat noone knew about....it would have be beyond UNREASONABLE not to conclude that he searched for dumping grounds and actually used the one he did the most research on.

[adnoid]

Fortunately, he is left to permanently debate the nutritional merits of a sirloin with a prison issued boot print embedded in it. That's expertise some of us don't need! ;)

I totally agree..great post...:beer:

[adnoid]

No more than toothpaste sculpture ! :D

I do know that wiser individuals connected to this saga are certain he's a lifer and the appeals are only going to be antagonizing for his parents, IOW, meritless.


imo

I totally agree..great post...:beer:

[adnoid]

Y
You couldn't be more right if you tried. In addition to the large tear on his chest,
110) Brian Peterson: Sure. This is a picture of Conner taken from his left. So this would be his left shoulder and arm right here. Over on the right you can get an idea of that tear that we were talking about a little bit earlier. The head doesn't look normally shaped because it's not.

His brain was liquified and his skull plates were moving. I don't even want to think what he looked like

I totally agree..great post...:beer:

[accordn2me]

I find it funny as hell that people who claim to be intellectual & have an open mind will admit they wouldn't read a book that might challenge their prejudices.

I've got Dalton's book, my opinions come from reading it myself, not what I've been told to think about it in order to retain posting rights at some worthless closed to the public message board.
I totally agree..great post...:beer:

[adnoid]

lol, Oh No, I'm not forgetting. I even quoted Judge D.'s instruction for you to read. It is very clear.


AW, I have been observing your posts for quite awhile, and imo, you are trying to prove Scott got an unfair trial based on standards you, yourself, have set - or maybe standards that have been set by someone else.

It is either that or perhaps you just don't understand that the prosecution was not required to prove guilt beyond all doubt, or to a mathematical or scientific certainty.

The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt has to do not with the details or the various pieces of evidence considered separately, but with the evidence as a whole on which the Prosecution's case is based.
You really have a problem giving consideration to the evidence as a whole.

The part of your post I quoted below proves that. You completely shut out the circumstances surrounding the computer research.
You have to understand the Jury considered the testimony presented by the Prosecution as a whole. This is what they were supposed to do. There would be very few convictions if Jurors gave consideration to each piece of the evidence separately, instead of giving consideration as a whole.
The reason being, everything relating to human affairs is open to other possibilities. You consider the evidence as a whole to form your final conclusion. This is what the Jury did, and they could not come up with another reasonable rational conclusion for the many, many circumstances involving no one else, BUT---- Scott Peterson.
But, then again, if you gave consideration to the evidence as a whole, you wouldn't have an argument period. Would you?;)



I also believe you have a fixation regarding your theory involving the burglars - bodies being stored in a bathtub - submerged in a plastic bag - planted on the shore.
imo, your theory is based from fictitious and imaginary doubt.



I think we are all aware Geragos didn't testify.
You are not the only one who has been reading and quoting from the testimony for years. I am well aware of where your theory came from.

So, just because "attorney wannabe" disagrees with Geragos strategy, of course we have a viable appeal issue here. Okie Dokie :rolleyes:

I totally agree..great post...:beer:

[Lavindar]

If the pawned watch was NOT Laci's, I find it curious that the croton watch has never been accounted for. The watch issue becomes even more curious when you add to the mix, that the Renfro son was interviewed by the police (on the rape of a woman issue) exactly 1 day before the watch shows up pawned!
Read the Peterson's web site. They are offering a reward for it and say she was wearing it when she was abducted.

[adnoid]

Dr. Tow-der did not testify that she told them of a date change that was made in September. In fact she testified that a date change of less than 7 days was not considered a change.

17) David Harris: And does it indicate there was an appointment or a visit on December 23rd of 2002?
18) Esther Tow-Der: Yes.
19) David Harris: Who was the doctor that saw Ms. Peterson on that date
20) Esther Tow-Der: Myself.

use in your practice?
11) Esther Tow-Der: Delivery date. Estimated date of confinement.
12) David Harris: And you had two notations in the file, one the first one was February 10th?
13) Esther Tow-Der: Correct.
14) David Harris: And that was a gestational measurement based on the last menses, and that's calculated when they first come in?
15) Esther Tow-Der: Correct.
16) David Harris: And then the second date was the February 16th, and you indicated that was based on the second ultrasound?
17) Esther Tow-Der: Correct.
18) David Harris: And that was done by Dr. Yip in your office?
19) Esther Tow-Der: Correct.
20) David Harris: The -- when they're only six days apart, do you change the estimated due dates based on that?
21) Esther Tow-Der: For clinical purposes we usually base it on the original due date, if it's within seven days. Which in this case was 2/10/03.

I totally agree..great post...:beer:

[adnoid]

:no: Given the bodies of his murdered wife and son turned up where he was fishing......the ominious predictions of losing his wife and the first holidays without her....the boat noone knew about....it would have be beyond UNREASONABLE not to conclude that he searched for dumping grounds and actually used the one he did the most research on.

I totally agree..great post...:beer:

[adnoid]

Read the Peterson's web site. They are offering a reward for it and say she was wearing it when she was abducted.

I totally agree..great post...:beer:

[adnoid]

I totally agree..great post...:beer:

I totally agree..great post...:beer:

[woohoo]

Placenta was torn off, not cut. Had conner been born alive, he would have bled to death and there was no evidence of that.
Brian Peterson: I did. The, the margin of the cord, in other words, the part farthest away from Conner, I described as being soft and friable without evidence of knot or cutting. Friable means crumbly. It was falling apart.
149) David Harris: Now, when you say no evidence of knot or cutting, what does that mean?
150) Brian Peterson: Well, there, once a baby's born, the umbilical cord has to be closed or else the baby will bleed to death. Typically in a hospital setting that's done by putting clamps, two clamps on the cord and cutting in between. So what you end up with is a placenta and an umbilical cord that has a clamp on it, and a baby and cord with a clamp on it. In this case there was no evidence that, there was obviously no clamp. Had the cord been cut, as with a knife, that will typically leave a sharp margin. The margin was not sharp. Sometimes there can be knots in the cord. That can actually be a cause of death in the uterus. A true knot in the cord. There was no knot in this cord. So to make a long story short, there was no evidence that it had been cut, there was no evidence that it had been clamped, there was no evidence that there was a knot there. All there was was a crumbly end.


I don't believe it was the good doctor's job to speculate about things that were missing with no evidence.

All the above explains is what happens when a cord is clamped off and cut under normal circumstances. He didn't see evidence of that in his opinion.

You say it was friable - crumbly - I believe that was in testimony also, but it's a strange choice of descriptive words if you apply it to the following:

<medicine> " (Prescott) Friable - Of certain morbid conditions, in which there is entire or comparative absence of moisture; as, dry gangrene; dry catarrh.

It's hard to see how it became friable if all these events fell together 24 to 48 hours prior to Conner being seperated from Laci and found on the shore.

[I'mSun]

I find it funny as hell that people who claim to be intellectual & have an open mind will admit they wouldn't read a book that might challenge their prejudices.

I've got Dalton's book, my opinions come from reading it myself, not what I've been told to think about it in order to retain posting rights at some worthless closed to the public message board.
I totally agree..great post...:beer:

[attorneywan2be]

lol, Oh No, I'm not forgetting. I even quoted Judge D.'s instruction for you to read. It is very clear.


AW, I have been observing your posts for quite awhile, and imo, you are trying to prove Scott got an unfair trial based on standards you, yourself, have set - or maybe standards that have been set by someone else.

It is either that or perhaps you just don't understand that the prosecution was not required to prove guilt beyond all doubt, or to a mathematical or scientific certainty.

The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt has to do not with the details or the various pieces of evidence considered separately, but with the evidence as a whole on which the Prosecution's case is based.
You really have a problem giving consideration to the evidence as a whole.

The part of your post I quoted below proves that. You completely shut out the circumstances surrounding the computer research.
You have to understand the Jury considered the testimony presented by the Prosecution as a whole. This is what they were supposed to do. There would be very few convictions if Jurors gave consideration to each piece of the evidence separately, instead of giving consideration as a whole.
The reason being, everything relating to human affairs is open to other possibilities. You consider the evidence as a whole to form your final conclusion. This is what the Jury did, and they could not come up with another reasonable rational conclusion for the many, many circumstances involving no one else, BUT---- Scott Peterson.
But, then again, if you gave consideration to the evidence as a whole, you wouldn't have an argument period. Would you?;)



I also believe you have a fixation regarding your theory involving the burglars - bodies being stored in a bathtub - submerged in a plastic bag - planted on the shore.
imo, your theory is based from fictitious and imaginary doubt.



I think we are all aware Geragos didn't testify.
You are not the only one who has been reading and quoting from the testimony for years. I am well aware of where your theory came from.

So, just because "attorney wannabe" disagrees with Geragos strategy, of course we have a viable appeal issue here. Okie Dokie :rolleyes


You are being disrespectful in your post ..if that continues I will not respond to your posts..

IMO, before the jury can look to the totality of the evidence..each single fact or circumstance had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt...they can only draw inferences of guilt from those facts that had been proven BARD..
Example, the prosecution didn't prove BARD that Scott searched the internet looking for dumping places...they presented evidence that he was searching for fish types..fish regulations...fishing reports..etc..etc.. the fact that a chart of currents and tides downloaded at the fishing website he was visiting doesn't indicate in the least that he was searching for dumping places...it is unreasonable to conclude that he did...this conclusion could only be based on a preconceived notion of guilt..in addition, according to the prosecution.. he supposedly dumped the body in an area where the currents and tides would wash the body ashore rather than out to sea..that evidence is in direct conflict with the internet search being for the purpose of finding a dumping place where the body would wash out to sea..

[Lavindar]

All the above explains is what happens when a cord is clamped off and cut under normal circumstances. He didn't see evidence of that in his opinion.

You say it was friable - crumbly - I believe that was in testimony also, but it's a strange choice of descriptive words if you apply it to the following:

<medicine> " (Prescott) Friable - Of certain morbid conditions, in which there is entire or comparative absence of moisture; as, dry gangrene; dry catarrh.

It's hard to see how it became friable if all these events fell together 24 to 48 hours prior to Conner being seperated from Laci and found on the shore.
And we also DO NOT know how long Conner was on land before he was found.

[woohoo]

Dr. Tow-der did not testify that she told them of a date change that was made in September. In fact she testified that a date change of less than 7 days was not considered a change.

17) David Harris: And does it indicate there was an appointment or a visit on December 23rd of 2002?
18) Esther Tow-Der: Yes.
19) David Harris: Who was the doctor that saw Ms. Peterson on that date
20) Esther Tow-Der: Myself.

use in your practice?
11) Esther Tow-Der: Delivery date. Estimated date of confinement.
12) David Harris: And you had two notations in the file, one the first one was February 10th?
13) Esther Tow-Der: Correct.
14) David Harris: And that was a gestational measurement based on the last menses, and that's calculated when they first come in?
15) Esther Tow-Der: Correct.
16) David Harris: And then the second date was the February 16th, and you indicated that was based on the second ultrasound?
17) Esther Tow-Der: Correct.
18) David Harris: And that was done by Dr. Yip in your office?
19) Esther Tow-Der: Correct.
20) David Harris: The -- when they're only six days apart, do you change the estimated due dates based on that?
21) Esther Tow-Der: For clinical purposes we usually base it on the original due date, if it's within seven days. Which in this case was 2/10/03.

16) David Harris: And then the second date was the February 16th, and you indicated that was based on the second ultrasound?

For clinical purposes we usually base it on the original due date,

There was clearly a SECOND due date discussed with Scott & Laci. That's a fact you have proved by your post.
The doctors told them about this. Thus, IMO "for clinical purposes" since there was only a 6 day difference, she is saying "we usually base it on the original due date."

For all practical purposes, it's common knowledge that babies can come a week before or a week after the due date. Either way would create no alarm!
But you cannot dispute the fact that based on the results of the sonogram, it was showing a due date of February 16th and the doctors told Scott & Laci those results.

[aingael]

If the pawned watch was NOT Laci's, I find it curious that the croton watch has never been accounted for. The watch issue becomes even more curious when you add to the mix, that the Renfro son was interviewed by the police (on the rape of a woman issue) exactly 1 day before the watch shows up pawned!



In my opinion it is reasonable to believe that the Croton watch is at the bottom of the bay.

Scott Peterson said Laci always wore her jewelry when she walked, thus suggesting that she was ~taken~ because of her jewelry. Laci had many expensive pieces and Scott Peterson could not have that down at the bottom of the bay. Now could he? He put the piece of jewelry that would not bring him much money and used that as an explanation of why she was taken.

Such a WONDERFUL man. :no:

[attorneywan2be]

16) David Harris: And then the second date was the February 16th, and you indicated that was based on the second ultrasound?

For clinical purposes we usually base it on the original due date,

There was clearly a SECOND due date discussed with Scott & Laci. That's a fact you have proved by your post.
The doctors told them about this. Thus, IMO "for clinical purposes" since there was only a 6 day difference, she is saying "we usually base it on the original due date."

For all practical purposes, it's common knowledge that babies can come a week before or a week after the due date. Either way would create no alarm!
But you cannot dispute the fact that based on the results of the sonogram, it was showing a due date of February 16th and the doctors told Scott & Laci those results.


Exactly!..Dr. Yip wrote a notation in Laci's medical records "corrected EDC 2/16"

[Lavindar]

16) David Harris: And then the second date was the February 16th, and you indicated that was based on the second ultrasound?

For clinical purposes we usually base it on the original due date,

There was clearly a SECOND due date discussed with Scott & Laci. That's a fact you have proved by your post.
The doctors told them about this. Thus, IMO "for clinical purposes" since there was only a 6 day difference, she is saying "we usually base it on the original due date."

For all practical purposes, it's common knowledge that babies can come a week before or a week after the due date. Either way would create no alarm!
But you cannot dispute the fact that based on the results of the sonogram, it was showing a due date of February 16th and the doctors told Scott & Laci those results.


I'm sorry. I missed the part where she TOLD Scott and Laci in that testimony

[aingael]

You are being disrespectful in your post ..if that continues I will not respond to your posts..

IMO, before the jury can look to the totality of the evidence..each single fact or circumstance had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt...they can only draw inferences of guilt from those facts that had been proven BARD..
Example, the prosecution didn't prove BARD that Scott searched the internet looking for dumping places...they presented evidence that he was searching for fish types..fish regulations...fishing reports..etc..etc.. the fact that a chart of currents and tides downloaded at the fishing website he was visiting doesn't indicate in the least that he was searching for dumping places...it is unreasonable to conclude that he did...this conclusion could only be based on a preconceived notion of guilt..in addition, according to the prosecution.. he supposedly dumped the body in an area where the currents and tides would wash the body ashore rather than out to sea..that evidence is in direct conflict with the internet search being for the purpose of finding a dumping place where the body would wash out to sea..


One thing you seem to be forgetting is that what is reasonable doubt for some is not the same for other.

While you might find a reasonable explanation that integrates into your lifestyle in regards to things Scott Peterson has done is not reasonable to another person in another lifestyle.

The 12 jurors did not think there was reasonable doubt that would have negated a guilty verdict. If you had been on the jury then the verdict might have been different. Either way, the jury has a right to their thoughts on what is reasonable and what is not. Apparently they thought like the majority that the evidence pointed to guilt without a reasonable doubt.

The ~what is reasonable doubt to a juror and what is not~ will not be an issue in the appeals process. If it were then every conviction will be overturned.

[Otter]

You are being disrespectful in your post ..if that continues I will not respond to your posts..

Isn't that your nic?

IMO, before the jury can look to the totality of the evidence..each single fact or circumstance had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt...they can only draw inferences of guilt from those facts that had been proven BARD..

That's not true, so says Jeralyn Merritt who IMO doesn't think anyone is ever guilty of anything:

Yes. The law recognizes two kinds of evidence, direct and circumstantial.

Direct evidence is testimony by a witness about what he or she personally observed, heard or experienced. Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence. It allows the jury to infer, from other facts presented and proven, that a particular fact or circumstance exists, even though there has been no direct proof of it. The only limit on inferences drawn from proven facts is that they must be logical and reasonable, and not just speculation.

Here's an easy example. Suppose when you wake up tomorrow morning, the sidewalk outside your house is wet. Did it rain? There's no direct evidence of that, since someone could have used a hose on the sidewalk. The law allows, but does not require you to find from the fact of the wet sidewalk that it rained. In deciding whether the wet sidewalk is proof that it rained, a court will tell you to consider all the evidence in light of reason, experience and common sense.

When a jury retires to deliberate, it is instructed that there is no legal distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence so far as proof is concerned. It is up to them to determine how much weight to give any particular piece of evidence, whether it be direct or circumstantial.

-- Jeralyn Merritt
http://criminal-law.lawyers.com/ask-a-lawyer/Is-Circumstantial-Evidence-Enough-to-Convict-5709.html

Example, the prosecution didn't prove BARD that Scott searched the internet looking for dumping places...they presented evidence that he was searching for fish types..fish regulations...fishing reports..etc..etc.. the fact that a chart of currents and tides downloaded at the fishing website he was visiting doesn't indicate in the least that he was searching for dumping places...it is unreasonable to conclude that he did...this conclusion could only be based on a preconceived notion of guilt..in addition, according to the prosecution.. he supposedly dumped the body in an area where the currents and tides would wash the body ashore rather than out to sea..that evidence is in direct conflict with the internet search being for the purpose of finding a dumping place where the body would wash out to sea..

See above.

[attorneywan2be]

I'm sorry. I missed the part where she TOLD Scott and Laci in that testimony

How about inferring that Dr. Yip told them??..I think it is reasonable to infer that Scott knew the corrected EDC from Dr. Yip..since he mentioned the exact date that Dr. Yip noted on Laci's medical records...!

[woohoo]

I'm sorry. I missed the part where she TOLD Scott and Laci in that testimony

Well if it was NOTED in Laci's medical records, and Scott seemed to be the only person aware of that date PRE-TRIAL - it's not too much of a stretch to realize they were told.

[attorneywan2be]

See above.


Otter..I'm surprised, what you quoted from that website actually totally agrees with what I said... In addition, what I said was based on judge Delucchi's instructions to the jury..(see below)

IMO, before the jury can look to the totality of the evidence..each single fact or circumstance had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt...they can only draw inferences of guilt from those facts that had been proven BARD..


That's not true, so says Jeralyn Merritt who IMO doesn't think anyone is ever guilty of anything:

Yes. The law recognizes two kinds of evidence, direct and circumstantial.

Direct evidence is testimony by a witness about what he or she personally observed, heard or experienced. Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence. It allows the jury to infer, from other facts presented and proven, that a particular fact or circumstance exists, even though there has been no direct proof of it. The only limit on inferences drawn from proven facts is that they must be logical and reasonable, and not just speculation.

Here's an easy example. Suppose when you wake up tomorrow morning, the sidewalk outside your house is wet. Did it rain? There's no direct evidence of that, since someone could have used a hose on the sidewalk. The law allows, but does not require you to find from the fact of the wet sidewalk that it rained. In deciding whether the wet sidewalk is proof that it rained, a court will tell you to consider all the evidence in light of reason, experience and common sense.

When a jury retires to deliberate, it is instructed that there is no legal distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence so far as proof is concerned. It is up to them to determine how much weight to give any particular piece of evidence, whether it be direct or circumstantial.

-- Jeralyn Merritt
http://criminal-law.lawyers.com/ask-...vict-5709.html

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

From the TS..judge Delucchi:

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

[Lavindar]

How about inferring that Dr. Yip told them??..I think it is reasonable to infer that Scott knew the corrected EDC from Dr. Yip..since he mentioned the exact date that Dr. Yip noted on Laci's medical records...!

Did Yip testify? No!!! And Laci's pregnancy diary doesn't mention it either altho she does document that visit. Dr Yip told Det. Phil Owens (I posted teh preliminary testimony) that the date would not change also. NONE Of THE DOCTORS AT THAT MEDICAL GROUP SAID THAT A 6 DAY DIFFERENCE WOULD CHANGE HER DUE DATE.

[cookiewench]

You are being disrespectful in your post ..if that continues I will not respond to your posts..

IMO, before the jury can look to the totality of the evidence..each single fact or circumstance had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt...they can only draw inferences of guilt from those facts that had been proven BARD..
Example, the prosecution didn't prove BARD that Scott searched the internet looking for dumping places...they presented evidence that he was searching for fish types..fish regulations...fishing reports..etc..etc.. the fact that a chart of currents and tides downloaded at the fishing website he was visiting doesn't indicate in the least that he was searching for dumping places...it is unreasonable to conclude that he did...this conclusion could only be based on a preconceived notion of guilt..in addition, according to the prosecution.. he supposedly dumped the body in an area where the currents and tides would wash the body ashore rather than out to sea..that evidence is in direct conflict with the internet search being for the purpose of finding a dumping place where the body would wash out to sea..


I'd like to request a link to back up what you've posted.

I do believe you are wrong.

BARD is a verdict term: the jury must believe that the case has been proven BARD.

The jury doesn't have to feel that every single fact or circumstance has been proved BARD before they can look at the totality of the evidence.

And I don't understand why you prefaced that statement with IMO, because it is not something that is open to opinion. It either is, or it isn't a rule of deliberation.

[woohoo]

Read the Peterson's web site. They are offering a reward for it and say she was wearing it when she was abducted.

And your point is............?

[woohoo]

In response to "we don't know how long Conner was on the shore before he was found."

Dr. Peterson testified his opinion was 24-48 hours. I'd have to search for that testimony so I will say IMO I remember that testimony. However he did say:
PETERSON: Conner's body was, relatively speaking, in much better shape with respect to most of the parts being there, compared to Laci's where, as you recall, we were missing substantial soft tissue, and even some bones from the arms and the legs. Conner's body had undergone a similar type process with respect to autolysis, maceration, body soaking in fluid, and so forth. But there wasn't quite the evidence that it had been exposed so much to the other physical forces that we discussed yesterday, namely the tidal action and animal feeding. So there were some similarities, but again, to my eye, marked differences, particularly including, particularly because Conner was so much smaller. And my thinking was that as small he was and as softened as he was, that if he had spent substantial unprotected time in the water, like Laci did, he would have been eaten. There simply wouldn't have been anything left.

So if the "Perfect Storm" caused the seperation using that date and the date he was found - it's not too hard to figure.

[woohoo]

AW2B - I have to go out BBL But do you know the actual points on appeal?
If so, could you post them? I'd like to know what they are so those can be discussed.:seeya:

[attorneywan2be]

I'd like to request a link to back up what you've posted.

I do believe you are wrong.

BARD is a verdict term: the jury must believe that the case has been proven BARD.

The jury doesn't have to feel that every single fact or circumstance has been proved BARD before they can look at the totality of the evidence.

And I don't understand why you prefaced that statement with IMO, because it is not something that is open to opinion. It either is, or it isn't a rule of deliberation.\

Judge Delucchi instructions to the jury:

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

[Otter]

Otter..I'm surprised, what you quoted from that website actually totally agrees with what I said... In addition, what I said was based on judge Delucchi's instructions to the jury..(see below)






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

From the TS..judge Delucchi:

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

Yes, but you skipped right over this part:

even though there has been no direct proof of it.

So don't be so thrilled. :seeya:

[attorneywan2be]

AW2B - I have to go out BBL But do you know the actual points on appeal?
If so, could you post them? I'd like to know what they are so those can be discussed.:seeya:


Hi woo..:seeya:

Are you referring to the actual appeal issues Scott's attorneys will submit? if so, of course not, I'm just speculating as to the appeal issues that would get his conviction reversed..

We can start a list of possible appeal issues..then we can explore/discuss each issue.. :D

[Miss Bootsie]

IMO, before the jury can look to the totality of the evidence..each single fact or circumstance had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt...they can only draw inferences of guilt from those facts that had been proven BARD..

Okay, Please address this.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that, (if found to be true) - (proves a fact)- (from which an inference of the existence of another fact may be drawn).

Do you agree all the circumstances I have listed below are true circumstances? If not, please explain why you don't agree.

Purchase of the boat
Scott - boat - SF bay - Dec. 24
Laci - disappeared on Dec 24
Bodies found ashore in same vicinity

Do you agree all the true circumstances above proves a fact?
If you don't agree, please explain why you don't agree.

Do you agree an inference of the existence of another fact can be drawn from this fact?
If you don't agree, please explain why you don't agree.

What is the inference that can be drawn from this fact?

[attorneywan2be]

Yes, but you skipped right over this part:

even though there has been no direct proof of it.

So don't be so thrilled. :seeya:


LOL..:seeya: anyhow..Judge Delucchi's instructions agree totally with what I stated..

She was referring to direct vs circumstantial..you ignored the commas..:D

Analysis of what she said: "It allows the jury to infer " meaning the circumstantial evidence.."from facts presented and proven" so as I said, the facts had to be proven first before an inference can be drawn from those facts.."that a particular fact or circumstance exists, even though there has been no direct proof of it" she was referring to the inference drawn from the proven facts...creating a new fact where there has been no direct proof of it..

What she said:

Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence. It allows the jury to infer, from other facts presented and proven, that a particular fact or circumstance exists, even though there has been no direct proof of it

[accordn2me]

\

Judge Delucchi instructions to the jury:

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

1. The prediction was proven by Scott's own admission on the tape and backed up by Amber's & Shawn's testimony.

2. Scott purchased a boat that noone in his or Laci's family knew he had purchased. See testimony.

3. Scott researched the SF Bay and went fishing there the day his pregnant wife "went missing." See testimony & Scott's statements to LE, et. al

4. Laci and Conner's bodies were discovered on the shores of the SF Bay.

All of those facts were proven well BARD. It was up to the jury to infer from those proven facts that Laci & Conner were murdered and placed in the bay by SLP, or not. Obviously, they reached their correct conclusion because the evidence only points to SLP and SLP alone.

There is no other evidence suggesting it might have been anyone other than SLP.

[woohoo]

Hi woo..:seeya:

Are you referring to the actual appeal issues Scott's attorneys will submit? if so, of course not, I'm just speculating as to the appeal issues that would get his conviction reversed..

We can start a list of possible appeal issues..then we can explore/discuss each issue.. :D

OIC - well as I told you, I'm not up-to-date on some things and I thought possibly there was knowledge of the appeals issues.

But that's fine. Even a list of possibilities would be good. That would help to prevent having to go so far afield on issues that will have no bearing whatsoever on the appeal. The trial is over. The only good I can see from debating some of these things is possibly to explain why it's the opinion of some that he was wrongfully convicted.

Everyone has an opinion. That's obvious. But I don't think it's clear to many people why someone could possibly think he was not guilty. You have been the strongest advocate for that opinion for a long time. And I think instead of proclaiming that you are just totally blind to the facts that maybe by reading the reasons why you feel that way could possibly be interesting.

All that being said what points do you think are points for appeal? I think juror misconduct will be visited on several issues.

[jude]

MG cross of AF






this is why I believe she was acting a LE...sure she can question Scott on her own and tape him on her own... that's not my issue...but LE was constantly giving her questions to ask him while they were sitting right there....IMO that is a LE interrogation, that's not a personal call from Amber...

I think with the (partially)false affidavit for the wiretaps, the fast and loose play with Amber directly working for LE using their questions while she's on the phone with Scott in the police station and the fact that IMO the calls were 100% prejudicial and 100% not probative.... I think they this can and will be appealed and won...


EKG you bring up a good point. Both federal & California law enforcement may eavesdrop on & record conversations without a court order under the so-called "one party consent provision'(18USC 251(12)(2) California penal code 633)(as referenced by other posters), in other words if state & federal authorities have the consent of one party to a conversation, the conversation may be monitored. This provision applies only to eavesdropping by law enforcement.
For violation of federal wiretap statute (4th amendment), Scott has to find police involvement with Amber to the extent that they encouraged, aided or even told her to record. If Amber was acting as a police agent, surrogate or even someone encouraged to record for the police, (sort of sounds like it by her own testimony), then maybe there is a violation of the 4th amendment.
PS: I am just trying to understand what the statute allows and disallows.
Also can someone tell me who applied for the wiretap on Scott Peterson, which DA was authorized for making the local application?

[frydaddy]

IMO using the phrase "the last date" would mean that previously they had been given a date of February 10th then on December 23. they were given the 16th as a due date. That would be the "last date" that was gioven to them.

Possibly the reason ONLY Scott quoted the new date was because he was with Laci at the doctor's visit. If they were told of the possibility of a date change, I'm sure they mulled it over, talked about it, but knew as most people do, that babies come when they decide to. And I'm sure they were hoping for a December 10th date because they were anxious for the baby to get here.

I believe that with ALL that happened in the short span of time (from Dec23 to Dec 24) that a 6 day adjustment to the due date wasn't really the topic of conversation.

Did he have medical records supplied to him by McAllister? Why would he need that if he was with Laci when the doctor spoke to them about it on December 23rd.

You mention the media having wrong information and only Scott bringing up the new due date - suppose he had never mentioned it, and in interviews with Laci's doctors, it was learned that they had given Scott and Laci an adjusted due date and he had never mentioned that fact. IMO that would be another addition to the "lie list."
Again, IMO

I don't buy it. Had he and Amber discussed an original date, maybe. But, when asked straight up for the first time ever when the baby was due, "Um, January 16th" would have been the expected answer. The "last date" part is out of context, as if Amber knew there was an original date that was different. Maybe if he had said, "Originally it was Feb 10th, but Feb 16th is the last date.", I might lend credence to your speculation.

What throws me for a loop is why the doctor adjusts the EDC on Sept 24th per protocol, either doesn't tell Laci until the 23rd when Scott is there or does and she says nothing for three months, then neither mentions it to Amy or Sharon because they are hopeful the baby will come early on the 10th, then suddenly two weeks after Laci disappears, Scott is now adamant that
the date is the 16th? Defies logic.

I didn't ask if he needed them and I didn't state that McAllister supplied them to Scott. I'm merely wondering if Scott or McAllister had the physical document that we know as People's Exhibit 56. If we are going to infer, assume, or speculate, one could speculate that McAllister was already on the gestational age deal knowing if they could prove that Conner lived past 12-24, that it wasn't Scott. Scott may have been using that date on the advice of counsel.

[Otter]

LOL..:seeya: anyhow..Judge Delucchi's instructions agree totally with what I stated..

She was referring to direct vs circumstantial..you ignored the commas..:D

Analysis of what she said: "It allows the jury to infer " meaning the circumstantial evidence.."from facts presented and proven" so as I said, the facts had to be proven first before an inference can be drawn from those facts.."that a particular fact or circumstance exists, even though there has been no direct proof of it" she was referring to the inference drawn from the proven facts...creating a new fact where there has been no direct proof of it..

What she said:

Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence. It allows the jury to infer, from other facts presented and proven, that a particular fact or circumstance exists, even though there has been no direct proof of it


I'm so happy you're so giddy. But you're reading it wrong. You've convinced yourself, IMO of you own POV, you don't want to comprehend what it says!

:shrug: I can't help you. Its crystal clear to me.

[woohoo]

This post was not addressed to me, but since we are allowed to inquire, what part of the statement below makes it incriminating?

2. Scott purchased a boat that noone in his or Laci's family knew he had purchased. See testimony.

It wasn't hidden from anyone, he just hadn't told anyone else, other than Laci. And she obviously knew about the boat based on CE.

Both Scott and Laci had expressed wanting to "get closer" to Sharon & Ron with the birth of the baby at hand. To say the boat was a surprise for Ron was not too far fetched, because it was Ron, not Sharon, that they seemed to need to build a closer relationship with. He was an avid fisherman and was still fishing in a "floatee" tube. So IMO to have a boat that Ron would have access to seemed to be a good idea.

[cookiewench]

LOL..:seeya: anyhow..Judge Delucchi's instructions agree totally with what I stated..

She was referring to direct vs circumstantial..you ignored the commas..:D

Analysis of what she said: "It allows the jury to infer " meaning the circumstantial evidence.."from facts presented and proven" so as I said, the facts had to be proven first before an inference can be drawn from those facts.."that a particular fact or circumstance exists, even though there has been no direct proof of it" she was referring to the inference drawn from the proven facts...creating a new fact where there has been no direct proof of it..

What she said:

Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence. It allows the jury to infer, from other facts presented and proven, that a particular fact or circumstance exists, even though there has been no direct proof of it


Exactly. From the fact that Scott did that research on the internet, added to all of the other circumstantial evidence, the jury can "infer", or decide to believe the prosecution vs. the defense argument on the reasons WHY he did that research.

It is the same thing with motive. Motive can never be absolutely proven, it can only be intuited through the evidence (whatever that evidence might be: insurance, prior statements, anger, affairs, a grudge, etc.).

All of these issues can be presented as evidence of motive if they can be proven to be factual. Once they are proven to be factual (insurance, affairs, whatever), the jury is allowed to infer that this is motive, although it can never be proven.

By your theory, no one could or would ever, ever be convicted of anything.

[frydaddy]

*SNIPPED*

It wasn't hidden from anyone, he just hadn't told anyone else, other than Laci. And she obviously knew about the boat based on CE.

*SNIPPED*



Please provide proof he told Laci about it AND proof that she knew per CE. A witness that Laci spoke to about Scott's boat who testified or a document that arrived in the Peterson's mailbox will be sufficient. TIA

[cookiewench]

This post was not addressed to me, but since we are allowed to inquire, what part of the statement below makes it incriminating?

2. Scott purchased a boat that noone in his or Laci's family knew he had purchased. See testimony.

It wasn't hidden from anyone, he just hadn't told anyone else, other than Laci. And she obviously knew about the boat based on CE.

Both Scott and Laci had expressed wanting to "get closer" to Sharon & Ron with the birth of the baby at hand. To say the boat was a surprise for Ron was not too far fetched, because it was Ron, not Sharon, that they seemed to need to build a closer relationship with. He was an avid fisherman and was still fishing in a "floatee" tube. So IMO to have a boat that Ron would have access to seemed to be a good idea.


What is the CE that made it "obvious" that Laci knew about the boat?

Also, where is the evidence that Ron didn't fish in the tube because that's what he LIKED to do, and that he couldn't have bought his own $1,400 if he'd wanted to?

Did even one person say (either in court or out) that Ron had ever expressed a wish to have a fishing boat?

[accordn2me]

This post was not addressed to me, but since we are allowed to inquire, what part of the statement below makes it incriminating?

2. Scott purchased a boat that noone in his or Laci's family knew he had purchased. See testimony.

It wasn't hidden from anyone, he just hadn't told anyone else, other than Laci. And she obviously knew about the boat based on CE.

Both Scott and Laci had expressed wanting to "get closer" to Sharon & Ron with the birth of the baby at hand. To say the boat was a surprise for Ron was not too far fetched, because it was Ron, not Sharon, that they seemed to need to build a closer relationship with. He was an avid fisherman and was still fishing in a "floatee" tube. So IMO to have a boat that Ron would have access to seemed to be a good idea.How do you know he told Laci? What CE shows she knew about that boat? Not that it matters one bit, mind you.

I must have missed the testimony that says the boat was a surprise for Ron, too. :shrug:

The point I was making in reply to aw2b, but not necessarily just to her, so do feel free to jump in any time: These facts were proven BARD. From those facts proven BARD, the jury inferred that SLP was the killer. And rightly so, as there is no evidence, at least no evidence presented to the jury, to suggest anyone other than SLP did this.

[Miss Bootsie]

OIC - well as I told you, I'm not up-to-date on some things and I thought possibly there was knowledge of the appeals issues.

But that's fine. Even a list of possibilities would be good. That would help to prevent having to go so far afield on issues that will have no bearing whatsoever on the appeal. The trial is over. The only good I can see from debating some of these things is possibly to explain why it's the opinion of some that he was wrongfully convicted.

Everyone has an opinion. That's obvious. But I don't think it's clear to many people why someone could possibly think he was not guilty. You have been the strongest advocate for that opinion for a long time. And I think instead of proclaiming that you are just totally blind to the facts that maybe by reading the reasons why you feel that way could possibly be interesting.

All that being said what points do you think are points for appeal? I think juror misconduct will be visited on several issues.

I can't speak for the other SIG's here, but it is not the difference of opinion I have a problem with.

One of the problems I have is when someone enters into a debate and runs out on it, or suddenly changes the subject of the argument/debate.

This causes a great deal of frustration to the person that has invested their time, who may have done research to bring information into the debate, only for the other person to run out or change the subject.

:patriot:

[frydaddy]

I can't speak for the other SIG's here, but it is not the difference of opinion I have a problem with.

One of the problems I have is when someone enters into a debate and runs out on it, or suddenly changes the subject of the argument/debate.

This causes a great deal of frustration to the person that has invested their time, who may have done research to bring information into the debate, only for the other person to run out or change the subject.

:patriot:

I completely understand your irritation and totally agree. Having said that, I'm fully willing for one of the advocates to jump in on my post to EKG from earlier today. (#3083)

ETA: Unrelated to this post, I sure could use the cell tower locations, those little four digit codes. It's an exhibit that is sealed and there is nada on the net. Seems like all the real info we need is sealed!

[attorneywan2be]

Okay, Please address this.



Do you agree all the circumstances I have listed below are true circumstances? If not, please explain why you don't agree.

Purchase of the boat
Scott - boat - SF bay - Dec. 24
Laci - disappeared on Dec 24
Bodies found ashore in same vicinity

Do you agree all the true circumstances above proves a fact?
If you don't agree, please explain why you don't agree.

Do you agree an inference of the existence of another fact can be drawn from this fact?
If you don't agree, please explain why you don't agree.

What is the inference that can be drawn from this fact?

Yes..I do agree that those were facts that were proven BARD..however, I do not agree that an inference of guilt can be drawn from those facts..why?

IMO,

Purchase of the boat: no evidence surrounding the purchase of the boat indicates consciousness of guilt..he used his correct name and address..he searched for the boat on his home PC..he stored the boat at his warehouse, no attempt to hide the boat..the fact, that no one knew about it doesn't mean anything to me..by all other indications there was no attempt to hide that boat..he informed the police about it as soon as he talked to them on Dec 24th...(this fact was not proven BARD that it was purchased as part of a murder plan)

Scott going to the bay and using his boat on Dec 24th.: again, no evidence surrounding this indicates consciousness of guilt..he did buy an ocean fishing rod, he bought a fishing license..he went to the bay during broad daylight...he had to leave his boat unattended while he parked his truck..he went to one of the shallowest part of the bay..he informed the police of the exact spot he trolled in and that's according to the prosecution....(this fact was not proven BARD that he went there to dump a body)

Laci disappeared on Dec 24th: he could have been at work when she disappeared, the fact that her disappearance coincided with the date he went to the bay doesn't mean anything ..UNTIL the bodies were found close to his alibi..next..

The bodies were found in the same vicinity: if we would take that evidence without proper examination/analysis we would reach the wrong conclusion..Dr. Cheng's testimony definitely creates reasonable doubt that the bodies washed ashore..so if they didn't wash ashore, then Scott could not have done it..IMO, this evidence is powerful evidence that points to his innocence...in addition to that, there was no evidence both bodies were exposed to marine life..the twine that was wrapped and knotted twice around Conner's neck..the ME testifying that he estimated his age to be 9 months..Dr. Galloway measured 11 of his bones, 6 of the 11 bones put Conner between 38 and 40 weeks old...the average of the 11 bones put him between 35 and 36 weeks..after applying the margin of error, Conner's estimated gestational age when found was 33 to 38 weeks..! he disappeared at age 33 weeks, why should we believe that his age was 33 weeks when found? if anything, that creates reasonable doubt that Conner died on Dec 24th or before...

The mere fact the bodies were found 4 months later near his alibi is not proof he put them there..the location of his alibi was well publicized ..had the body been found on the same day he went fishing and at the same place he supposedly dumped the body..it would have been a different story...

[Lavindar]

EKG you bring up a good point. Both federal & California law enforcement may eavesdrop on & record conversations without a court order under the so-called "one party consent provision'(18USC 251(12)(2) California penal code 633)(as referenced by other posters), in other words if state & federal authorities have the consent of one party to a conversation, the conversation may be monitored. This provision applies only to eavesdropping by law enforcement.
For violation of federal wiretap statute (4th amendment), Scott has to find police involvement with Amber to the extent that they encouraged, aided or even told her to record. If Amber was acting as a police agent, surrogate or even someone encouraged to record for the police, (sort of sounds like it by her own testimony), then maybe there is a violation of the 4th amendment.
PS: I am just trying to understand what the statute allows and disallows.
Also can someone tell me who applied for the wiretap on Scott Peterson, which DA was authorized for making the local application?

Funny, I read it as just the opposite of you.

This is what I found on CA Penal Code 633

Nothing in Section 631, 632, 632.5, 632.6, or 632.7 prohibits the Attorney General, any district attorney, or any assistant, deputy, or investigator of the Attorney General or any district attorney, any officer of the California Highway Patrol, any chief of police, assistant chief of police, or police officer of a city or city and county, any sheriff, undersheriff, or deputy sheriff regularly employed and paid in that capacity by a county, police officer of the County of Los Angeles, or any person acting pursuant to the direction of one of these law enforcement officers acting within the scope of his or her authority, from overhearing or recording any communication that they could lawfully overhear or record prior to the effective date of this chapter.
Nothing in Section 631, 632, 632.5, 632.6, or 632.7 renders inadmissible any evidence obtained by the above-named persons by means of overhearing or recording any communication that they could lawfully overhear or record prior to the effective date of this chapter.[/COLOR]

[cookiewench]

Yes..I do agree that those were facts that were proven BARD..however, I do not agree that an inference of guilt can be drawn from those facts..why?

IMO,

Purchase of the boat: no evidence surrounding the purchase of the boat indicates consciousness of guilt..he used his correct name and address..he searched for the boat on his home PC..he stored the boat at his warehouse, no attempt to hide the boat..the fact, that no one knew about it doesn't mean anything to me..by all other indications there was no attempt to hide that boat..he informed the police about it as soon as he talked to them on Dec 24th...(this fact was not proven BARD that it was purchased as part of a murder plan)

Scott going to the bay and using his boat on Dec 24th.: again, no evidence surrounding this indicates consciousness of guilt..he did buy an ocean fishing rod, he bought a fishing license..he went to the bay during broad daylight...he had to leave his boat unattended while he parked his truck..he went to one of the shallowest part of the bay..he informed the police of the exact spot he trolled in and that's according to the prosecution....(this fact was not proven BARD that he went there to dump a body)

Laci disappeared on Dec 24th: he could have been at work when she disappeared, the fact that her disappearance coincided with the date he went to the bay doesn't mean anything ..UNTIL the bodies were found close to his alibi..next..

The bodies were found in the same vicinity: if we would take that evidence without proper examination/analysis we would reach the wrong conclusion..Dr. Cheng's testimony definitely creates reasonable doubt that the bodies washed ashore..so if they didn't wash ashore, then Scott could not have done it..IMO, this evidence is powerful evidence that points to his innocence...in addition to that, there was no evidence both bodies were exposed to marine life..the twine that was wrapped and knotted twice around Conner's neck..the ME testifying that he estimated his age to be 9 months..Dr. Galloway measured 11 of his bones, 6 of the 11 bones put Conner between 38 and 40 weeks old...the average of the 11 bones put him between 35 and 36 weeks..after applying the margin of error, Conner's estimated gestational age when found was 33 to 38 weeks..! he disappeared at age 33 weeks, why should we believe that his age was 33 weeks when found? if anything, that creates reasonable doubt that Conner died on Dec 24th or before...

The mere fact the bodies were found 4 months later near his alibi is not proof he put them there..the location of his alibi was well publicized ..had the body been found on the same day he went fishing and at the same place he supposedly dumped the body..it would have been a different story...

That is your opinion of the evidence that was presented.

The jurors were permitted, legally, to view it another way.

Which - they did.

[attorneywan2be]

OIC - well as I told you, I'm not up-to-date on some things and I thought possibly there was knowledge of the appeals issues.

But that's fine. Even a list of possibilities would be good. That would help to prevent having to go so far afield on issues that will have no bearing whatsoever on the appeal. The trial is over. The only good I can see from debating some of these things is possibly to explain why it's the opinion of some that he was wrongfully convicted.

Everyone has an opinion. That's obvious. But I don't think it's clear to many people why someone could possibly think he was not guilty. You have been the strongest advocate for that opinion for a long time. And I think instead of proclaiming that you are just totally blind to the facts that maybe by reading the reasons why you feel that way could possibly be interesting.

All that being said what points do you think are points for appeal? I think juror misconduct will be visited on several issues.

Here is the list and it is based on my opinion..I guess we can discuss each issue, then I can provide the supporting docs if need be...

1-Insufficient evidence to support the verdict..there was Zero evidence as to the murder..no cause of death..no place of death..no time of death..no motive was ever identified..if the appellate court would reverse based on that, Double Jeopary would attach.. the jury in this case had to have speculated big time..

2-The jury experimenting with the boat..Beratlis stated on Greta's show on Dec 14, 2004 that the jury had questions in their minds about the stability of the boat and the buoyancy..he got into the boat and rocked it to determine the stability of the boat..thus creating evidence not presented in court.

3-The removal of juror #5 Justin Falconer..

4-The removal of juror # 5 Gregory Jackson (during deliberations), Jackson told the judge that he felt he was threatened by other jurors and that there were comments made to him that made him think his safety was at issue....Guinasso stated on ABC that in his opinion, had Jackson stayed on the jury it would have been a hung jury.. he also stated that before Jackson was removed he was leading the jury in the defense direction..so IMO, it is a coerced verdict..they threatened the only juror that was holding out for acquital..

5-Richelle Nice, juror #7 stated on court TV that they didn't deliberate anew after the judge replaced a juror during deliberations..it is a violation of jury instructions..

6-Mary Mylett, juror # 10 stated to Modesto Bee that she was dreaming during the trial each night about being part of the Rochas..and that those dreams helped her heal from the nightmares of the day..that indicates extreme bias (which she should have mentioned to the judge) and also indicates she made up her mind of guilt as early as July..otherwise, why would she think of her days in court as nightmares.. she also stated that for 6 months she watched Sharon Rocha from the jury box..according to the jury instructions she was not supposed to be influenced by anything other than the evidence presented in court..so why was she watching her for 6 months?

7-Belemissieri stated on Greta's show on Dec 14, 2004 that he noticed that Scott didn't show any remorse during the guilt phase..and that was a point of discussion in the deliberations..this is a violation of the right to remain silent..in addition, this indicates that he expected to see remorse during the guilt phase..that would only indicate one thing..he made up his mind about guilt during the trial and before deliberations..

8-Delucchi erred by allowing the prosecution to demonstrate to the jury using a living person, Kim Fulbright, that it was possible to place Laci's body in the toolbox and the boat..this demonstration obviously didn't replicate the prosecution's theory..Rigor Mortis and the 5 imaginary anchors were not taken into account..this demonstration is misleading to say the least and is highly prejudicial..

9-Delucchi erred by disallowing the defense's boat experiment citing that the experiment didn't replicate the event in question..this is the exact point he disregarded when he allowed the prosecution's demonstration..

10-Delucchi erred by allowing Amber's tapes..they are highly prejudicial with zero evidentiary value..

11-Delucchi erred by allowing the dog evidence..this is unproven unreliable evidence that is highly prejudicial..

12- Ineffective assistance of counsel..Geragos made a lot of serious mistakes

[enlightenme]

This post was not addressed to me, but since we are allowed to inquire, what part of the statement below makes it incriminating?

2. Scott purchased a boat that noone in his or Laci's family knew he had purchased. See testimony.

It wasn't hidden from anyone, he just hadn't told anyone else, other than Laci. And she obviously knew about the boat based on CE.

Both Scott and Laci had expressed wanting to "get closer" to Sharon & Ron with the birth of the baby at hand. To say the boat was a surprise for Ron was not too far fetched, because it was Ron, not Sharon, that they seemed to need to build a closer relationship with. He was an avid fisherman and was still fishing in a "floatee" tube. So IMO to have a boat that Ron would have access to seemed to be a good idea.

The only CE that was in testimony was through LE reports that Scott told Laci about the boat. Scott also supposedly told Laci about Amber in early December "because it was the right thing to do".

He also told Diane Sawyer in that same interview that he told LE about Amber that first night and onward. He said that without batting a eye. A lie as big as they come. IOW, Scott's word means NOTHING.

We can't take the police report evidence that Laci was at the warehouse complex and asked someone to use their restroom as proof she knew about the boat. There's no proof that Scott was even there with her, that she went into the warehouse, and certainly not that she knew about the boat.

[Lavindar]

This post was not addressed to me, but since we are allowed to inquire, what part of the statement below makes it incriminating?

2. Scott purchased a boat that noone in his or Laci's family knew he had purchased. See testimony.

It wasn't hidden from anyone, he just hadn't told anyone else, other than Laci. And she obviously knew about the boat based on CE.

Both Scott and Laci had expressed wanting to "get closer" to Sharon & Ron with the birth of the baby at hand. To say the boat was a surprise for Ron was not too far fetched, because it was Ron, not Sharon, that they seemed to need to build a closer relationship with. He was an avid fisherman and was still fishing in a "floatee" tube. So IMO to have a boat that Ron would have access to seemed to be a good idea.


WHERE is this so-called circumstantial evidence that Laci knew about the boat????????????????? You must be psychic because no one else heard it at all. The jury sure didn't

[cookiewench]

I wonder how the NGs feel about Justin Falconer.

He refuted the factual evidence with his own theories that were based on nothing.

He said that, in spite of Laci telling people that she was no longer walking the dog, he believed that she would have because.......pregnant women were kinda crazy (or something like that).

There was no evidence at all that Laci was having any emotional swings or was anything but herself (her pregnant self) presented at trial.

He just "decided" that, and yet I've seen NGs defend the statements he made in the press.

[adnoid]

...One of the problems I have is when someone enters into a debate and runs out on it, or suddenly changes the subject of the argument/debate...This causes a great deal of frustration to the person that has invested their time...

Alternative B: Don't waste time in debate with those who are known to run away when things get tough for them. Works for me.

[Lavindar]

I wonder how the NGs feel about Justin Falconer.

He refuted the factual evidence with his own theories that were based on nothing.

He said that, in spite of Laci telling people that she was no longer walking the dog, he believed that she would have because.......pregnant women were kinda crazy (or something like that).

There was no evidence at all that Laci was having any emotional swings or was anything but herself (her pregnant self) presented at trial.

He just "decided" that, and yet I've seen NGs defend the statements he made in the press.

Do you remember exactly how many days of testimony he actually heard? I remember his talking like he wanted to be buddy buddy with Scott.

After all, doesn't every new owner of a freshwater boat go 90 miles away to SALTWATER to test his boat (and probably ruin his motor in the process)? He didn't even know if the engine worked or if the boat leaked. I kinda wish he'd taken it out into the ocean myself.

[Lavindar]

I wonder how the NGs feel about Justin Falconer.

He refuted the factual evidence with his own theories that were based on nothing.

He said that, in spite of Laci telling people that she was no longer walking the dog, he believed that she would have because.......pregnant women were kinda crazy (or something like that).

There was no evidence at all that Laci was having any emotional swings or was anything but herself (her pregnant self) presented at trial.

He just "decided" that, and yet I've seen NGs defend the statements he made in the press.

Do you remember exactly how many days of testimony he actually heard? I remember his talking like he wanted to be buddy buddy with Scott.

After all, doesn't every new owner of a freshwater boat go 90 miles away to SALTWATER to test his boat (and probably ruin his motor in the process)? He didn't even know if the engine worked or if the boat leaked.

[woohoo]

Please provide proof he told Laci about it AND proof that she knew per CE. A witness that Laci spoke to about Scott's boat who testified or a document that arrived in the Peterson's mailbox will be sufficient. TIA

Even though Peggy O. didn't testify, Grogan more-or-less testified for her.
That's why I said CE.
GERAGOS: And that she had been to the warehouse previously to meet him for lunch, and he last believed that she was at the warehouse on the Friday before her disappearance, correct?
GROGAN: Yes.
GERAGOS: Now, that would have been December 20th; is that right?
GROGAN: That’s correct.
GERAGOS: Okay. You later found out from doing an interview with a Peggy O'Donnell and Rosemary Ruiz that, in fact, December 20th or December 23rd was their memory of when Laci had been to the warehouse, correct?
FLADAGER: Objection. Compound. 20th or 23rd?
JUDGE: Sustained.
GERAGOS: I believe that was the statement they gave. Wasn't it originally the 20th or the 23rd?
GROGAN: I believe it was, it was the 20th with Peggy O'Donnell.
GERAGOS: Okay. And that's the same day that Scott told you that he believed that Laci had been over to the warehouse, correct?
GROGAN: Yes.

[adnoid]

How about inferring that Dr. Yip told them??..I think it is reasonable to infer that Scott knew the corrected EDC from Dr. Yip..since he mentioned the exact date that Dr. Yip noted on Laci's medical records...!


Yes..I do agree that those were facts that were proven BARD..however, I do not agree that an inference of guilt can be drawn from those facts.....

Hmm...I wonder why...

[adnoid]

Funny, I read it as just the opposite of you.

This is what I found on CA Penal Code 633

Nothing in Section 631, 632, 632.5, 632.6, or 632.7 prohibits the Attorney General, any district attorney, or any assistant, deputy, or investigator of the Attorney General or any district attorney, any officer of the California Highway Patrol, any chief of police, assistant chief of police, or police officer of a city or city and county, any sheriff, undersheriff, or deputy sheriff regularly employed and paid in that capacity by a county, police officer of the County of Los Angeles, or any person acting pursuant to the direction of one of these law enforcement officers acting within the scope of his or her authority, from overhearing or recording any communication that they could lawfully overhear or record prior to the effective date of this chapter.
Nothing in Section 631, 632, 632.5, 632.6, or 632.7 renders inadmissible any evidence obtained by the above-named persons by means of overhearing or recording any communication that they could lawfully overhear or record prior to the effective date of this chapter.[/COLOR]

That post is just TOTALLY AWESOME! You ROCK, dudette! :beer:

[adnoid]

I wonder how the NGs feel about Justin Falconer....

Ah yes, #5hole, the Side Salad boy. What a worthless blob of protoplasm he was. Such a gentleman.

[Lavindar]

Even though Peggy O. didn't testify, Grogan more-or-less testified for her.
That's why I said CE.
GERAGOS: And that she had been to the warehouse previously to meet him for lunch, and he last believed that she was at the warehouse on the Friday before her disappearance, correct?
GROGAN: Yes.
GERAGOS: Now, that would have been December 20th; is that right?
GROGAN: That’s correct.
GERAGOS: Okay. You later found out from doing an interview with a Peggy O'Donnell and Rosemary Ruiz that, in fact, December 20th or December 23rd was their memory of when Laci had been to the warehouse, correct?
FLADAGER: Objection. Compound. 20th or 23rd?
JUDGE: Sustained.
GERAGOS: I believe that was the statement they gave. Wasn't it originally the 20th or the 23rd?
GROGAN: I believe it was, it was the 20th with Peggy O'Donnell.
GERAGOS: Okay. And that's the same day that Scott told you that he believed that Laci had been over to the warehouse, correct?
GROGAN: Yes.


You got that right. Geragois TESTIFIED. He wasn't under oath - anything a lawyer says is not to be considered in decisions. Why didn't Geragos call Det Holmes (who DID interview Peggy)? Why didn't he call Peggy? Because they wouldn't say what he wanted them to say. Had Laci stopped by the warehouse that day, chances are good that Scott was not there - he had a thing to go to in Stockton (I believe) that morning, and he was busy that afternoon going to Big Five to get his fishing license for his "last minute" decision to go fishing. I also believe that was the day he went to Home Depot. That's just my opinion - about Home Depot. HE was not at the warehouse for a good part of the day. So Laci could not have seen the boat (if the door was closed) AND SCOTT TOLD BROCCHINI HE HAD THE ONLY KEY. I believe also, will have to check testimony that the man in the warehouse right next to him didn't know he had a boat, either.

You can't use Geragos's words as circumstantial evidence. There was no reason that Peggy O'Donnel could not have testified. With her first hand testimony, what Geragos says goes where everything he says - in the Geragarbage Can.

So don't claim that this is EVIDENCE because it is NOT>

[Otter]

Do you remember exactly how many days of testimony he actually heard? I remember his talking like he wanted to be buddy buddy with Scott.

After all, doesn't every new owner of a freshwater boat go 90 miles away to SALTWATER to test his boat (and probably ruin his motor in the process)? He didn't even know if the engine worked or if the boat leaked.

Justin Falconer (Justin Keith Falconer) 28, Juror 5; Potential Juror 20840; former contract airport screener for a private company; at the time of voir dire, out on disability—the subject of a civil suit; selected on May 18, 2004, to be in the jury pool, the 75th person selected; father of a 9-year-old boy and, according to an article in the San Mateo Daily News, "apparently raises a child as a single parent"; told the court that the Scott Peterson case was "not really that big of a deal" among his friends, and that he could approach it with an open mind; reported doing stints with the U.S. Air Force, the National Guard and as a store security guard—testifying four times in cases of theft and assault—but said his background will not affect his ability to judge Scott Peterson fairly: "If you can show me that they're lying, they're lying"; smiled and shook his head when asked by Mark Geragos if Scott Peterson's affair with Amber Frey would make him appear guilty of murder; concerning Scott Peterson's guilt, stated to Dave Harris, "It's up to you to convince me that he did something wrong"; encountered Brent Rocha when going through the courtroom's security check on June 17, 2004, setting off a series of events that would lead to being excused from the jury; according to a June 17, 2004 Contra Costa Times article, "stood out from other jurors for not taking notes on testimony, and acknowledging the parties in court with a quick smile or nod of his head as he crosses the well of the court"; wore T-shirts and shorts to court; stated that, besides having an affair with Amber Frey, Scott Peterson treated his wife "like a queen"; drew media criticism for stating, "Pregnant women are crazy"; one of the jurors the defense team dubbed the "three amigos" most likely to acquit Scott Peterson, and called by Jim Hammer "the defense's "100 percent chance for a hung jury"; according to John Guinasso, who sent a complaint about him to Al Delucchi, removed from the jury for constantly talking about the case to other jurors: "You couldn't shut him up"; code-named "Kekoa" during the trial; resident of San Mateo

http://www.crimenews2000.com/lacipeterson/who/who6.htm


June 21 Day 12 of the trial gets off to a late start, as Al Delucchi and attorneys from both sides meet in a closed session to discuss how to handle a June 17, 2004, exchange between Falconer and Brent Rocha.

http://www.crimenews2000.com/lacipeterson/when/when0406.htm

He was removed June 23. So he heard 13 days of testimony. The next morning, he started his media tour on the Today Show.

[Lavindar]

Justin Falconer (Justin Keith Falconer) 28, Juror 5; Potential Juror 20840; former contract airport screener for a private company; at the time of voir dire, out on disability—the subject of a civil suit; selected on May 18, 2004, to be in the jury pool, the 75th person selected; father of a 9-year-old boy and, according to an article in the San Mateo Daily News, "apparently raises a child as a single parent"; told the court that the Scott Peterson case was "not really that big of a deal" among his friends, and that he could approach it with an open mind; reported doing stints with the U.S. Air Force, the National Guard and as a store security guard—testifying four times in cases of theft and assault—but said his background will not affect his ability to judge Scott Peterson fairly: "If you can show me that they're lying, they're lying"; smiled and shook his head when asked by Mark Geragos if Scott Peterson's affair with Amber Frey would make him appear guilty of murder; concerning Scott Peterson's guilt, stated to Dave Harris, "It's up to you to convince me that he did something wrong"; encountered Brent Rocha when going through the courtroom's security check on June 17, 2004, setting off a series of events that would lead to being excused from the jury; according to a June 17, 2004 Contra Costa Times article, "stood out from other jurors for not taking notes on testimony, and acknowledging the parties in court with a quick smile or nod of his head as he crosses the well of the court"; wore T-shirts and shorts to court; stated that, besides having an affair with Amber Frey, Scott Peterson treated his wife "like a queen"; drew media criticism for stating, "Pregnant women are crazy"; one of the jurors the defense team dubbed the "three amigos" most likely to acquit Scott Peterson, and called by Jim Hammer "the defense's "100 percent chance for a hung jury"; according to John Guinasso, who sent a complaint about him to Al Delucchi, removed from the jury for constantly talking about the case to other jurors: "You couldn't shut him up"; code-named "Kekoa" during the trial; resident of San Mateo

http://www.crimenews2000.com/lacipeterson/who/who6.htm


June 21 Day 12 of the trial gets off to a late start, as Al Delucchi and attorneys from both sides meet in a closed session to discuss how to handle a June 17, 2004, exchange between Falconer and Brent Rocha.

http://www.crimenews2000.com/lacipeterson/when/when0406.htm

He was removed June 23. So he heard 13 days of testimony. The next morning, he started his media tour on the Today Show.

Thanks for that trip down memory lane.....lol

[frydaddy]

Even though Peggy O. didn't testify, Grogan more-or-less testified for her.
That's why I said CE.
GERAGOS: And that she had been to the warehouse previously to meet him for lunch, and he last believed that she was at the warehouse on the Friday before her disappearance, correct?
GROGAN: Yes.
GERAGOS: Now, that would have been December 20th; is that right?
GROGAN: That’s correct.
GERAGOS: Okay. You later found out from doing an interview with a Peggy O'Donnell and Rosemary Ruiz that, in fact, December 20th or December 23rd was their memory of when Laci had been to the warehouse, correct?
FLADAGER: Objection. Compound. 20th or 23rd?
JUDGE: Sustained.
GERAGOS: I believe that was the statement they gave. Wasn't it originally the 20th or the 23rd?
GROGAN: I believe it was, it was the 20th with Peggy O'Donnell.
GERAGOS: Okay. And that's the same day that Scott told you that he believed that Laci had been over to the warehouse, correct?
GROGAN: Yes.

Okay, seriously, this is it? If this works, maybe Distaso should have just said that he had Gilligan and Skipper on the witness list and they saw Scott dump Laci. Every time I try and maintain some respect for advocates, they come up with stuff like this. :rolleyes:

[attorneywan2be]

EKG you bring up a good point. Both federal & California law enforcement may eavesdrop on & record conversations without a court order under the so-called "one party consent provision'(18USC 251(12)(2) California penal code 633)(as referenced by other posters), in other words if state & federal authorities have the consent of one party to a conversation, the conversation may be monitored. This provision applies only to eavesdropping by law enforcement.
For violation of federal wiretap statute (4th amendment), Scott has to find police involvement with Amber to the extent that they encouraged, aided or even told her to record. If Amber was acting as a police agent, surrogate or even someone encouraged to record for the police, (sort of sounds like it by her own testimony), then maybe there is a violation of the 4th amendment.
PS: I am just trying to understand what the statute allows and disallows.
Also can someone tell me who applied for the wiretap on Scott Peterson, which DA was authorized for making the local application?

This is an issue I really want to explore..I have to gather all the info regarding the wiretap in this case..I was under the impression that CA is a two-party state..

[TopGunner]

This is an issue I really want to explore..I have to gather all the info regarding the wiretap in this case..I was under the impression that CA is a two-party state..

CA is a two party state - with the except of capitol offenses such as murder. Look it up, I already did.:read:

[Miss Bootsie]

Alternative B: Don't waste time in debate with those who are known to run away when things get tough for them. Works for me.

I think your alternative B will work fine for me as well.:beer:

[TopGunner]

I don't buy it. Had he and Amber discussed an original date, maybe. But, when asked straight up for the first time ever when the baby was due, "Um, January 16th" would have been the expected answer. The "last date" part is out of context, as if Amber knew there was an original date that was different. Maybe if he had said, "Originally it was Feb 10th, but Feb 16th is the last date.", I might lend credence to your speculation.

What throws me for a loop is why the doctor adjusts the EDC on Sept 24th per protocol, either doesn't tell Laci until the 23rd when Scott is there or does and she says nothing for three months, then neither mentions it to Amy or Sharon because they are hopeful the baby will come early on the 10th, then suddenly two weeks after Laci disappears, Scott is now adamant that
the date is the 16th? Defies logic.

I didn't ask if he needed them and I didn't state that McAllister supplied them to Scott. I'm merely wondering if Scott or McAllister had the physical document that we know as People's Exhibit 56. If we are going to infer, assume, or speculate, one could speculate that McAllister was already on the gestational age deal knowing if they could prove that Conner lived past 12-24, that it wasn't Scott. Scott may have been using that date on the advice of counsel.

Hiya FD! :seeya:

Nobody took the stand and testified to Laci's due date being changed. No doctors, nurses, family members, friends, aquaintences, etc. No a single soul. Probably 'cause it wasn't.:D

[attorneywan2be]

So where'd the placenta and umbilical cord go...hefty bags in the real murderer's trash?

Explain this to me...

Burglars abduct Laci. They hold her for fear of being caught. She dies, thus Conner dies. They decide to perform a crude C-section, dispose of the placenta and cord to appear as if the bodies were in the bay, they somehow simulate the bodies being in the bay, and they place the bodies separately a distance apart to also simulate their separation in a storm. Is this what you believe? Aside from the basics, that it would be nearly impossible to simulate things as they were supposedly simulated, why wouldn't burglars take Laci and Conner in tact and dump them? How would they know all this science that is being argued would be necessary to frame Scott?

You see, the problem with folks arguing against individual pieces of this case is that one argument contradicts another. When asked for the full picture of what happened, the full pictures given become much more unreasonable than the Scott did it theory. Either I'm missing something, or people are purposely carrying on these arguements for other reasons than feeling sorry for someone they believe was falsely convicted.

IMO, it is not as complex as you portrayed it to be..I think she died in labor or she died as they were trying to get Conner out of her womb via a crude C -section, maybe they thought they can keep Conner alive but they couldn't... as they were doing that naturally they had to cut the cord and dispose of it as well as the placenta..they didn't need any scientific knowledge to simulate that the bodies had been in water...they knew that the theory was that Scott dumped Laci's body in the bay..anyone would know that a body in water would be in a different condition that a body buried inland..they were not simulating their separation in a storm at all..the bodies had already been separated due to the crude C-Section they already performed...the ideal situation for them would have been if Conner was still in her womb..but that was too late, he was already out of her womb..so they needed to deal with that problem..their goal was to make it look like the bodies washed ashore to pin it on Scott...they probably figured that it would look suspicious if they would place them next to each other..so they decided that it would be best to place them apart to make it look like they washed ashore....

[Rachel Cory]

For sure !

The red-herring that annoyed me almost the most was that wretched Croton watch the ragged Renfro girl was supposed to have pilfered from Laci.
Beside Laci's grandmother's pristine and polished jewelery it looked like something out of a CrackerJack box ! Geragos waved the pawn ticket like it was the Holy Grail. It didn't even match the official description of Mrs. Roca's watch.

imo
I don't think there is one NG that believes Deanna Renfro 'pilfered' that watch from Laci. How do you know that the watch looked like something out of a CrackerJack box? Is it because the pawnslip mentioned scratches around the crystal? Is there a way those scratches might have gotten there, if this was, in fact, Laci's watch? Where did Mrs. Renfro get the watch? I don't believe she ever saw Laci or knew who she was until the story broke.

[attorneywan2be]

Hiya FD! :seeya:

Nobody took the stand and testified to Laci's due date being changed. No doctors, nurses, family members, friends, aquaintences, etc. No a single soul. Probably 'cause it wasn't.:D


David Harris: All right. Doctor, let's try and deal with the second ultrasound. The second ultrasound. It was taken by Dr. Yip, right? You agree with that?
Charles March: Yes, sir.
David Harris: And you saw the pictures which show you what the actual measurements were?
Charles March: Yes, sir.
David Harris: So you take the actual measurements and you plug them in and you get certain dates by using the formulas in the machine, right?
Charles March: Yes, sir.
David Harris: Those dates, by using those formulas in the machine, has a corrected due date of February 16th, right?
Charles March: Yes, sir.
David Harris: And you recall reading Dr. Endraki's testimony and Dr. Tow's testimony that in their practice they didn't change the due date?
Charles March: That's correct.
David Harris: So the doctors that were there that dealt with Laci Peterson, who had the accurate information in front of them, said It makes no difference to us because it's within six days; right?
Charles March: The question has a lot of parts; and the doctors that dealt with Laci Peterson included Dr. Yip, who did change the date.
David Harris: And Dr. Tow-Der -- Dr. Tow is his partner, isn't she?
Charles March: Yes.
David Harris: And Dr. Endraki is his partner, isn't she?
Charles March: Yes.
David Harris: And they both said in their practice it is the standard practice of their office, if it's within one week, they don't change the date?
Charles March: But the date was changed in the medical records. Not by me, by Dr. Yip.
Judge Delucchi: No, the question was -- was the -- was the practice of the other two doctors that they did not change the date of birth if it was within six days?
Charles March: I -- okay. I'm sorry, sir, I misunderstand --
Judge Delucchi: I think that was the question, I believe.
Charles March: I just didn't know how many doctors
1 you were speaking about. Yes. Doctor Tow-Der does not change and Dr. Endraki does not change, but Dr. Yip does.
David Harris: And you have that information because there's a notation that it says corrected EDC of 2/16?
Charles March: Yes, sir.

[Rachel Cory]

If the pawned watch was NOT Laci's, I find it curious that the croton watch has never been accounted for. The watch issue becomes even more curious when you add to the mix, that the Renfro son was interviewed by the police (on the rape of a woman issue) exactly 1 day before the watch shows up pawned!
Wrong Renfro.

[Miss Bootsie]

I'd like to request a link to back up what you've posted.

I do believe you are wrong.

BARD is a verdict term: the jury must believe that the case has been proven BARD.

The jury doesn't have to feel that every single fact or circumstance has been proved BARD before they can look at the totality of the evidence.

And I don't understand why you prefaced that statement with IMO, because it is not something that is open to opinion. It either is, or it isn't a rule of deliberation.

ITA Cookie :seeya:

[cookiewench]

Do you remember exactly how many days of testimony he actually heard? I remember his talking like he wanted to be buddy buddy with Scott.

After all, doesn't every new owner of a freshwater boat go 90 miles away to SALTWATER to test his boat (and probably ruin his motor in the process)? He didn't even know if the engine worked or if the boat leaked.


I know! I think he was actually daydreaming about going fishing with "Celebrity Scott" after the acquittal, and being invited to Peterson family picnics!

I have never once seen an NG comment on how he took his personal opinion on pregnant women and inserted it into his opinion on Laci's actions, even though there wasn't a shred of evidence or testimony about Laci changing her mind more than usual during her pregnancy.

[attorneywan2be]

I don't think there is one NG that believes Deanna Renfro 'pilfered' that watch from Laci. How do you know that the watch looked like something out of a CrackerJack box? Is it because the pawnslip mentioned scratches around the crystal? Is there a way those scratches might have gotten there, if this was, in fact, Laci's watch? Where did Mrs. Renfro get the watch? I don't believe she ever saw Laci or knew who she was until the story broke.

I think Deanna got the watch for Laci's abductors..I believe that the watch was Laci's..

[cookiewench]

ITA Cookie :seeya:

Back atcha :seeya:

[TopGunner]

David Harris: All right. Doctor, let's try and deal with the second ultrasound. The second ultrasound. It was taken by Dr. Yip, right? You agree with that?
Charles March: Yes, sir.
David Harris: And you saw the pictures which show you what the actual measurements were?
Charles March: Yes, sir.
David Harris: So you take the actual measurements and you plug them in and you get certain dates by using the formulas in the machine, right?
Charles March: Yes, sir.
David Harris: Those dates, by using those formulas in the machine, has a corrected due date of February 16th, right?
Charles March: Yes, sir.
David Harris: And you recall reading Dr. Endraki's testimony and Dr. Tow's testimony that in their practice they didn't change the due date?
Charles March: That's correct.
David Harris: So the doctors that were there that dealt with Laci Peterson, who had the accurate information in front of them, said It makes no difference to us because it's within six days; right?
Charles March: The question has a lot of parts; and the doctors that dealt with Laci Peterson included Dr. Yip, who did change the date.
David Harris: And Dr. Tow-Der -- Dr. Tow is his partner, isn't she?
Charles March: Yes.
David Harris: And Dr. Endraki is his partner, isn't she?
Charles March: Yes.
David Harris: And they both said in their practice it is the standard practice of their office, if it's within one week, they don't change the date?
Charles March: But the date was changed in the medical records. Not by me, by Dr. Yip.
Judge Delucchi: No, the question was -- was the -- was the practice of the other two doctors that they did not change the date of birth if it was within six days?
Charles March: I -- okay. I'm sorry, sir, I misunderstand --
Judge Delucchi: I think that was the question, I believe.
Charles March: I just didn't know how many doctors
1 you were speaking about. Yes. Doctor Tow-Der does not change and Dr. Endraki does not change, but Dr. Yip does.
David Harris: And you have that information because there's a notation that it says corrected EDC of 2/16?
Charles March: Yes, sir.



Repeat:

1 you were speaking about. Yes. Doctor Tow-Der does not change and Dr. Endraki does not change, but Dr. Yip does.

It wasn't changed.

[cookiewench]

I think Deanna got the watch for Laci's abductors..I believe that the watch was Laci's..


No way would Laci's diamond-encrusted watch go for such a low price at a pawn shop.

A question, though:

Why do you believe that Laci would be wearing a non-working watch? And even if it had been working, why do you believe she would be wearing a watch that she didn't like, didn't want, and had been trying to sell on Ebay?

[attorneywan2be]

Wrong Renfro.

You're right..I think the spelling of their last name is "Renfrow"

[caphill]

You got that right. Geragois TESTIFIED. He wasn't under oath - anything a lawyer says is not to be considered in decisions. Why didn't Geragos call Det Holmes (who DID interview Peggy)? Why didn't he call Peggy? Because they wouldn't say what he wanted them to say. Had Laci stopped by the warehouse that day, chances are good that Scott was not there - he had a thing to go to in Stockton (I believe) that morning, and he was busy that afternoon going to Big Five to get his fishing license for his "last minute" decision to go fishing. I also believe that was the day he went to Home Depot. That's just my opinion - about Home Depot. HE was not at the warehouse for a good part of the day. So Laci could not have seen the boat (if the door was closed) AND SCOTT TOLD BROCCHINI HE HAD THE ONLY KEY. I believe also, will have to check testimony that the man in the warehouse right next to him didn't know he had a boat, either.

You can't use Geragos's words as circumstantial evidence. There was no reason that Peggy O'Donnel could not have testified. With her first hand testimony, what Geragos says goes where everything he says - in the Geragarbage Can.

So don't claim that this is EVIDENCE because it is NOT>


Grogan, as the lead detective testifies under oath that Peggy O'Donnell and another lady remember seeing Laci at the warehouse with Scott a few days before her disappearance and reported this info for record in a police report.

These were not Geragos words, this was the testimony of Grogan that was taken from the police report of the interview of the ladies at the warehouse.

Do you realy think Det.Grogan and the detective who interviewed these ladies lied about their statements of seeing Laci there with Scott?

[TopGunner]

I think Deanna got the watch for Laci's abductors..I believe that the watch was Laci's..


?
:confused:

[enlightenme]

Grogan, as the lead detective testifies under oath that Peggy O'Donnell and another lady remember seeing Laci at the warehouse with Scott a few days before her disappearance and reported this info for record in a police report.

These were not Geragos words, this was the testimony of Grogan that was taken from the police report of the interview of the ladies at the warehouse.

Do you realy think Det.Grogan and the detective who interviewed these ladies lied about their statements of seeing Laci there with Scott?

Please provide a link where anyone said Laci was "with Scott".

TIA

[enlightenme]

?
:confused:

She can believe anything she wants. Proof is what's needed to help Scott.

BTW, I just remembered that there was a poster on the CTV board ages ago who proclaimed that is was "scientifically proven that the Croton watch was Laci's." That got a good laugh from me!

[accordn2me]

Grogan, as the lead detective testifies under oath that Peggy O'Donnell and another lady remember seeing Laci at the warehouse with Scott a few days before her disappearance and reported this info for record in a police report.

These were not Geragos words, this was the testimony of Grogan that was taken from the police report of the interview of the ladies at the warehouse.

Do you realy think Det.Grogan and the detective who interviewed these ladies lied about their statements of seeing Laci there with Scott?
Do we know for a fact the boat was at the warehouse the same day Laci was?

Do we know for a fact Laci saw the boat?

Do we know for a fact Laci saw the boat and knew it belonged to SLP?

[Rachel Cory]

I think Deanna got the watch for Laci's abductors..I believe that the watch was Laci's..
I do, too, AW2B. I do, too.

[Rachel Cory]

You're right..I think the spelling of their last name is "Renfrow"

Yep. Let's see where it goes. ;)

[Miss Bootsie]

IMO, it is not as complex as you portrayed it to be..I think she died in labor or she died as they were trying to get Conner out of her womb via a crude C -section, maybe they thought they can keep Conner alive but they couldn't... as they were doing that naturally they had to cut the cord and dispose of it as well as the placenta..they didn't need any scientific knowledge to simulate that the bodies had been in water...they knew that the theory was that Scott dumped Laci's body in the bay..anyone would know that a body in water would be in a different condition that a body buried inland..they were not simulating their separation in a storm at all..the bodies had already been separated due to the crude C-Section they already performed...the ideal situation for them would have been if Conner was still in her womb..but that was too late, he was already out of her womb..so they needed to deal with that problem..their goal was to make it look like the bodies washed ashore to pin it on Scott...they probably figured that it would look suspicious if they would place them next to each other..so they decided that it would be best to place them apart to make it look like they washed ashore....

Well, it is a little more complex than you think, because it has been proven to you many times, the condition of the bodies don't support your theory.

That said, I also wonder why you think the burglars were smart enough to figure out how to frame Scott by storing, transporting, and planting both bodies, but not smart enough to know planting Laci's body would have been sufficient to frame Scott.

So, they went to all the trouble of storing, keeping surveillance on, and taking the risk of planting Conner's body in a different location when they really didn't need him.

They had the means to store, transport, and plant both bodies, but they didn't have the means to dispose of that small body (they really didn't need), where he would not be found.

:shrug:

[adnoid]

I think Deanna got the watch for Laci's abductors...

Good trade!

[adnoid]

Grogan, as the lead detective testifies under oath that Peggy O'Donnell and another lady remember seeing Laci at the warehouse with Scott a few days before her disappearance and reported this info for record in a police report...

No, he did not. And "with Scott"? Nowhere in the record.

[attorneywan2be]

Do we know for a fact the boat was at the warehouse the same day Laci was?

Do we know for a fact Laci saw the boat?

Do we know for a fact Laci saw the boat and knew it belonged to SLP?


A2M...it's the other way around..:D

"Do we know for a fact the boat was at the warehouse the same day Laci was?"

-The boat was found in his warehouse as he informed the police..the prosecution has the burden of proof..they have to prove that it was NOT in the warehouse the day Laci was..they didn't ..so it is a fact that the boat was there in the warehouse the day Laci was..

"Do we know for a fact Laci saw the boat?"

-Again, since the prosecution didn't prove the boat was not in his warehouse the day Laci was....then it would be cirumstantial evidence that Laci was at the warehouse where the boat was stored....and we can infer that she most likely knew about the boat...and it is reasonable to infer that she knew it belonged to Scott..

[attorneywan2be]

?
:confused:

It's a typo!!

I think Deanna got the watch FROM Laci's abductors...

[accordn2me]

<snipped>

The bodies were found in the same vicinity: if we would take that evidence without proper examination/analysis we would reach the wrong conclusion..Dr. Cheng's testimony definitely creates reasonable doubt that the bodies washed ashore..so if they didn't wash ashore, then Scott could not have done it..IMO, this evidence is powerful evidence that points to his innocence...in addition to that, there was no evidence both bodies were exposed to marine life..the twine that was wrapped and knotted twice around Conner's neck..the ME testifying that he estimated his age to be 9 months..Dr. Galloway measured 11 of his bones, 6 of the 11 bones put Conner between 38 and 40 weeks old...the average of the 11 bones put him between 35 and 36 weeks..after applying the margin of error, Conner's estimated gestational age when found was 33 to 38 weeks..! he disappeared at age 33 weeks, why should we believe that his age was 33 weeks when found? if anything, that creates reasonable doubt that Conner died on Dec 24th or before...

The mere fact the bodies were found 4 months later near his alibi is not proof he put them there..the location of his alibi was well publicized ..had the body been found on the same day he went fishing and at the same place he supposedly dumped the body..it would have been a different story...
The jury, my fellow Gs, and I didn't reach the wrong conclusion...neither did Dr. Cheng or Dr. Peterson both of whom seem to be of the opinion that the bodies and been in the water for some time and washed ashore during the storm.

How does Dr. Cheng's testimony "definitely creates reasonable doubt that the bodies washed ashore...?" Just because he couldn't say for sure where SLP placed them in the water? IF he did "pull a Dr. March" everyone would say he was a QUACK because there are too many variables to ever be sure of the exact dumping location.

Like the doctors, except for March, who gave ESTIMATES of gestational age and date of death, Dr. Cheng gave a "vicinity" of where he believes the bodies originated. With Laci being weighted and the rare, violent storm, and only computer simulations to go by....it is very unreasonable to expect that he could do more than what he did.

And it wasn't "the mere fact" of the bodies washing ashore where they did. That was just the kicker to all of the other poweful evidence pointing to none other than SLP.

[attorneywan2be]

Good trade!


LOL..it's a typo..! it should be "from"

[accordn2me]

A2M...it's the other way around..:D

"Do we know for a fact the boat was at the warehouse the same day Laci was?"

-The boat was found in his warehouse as he informed the police..the prosecution has the burden of proof..they have to prove that it was NOT in the warehouse the day Laci was..they didn't ..so it is a fact that the boat was there in the warehouse the day Laci was..

"Do we know for a fact Laci saw the boat?"

-Again, since the prosecution didn't prove the boat was not in his warehouse the day Laci was....then it would be cirumstantial evidence that Laci was at the warehouse where the boat was stored....and we can infer that she most likely knew about the boat...and it is reasonable to infer that she knew it belonged to Scott..
NO! Just because police didn't prove it wasn't...doesn't make it a fact that it was! That's ridiculous. And just because the boat was there and Laci was in the area....doesn't mean she saw the boat....and if she saw the boat...why would it occur to her it was SLP's boat? :shrug:

[adnoid]

...Again, since the prosecution didn't prove the boat was not in his warehouse the day Laci was....then it would be cirumstantial evidence that Laci was at the warehouse where the boat was stored....and we can infer that she most likely knew about the boat...and it is reasonable to infer that she knew it belonged to Scott..

Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise. Fundamental syllogistic fallacy. All validating forms of categorical syllogisms which have one negative premise also have a negative conclusion.

Just for starters.

[Miss Bootsie]

?
:confused:

Me Too TG.
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c384/3232mypic/popc1.gif

[Otter]

Me Too TG.
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c384/3232mypic/popc1.gif

Pass the popcorn! I'm gathering inspiration for an entry in the The Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest. I've found a treasure trove!

[enlightenme]

NO! Just because police didn't prove it wasn't...doesn't make it a fact that it was! That's ridiculous. And just because the boat was there and Laci was in the area....doesn't mean she saw the boat....and if she saw the boat...why would it occur to her it was SLP's boat? :shrug:


It really doesn't matter in the scheme of everything whether Laci knew about the boat or not. She's dead and will never be able to tell anyone. No one ELSE knew about it.

Even if she did see it at the warehouse, Scott is such an accomplished liar, he could have told her he was storing it for a friend who wanted to keep a surprise until Christmas. He could have even told her he bought it and wanted to surprise Ron with it at Christmas.

He sure wouldn't have told her the truth....."I bought it because I plan on killing you soon and dumping your body in the bay in the hopes it will either wash out to sea or never be found. I want to move on with my rich, playboy, fantasy life and I'm tired of your yakking and To Do lists."

THAT would have been the truth!

JMO

[caphill]

NO! Just because police didn't prove it wasn't...doesn't make it a fact that it was! That's ridiculous. And just because the boat was there and Laci was in the area....doesn't mean she saw the boat....and if she saw the boat...why would it occur to her it was SLP's boat? :shrug:


Maybe because the money to purchase it came of their martial bank account. And maybe because this boat was parked in and took up most of his warehouse space.

Haven't you seen pics of this warehouse and how difficult it would have been to hide a 14ft boat in his rented space?

If I had seen a boat and trailer parked in my spouse's warehouse and our bank accout balance dropped by 1200 or 1400 bucks, I would say something to the effect "What did you spend this 12-14 hundred on and who's boat is parked in that space". Of course that is just me!. LOL

[Miss Bootsie]

The jury, my fellow Gs, and I didn't reach the wrong conclusion...neither did Dr. Cheng or Dr. Peterson both of whom seem to be of the opinion that the bodies and been in the water for some time and washed ashore during the storm.

How does Dr. Cheng's testimony "definitely creates reasonable doubt that the bodies washed ashore...?" Just because he couldn't say for sure where SLP placed them in the water? IF he did "pull a Dr. March" everyone would say he was a QUACK because there are too many variables to ever be sure of the exact dumping location.

Like the doctors, except for March, who gave ESTIMATES of gestational age and date of death, Dr. Cheng gave a "vicinity" of where he believes the bodies originated. With Laci being weighted and the rare, violent storm, and only computer simulations to go by....it is very unreasonable to expect that he could do more than what he did.

And it wasn't "the mere fact" of the bodies washing ashore where they did. That was just the kicker to all of the other poweful evidence pointing to none other than SLP.

Accord, the prosecution was not required to prove scientific certainties. Creating trajectories in a body of water such as the SF Bay is not an exact science.

Dr. Cheng created a trajectory for Conner. Dr. Peterson testified he was in utero for four months.
Add this:
Purchase of the boat
Scott - boat - SF bay - Dec. 24
Laci - disappeared on Dec 24
Bodies washed ashore in same vicinity

+ all the many other circumstances

The prosecution more than met their burden of proof.:seeya:

[Otter]

Maybe because the money to purchase it came of their martial bank account. And maybe because this boat was parked in and took up most of his warehouse space.

Haven't you seen pics of this warehouse and how difficult it would have been to hide a 14ft boat in his rented space?

If I had seen a boat and trailer parked in my spouse's warehouse and our bank accout balance dropped by 1200 or 1400 bucks, I would say something to the effect "What did you spend this 12-14 hundred on and who's boat is parked in that space". Of course that is just me!. LOL

I realize it would be all but impossible to read through a 3,000+ post thread, but this very discussion has gone on twice if not three or four times. Maybe its possible to search within the thread and you could read responses that will answer your questions. :)

[TopGunner]

Grogan, as the lead detective testifies under oath that Peggy O'Donnell and another lady remember seeing Laci at the warehouse with Scott a few days before her disappearance and reported this info for record in a police report.

These were not Geragos words, this was the testimony of Grogan that was taken from the police report of the interview of the ladies at the warehouse.

Do you realy think Det.Grogan and the detective who interviewed these ladies lied about their statements of seeing Laci there with Scott?



Nope, they testified that Peggy O'Donnell SAID they saw Laci. According to Crier's book, they were not believed. Something about no way could Laci climb over all the pallets of fertilizer to get the bathroom they claimed she used.

[cookiewench]

Maybe because the money to purchase it came of their martial bank account. And maybe because this boat was parked in and took up most of his warehouse space.

Haven't you seen pics of this warehouse and how difficult it would have been to hide a 14ft boat in his rented space?

If I had seen a boat and trailer parked in my spouse's warehouse and our bank accout balance dropped by 1200 or 1400 bucks, I would say something to the effect "What did you spend this 12-14 hundred on and who's boat is parked in that space". Of course that is just me!. LOL

Are you sure the money came from the marital bank account? I have never seen that written anywhere.

Where do you think he got the money for his dates with Amber - the hotel & dinner bills, tux rentals, gifts, limo rental, etc.?

It appears to me that Scott either kept secret stashes of cash or had a secret credit card he could draw cash from.

I have also never seen it postulated anywhere that Laci was seen going into the warehouse - only that she was seen outside of it.

Did the office part of the warehouse have its own entry door? Didn't someone from a warehouse next door say that Laci asked to use their bathroom because Scott's warehouse was so crowded that she'd have to climb over bags of fertilizer?

Since we've seen photos and diagrams of the warehouse showing that there was room to walk through it, I surmise that Scott lied to Laci about having to climb over bags of fertilizer, to keep her out of that area.

[caphill]

Accord, the prosecution was not required to prove scientific certainties. Creating trajectories in a body of water such as the SF Bay is not an exact science.

Dr. Cheng created a trajectory for Conner. Dr. Peterson testified he was in utero for four months.
Add this:
Purchase of the boat
Scott - boat - SF bay - Dec. 24
Laci - disappeared on Dec 24
Bodies washed ashore in same vicinity

+ all the many other circumstances

The prosecution more than met their burden of proof.:seeya:



Link to where Dr Peterson testified he was in utero for 4 months. Also isn't there testimony from Dr. Peterson that said this babycould have been born alive.

Anything he said about where this baby had been for almost 4 months was speculation on his part, IMO. He admitted and could not get around the fact that he believed this to be a full term baby. After the discovery of Laci's remains, Dr. Peterson had to srcamble and stutter to please the prosecution and the State with his testimony, IMO. IIRC,his tape recorded initial autopsy findings, oops, had been erased to save the State money in recyling the tapes in the recorder. That was mightly frugal of him.

He wasn't asked or did he offer any explanation as to how Laci's uterus had contracted back to a size that was too small to house and hold the fetus. He gave the measurements of uterus and the baby but certainly let that mystery slid by.

A little internet research may discover that he has had serious issues brought up concerning other testimony in other cases that favored the ones that signed his paycheck.

[Lavindar]

Grogan, as the lead detective testifies under oath that Peggy O'Donnell and another lady remember seeing Laci at the warehouse with Scott a few days before her disappearance and reported this info for record in a police report.


There at six small warehouses in that block. Do you really think AT means IN
These were not Geragos words, this was the testimony of Grogan that was taken from the police report of the interview of the ladies at the warehouse.

Do you realy think Det.Grogan and the detective who interviewed these ladies lied about their statements of seeing Laci there with Scott?



There at six small warehouses in that block. Do you really think AT means IN

There's a book that will help you with that.

[caphill]

Nope, they testified that Peggy O'Donnell SAID they saw Laci. According to Crier's book, they were not believed. Something about no way could Laci climb over all the pallets of fertilizer to get the bathroom they claimed she used.


IIRC, the statements given by the ladies in the neighboring warehouse was that Luci used their bathroom because of storage of liquid fertilizer made it difficult to use the bathroom in Scott's space.

Are you sure that Crier didn't mean the jury chose to disrgard these women's report to the LE about seeing Laci with Scott at the warehouse a couple days before she disappeared.

[enlightenme]

Link to where Dr Peterson testified he was in utero for 4 months. Also isn't there testimony from Dr. Peterson that said this babycould have been born alive.

Anything he said about where this baby had been for almost 4 months was speculation on his part, IMO. He admitted and could not get around the fact that he believed this to be a full term baby. After the discovery of Laci's remains, Dr. Peterson had to srcamble and stutter to please the prosecution and the State with his testimony, IMO. IIRC,his tape recorded initial autopsy findings, oops, had been erased to save the State money in recyling the tapes in the recorder. That was mightly frugal of him.

He wasn't asked or did he offer any explanation as to how Laci's uterus had contracted back to a size that was too small to house and hold the fetus. He gave the measurements of uterus and the baby but certainly let that mystery slid by.

A little internet research may discover that he has had serious issues brought up concerning other testimony in other cases that favored the ones that signed his paycheck.


This whole post is so much BS with NO links.

Esp. this "He wasn't asked or did he offer any explanation".

If he wasn't ASKED, then he wouldn't be able to offer any testimony about it, now would he? Neither the pros. of the defense asked him, despite the fact that a poster named doccarrie claimed to have contacted both Geragos and Judge D. with the "exonerating" evidence about the uterus size differences.

Caphill, start backing up your claims with links to testimony or reliable links or you will NOT be taken seriously.

For instance this:

"A little internet research may discover that he has had serious issues brought up concerning other testimony in other cases that favored the ones that signed his paycheck."

So, you researched it but don't know how to post links?

Please!

JMO

[adnoid]

...Luci used their bathroom...


http://www.fearless.blogger.com.br/lucy_van_pelt.gif

[Lavindar]

Link to where Dr Peterson testified he was in utero for 4 months. Also isn't there testimony from Dr. Peterson that said this babycould have been born alive.
Anything he said about where this baby had been for almost 4 months was speculation on his part, IMO. He admitted and could not get around the fact that he believed this to be a full term baby. After the discovery of Laci's remains, Dr. Peterson had to srcamble and stutter to please the prosecution and the State with his testimony, IMO. IIRC,his tape recorded initial autopsy findings, oops, had been erased to save the State money in recyling the tapes in the recorder. That was mightly frugal of him.

He wasn't asked or did he offer any explanation as to how Laci's uterus had contracted back to a size that was too small to house and hold the fetus. He gave the measurements of uterus and the baby but certainly let that mystery slid by.

A little internet research may discover that he has had serious issues brought up concerning other testimony in other cases that favored the ones that signed his paycheck.


Could have but was not as there was no evidence of Laci giving birth. Well, if you recall his tape recordings being erased, then you have knowledge that no one here does - please PROVIDE YOUR SOURCE for this

You opinion has no bearing on reality. And you are not statign it as your opinion. You are stating it as face.

A little internet research might turn up that the defense people have some serious issues also.
That link has been posted many times. Go look for it and stop baiting people

[TopGunner]

IIRC, the statements given by the ladies in the neighboring warehouse was that Luci used their bathroom because of storage of liquid fertilizer made it difficult to use the bathroom in Scott's space.

Are you sure that Crier didn't mean the jury chose to disrgard these women's report to the LE about seeing Laci with Scott at the warehouse a couple days before she disappeared.

Nope, I didn't mean that at all.

Quite possibly because Laci used their bathroom, she never saw the inside of ISP bathroom. I will review that part again tonight, too lazy to go all the way upstairs for the book now. I just know they disregarded her statement entirely.

[caphill]

Are you sure the money came from the marital bank account? I have never seen that written anywhere.

Where do you think he got the money for his dates with Amber - the hotel & dinner bills, tux rentals, gifts, limo rental, etc.?

It appears to me that Scott either kept secret stashes of cash or had a secret credit card he could draw cash from.

I have also never seen it postulated anywhere that Laci was seen going into the warehouse - only that she was seen outside of it.

Did the office part of the warehouse have its own entry door? Didn't someone from a warehouse next door say that Laci asked to use their bathroom because Scott's warehouse was so crowded that she'd have to climb over bags of fertilizer?

Since we've seen photos and diagrams of the warehouse showing that there was room to walk through it, I surmise that Scott lied to Laci about having to climb over bags of fertilizer, to keep her out of that area.

I don't know where you are getting your info. I surmise that Scott did not lie about her having to climb over "bags"of fertilizer since he dealt in liquid chemical fertilizer, if memory serves me correctly. Also, if memory serves me correctly, the issue of Laci using his bathroom was to avoid any close contact with these chemicals stored there.

[Lavindar]

This whole post is so much BS with NO links.

Esp. this "He wasn't asked or did he offer any explanation".

If he wasn't ASKED, then he wouldn't be able to offer any testimony about it, now would he? Neither the pros. of the defense asked him, despite the fact that a poster named doccarrie claimed to have contacted both Geragos and Judge D. with the "exonerating" evidence about the uterus size differences.

Caphill, start backing up your claims with links to testimony or reliable links or you will NOT be taken seriously.

For instance this:

"A little internet research may discover that he has had serious issues brought up concerning other testimony in other cases that favored the ones that signed his paycheck."


So, you researched it but don't know how to post links?

Please!

JMO
TOS violator

[Lavindar]

I don't know where you are getting your info. I surmise that Scott did not lie about her having to climb over "bags"of fertilizer since he dealt in liquid chemical fertilizer, if memory serves me correctly. Also, if memory serves me correctly, the issue of Laci using his bathroom was to avoid any close contact with these chemicals stored there.



You have a glorious memory - too bad you don't back it up with any links or facts. Scott said does not conjure up pictures of honesty. And you don't say to whom he revealed this wealth of information or where it appears in the testimony. Spend a little more time giving some links and less time typing.

Please provide a link to what Peggy told the police

[cookiewench]

I don't know where you are getting your info. I surmise that Scott did not lie about her having to climb over "bags"of fertilizer since he dealt in liquid chemical fertilizer, if memory serves me correctly. Also, if memory serves me correctly, the issue of Laci using his bathroom was to avoid any close contact with these chemicals stored there.

The photos and diagrams I saw contained large bags of something (but not so many of them that you couldn't walk through the space).

Perhaps they were bags of Scott's bullsh*t.

Do you have a quote from somewhere about Scott getting the boat money from the "marital account"?

Do you have any theories on where he got the money for his dates with Amber?

I've estimated that their first date alone would have cost him about $500 - between travel expenses, hotel room, champagne & strawberries, dinner, tips, drinks in the bar, bottles of gin, etc.

[Lavindar]

Grogan, as the lead detective testifies under oath that Peggy O'Donnell and another lady remember seeing Laci at the warehouse with Scott a few days before her disappearance and reported this info for record in a police report.

These were not Geragos words, this was the testimony of Grogan that was taken from the police report of the interview of the ladies at the warehouse.

Do you realy think Det.Grogan and the detective who interviewed these ladies lied about their statements of seeing Laci there with Scott?

IIRC Grogan answering Geragos's questions - he was not allowed to testify as to what was said, only to answer questions but to him by the defense. Please provide the testimony WHERE Grogan laid out the details - not just where he answered Geragos's questions.

I bet you can't because you are only here to start trouble

[Riviera]

Reminder---->

It is required that when making a factual statement you provide a source for that information otherwise you must use IMO IMHO etc.. to advise others that the post is your opinion only. Exceptions are made for common knowledge like definitions, etc...

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?p=8907053#post8907053

[caphill]

This whole post is so much BS with NO links.

Esp. this "He wasn't asked or did he offer any explanation".

If he wasn't ASKED, then he wouldn't be able to offer any testimony about it, now would he? Neither the pros. of the defense asked him, despite the fact that a poster named doccarrie claimed to have contacted both Geragos and Judge D. with the "exonerating" evidence about the uterus size differences.

Caphill, start backing up your claims with links to testimony or reliable links or you will NOT be taken seriously.

For instance this:

"A little internet research may discover that he has had serious issues brought up concerning other testimony in other cases that favored the ones that signed his paycheck."

So, you researched it but don't know how to post links?

Please!

JMO


When does anyone have to link to IMO? I suppose you are correct that if not asked he doesn't have to volunteer any pertinent information or explanation of his autopsy findings. I would hope that any conscientious medical expert testifying in any trial would fully disclosed any and all finding in an autopsy and let the chips fall where they may.

IMO, Dr Peterson was struggling to give testimony and opinions that served the State. His lapses of memory and his erased tape recording of his initial comments and findings before he knew of Laci's remains being found, IMO, gives rise and right to question his testimony.

[Lavindar]

When does anyone have to link to IMO? I suppose you are correct that if not asked he doesn't have to volunteer any pertinent information or explanation of his autopsy findings. I would hope that any conscientious medical expert testifying in any trial would fully disclosed any and all finding in an autopsy and let the chips fall where they may.

IMO, Dr Peterson was struggling to give testimony and opinions that served the State. His lapses of memory and his erased tape recording of his initial comments and findings before he knew of Laci's remains being found, IMO, gives rise and right to question his testimony.


WHERE IS YOU LINK TO DR. PETERSON and his history., You say an internet search. I did one and found nothing. Please share your knowledge with the rest uninformed people who do post links.

Here's your statement

"A little internet research may discover that he has had serious issues brought up concerning other testimony in other cases that favored the ones that signed his paycheck."

The County of Contra Costa signed his paycheck. So where are the links to his "shady" dealings.

[Lavindar]

When does anyone have to link to IMO? I suppose you are correct that if not asked he doesn't have to volunteer any pertinent information or explanation of his autopsy findings. I would hope that any conscientious medical expert testifying in any trial would fully disclosed any and all finding in an autopsy and let the chips fall where they may.

IMO, Dr Peterson was struggling to give testimony and opinions that served the State. His lapses of memory and his erased tape recording of his initial comments and findings before he knew of Laci's remains being found, IMO, gives rise and right to question his testimony.

Link, please. This is the first I have heard of this

[attorneywan2be]

snip

his erased tape recording of his initial comments and findings before he knew of Laci's remains being found

Snip




Link, please. This is the first I have heard of this


She might be referring to the ME's testimony at the prelim:

9 Q. And when you were doing the autopsy, did you
10 tape-record your -- as you were going along?
11 A. Well, as I said earlier, I would -- I tape-recorded
12 the external examination, and then I did the autopsy, and
13 then I tape-recorded the internal examination.
14 Q. Okay. And do you still have that tape-recording?
15 A. No.
16 Q. What did you do with it?
17 A. Well, that tape gets turned in to the office. It's
18 transcribed and eventually recycled.

[TopGunner]

She might be referring to the ME's testimony at the prelim:

9 Q. And when you were doing the autopsy, did you
10 tape-record your -- as you were going along?
11 A. Well, as I said earlier, I would -- I tape-recorded
12 the external examination, and then I did the autopsy, and
13 then I tape-recorded the internal examination.
14 Q. Okay. And do you still have that tape-recording?
15 A. No.
16 Q. What did you do with it?
17 A. Well, that tape gets turned in to the office. It's
18 transcribed and eventually recycled.

I don't see the relation AW2B, Caphill said:

his erased tape recording of his initial comments and findings before he knew of Laci's remains being found

This statement clearly implies that information was deleted, when what you posted states it was transcribed, and THEN deleted. World of difference, IMO.

[caphill]

She might be referring to the ME's testimony at the prelim:

9 Q. And when you were doing the autopsy, did you
10 tape-record your -- as you were going along?
11 A. Well, as I said earlier, I would -- I tape-recorded
12 the external examination, and then I did the autopsy, and
13 then I tape-recorded the internal examination.
14 Q. Okay. And do you still have that tape-recording?
15 A. No.
16 Q. What did you do with it?
17 A. Well, that tape gets turned in to the office. It's
18 transcribed and eventually recycled.


Thanks for posting that part of the transcripts. Did you note that Dr. Peterson said :Well, as I said earlier, I would--------He also discussed earlier that he tape recorded and also used a erase board as the autopsy went along, IMO, based IIRC from transcripts recently read.

[TopGunner]

Thanks for posting that part of the transcripts. Did you note that Dr. Peterson said :Well, as I said earlier, I would--------He also discussed earlier that he tape recorded and also used a erase board as the autopsy went along, IMO, based IIRC from transcripts recently read.


Is there a translator in the house? :eek:

[attorneywan2be]

I don't see the relation AW2B, Caphill said:

his erased tape recording of his initial comments and findings before he knew of Laci's remains being found

This statement clearly implies that information was deleted, when what you posted states it was transcribed, and THEN deleted. World of difference, IMO.

I understand your point..but I think she was only referring to the fact that the tape was deleted...in other words, the original source of info was no longer there...IMO, the tape should have been kept..so there would be no doubt the transcripts were accurate...! after all, it's a murder case..!!

[Lavindar]

I don't see the relation AW2B, Caphill said:

his erased tape recording of his initial comments and findings before he knew of Laci's remains being found

This statement clearly implies that information was deleted, when what you posted states it was transcribed, and THEN deleted. World of difference, IMO.


I agree. NOWHERE does it say BEFORE LACI'S REMAINS WERE FOUND

Not to mention that it specifically says that the OFFICE erases it, NOT DR> PETERSON as claimed. Here's what was said EXACTLY:

Dr. Peterson had to srcamble and stutter to please the prosecution and the State with his testimony, IMO. IIRC,his tape recorded initial autopsy findings, oops, had been erased to save the State money in recyling the tapes in the recorder. That was mightly frugal of him." You will lie to condemn a person. Shame on you

[TopGunner]

I understand your point..but I think she was only referring to the fact that the tape was deleted...in other words, the original source of info was no longer there...IMO, the tape should have been kept..so there would be no doubt the transcripts were accurate...! after all, it's a murder case..!!

Well, since everything debated on these threads are based on TRANSCRIPTS, I fail to see the reasoning why suddenly "a" transcript is unacceptable.

Makes no logical sense at all. IMO

[caphill]

She might be referring to the ME's testimony at the prelim:

9 Q. And when you were doing the autopsy, did you
10 tape-record your -- as you were going along?
11 A. Well, as I said earlier, I would -- I tape-recorded
12 the external examination, and then I did the autopsy, and
13 then I tape-recorded the internal examination.
14 Q. Okay. And do you still have that tape-recording?
15 A. No.
16 Q. What did you do with it?
17 A. Well, that tape gets turned in to the office. It's
18 transcribed and eventually recycled.


Thanks for posting that part of the transcripts. Did you note that Dr. Peterson said :Well, as I said earlier, I would--------He also discussed earlier that he tape recorded and also used a erase board as the autopsy went along, IMO, based IIRC from transcripts recently read.

[attorneywan2be]

Thanks for posting that part of the transcripts. Did you note that Dr. Peterson said :Well, as I said earlier, I would--------He also discussed earlier that he tape recorded and also used a erase board as the autopsy went along, IMO, based IIRC from transcripts recently read.


Somehow, I can't find the earlier testimony that he was referring to regarding the tape-recording ..maybe I'm missing it..

[TopGunner]

Thanks for posting that part of the transcripts. Did you note that Dr. Peterson said :Well, as I said earlier, I would--------He also discussed earlier that he tape recorded and also used a erase board as the autopsy went along, IMO, based IIRC from transcripts recently read.

OK, I'm really trying to wrap my mind around this. Peterson said he recorded his findings, turned the tape in, it WAS transcribed and the tape was ultimately recycled.

So?

[attorneywan2be]

Well, since everything debated on these threads are based on TRANSCRIPTS, I fail to see the reasoning why suddenly "a" transcript is unacceptable.

Makes no logical sense at all. IMO


I don't think we can compare the two situations..as far as I know, the trial record was transcribed by an independent court reporter and then later reviewed by all parties and certified by the court...I realize the TS we are using was bought BEFORE the certification..on the other hand, I think in the ME's case, the tape was transcribed in his office...the ME is a prosecution witness, he represented one side in the trial, and IMO, it is not fair for Scott, who was being tried for murder to depend on his word without the back-up of the original record----> the tape..I mean why erase it? this was a murder case?!.

[TopGunner]

I don't think we can compare the two situations..as far as I know, the trial record was transcribed by an independent court reporter and then later reviewed by all parties and certified by the court...I realize the TS we are using was bought BEFORE the certification..on the other hand, I think in the ME's case, the tape was transcribed in his office...the ME is a prosecution witness, he represented one side in the trial, and IMO, it is not fair for Scott, who was being tried for murder to depend on his word without the back-up of the original record----> the tape..I mean why erase it? this was a murder case?!.


Sounds pretty uncomplicated and unEVIL to me AW2B.

In fact, sounds like normal procedure: record your findings, have them transcibed and recycle the tape. I see nothing malicious or suspicious about it. The only word that comes to mind is: routine

[Lavindar]

She might be referring to the ME's testimony at the prelim:

9 Q. And when you were doing the autopsy, did you
10 tape-record your -- as you were going along?
11 A. Well, as I said earlier, I would -- I tape-recorded
12 the external examination, and then I did the autopsy, and
13 then I tape-recorded the internal examination.
14 Q. Okay. And do you still have that tape-recording?
15 A. No.
16 Q. What did you do with it?
17 A. Well, that tape gets turned in to the office. It's
18 transcribed and eventually recycled.\


More preliminary transcripts used on an appeal thread wehre only the court testimony during the trial will be allowed

[Otter]

I understand your point..but I think she was only referring to the fact that the tape was deleted...in other words, the original source of info was no longer there...IMO, the tape should have been kept..so there would be no doubt the transcripts were accurate...! after all, it's a murder case..!!

Really? A murder? Very seldom do pathologists perform autopies on victims of, say a burglary!

That's just my opinion though.

[Lavindar]

I don't think we can compare the two situations..as far as I know, the trial record was transcribed by an independent court reporter and then later reviewed by all parties and certified by the court...I realize the TS we are using was bought BEFORE the certification..on the other hand, I think in the ME's case, the tape was transcribed in his office...the ME is a prosecution witness, he represented one side in the trial, and IMO, it is not fair for Scott, who was being tried for murder to depend on his word without the back-up of the original record----> the tape..I mean why erase it? this was a murder case?!.

You are not even quoting trial testimony - you are using preliminary testimony. Don't talk about bought transcripts when you aren't even using them.

As an aspiring attorney, you shoudl know this stuff. I predict you'll flunk the LSATs JMO

[Riviera]

Back on topic please ----> Scott Peterson's appeal

[frydaddy]

Back on topic please ----> Scott Peterson's appeal

I truly don't think SP will have any success on appeal. What do you think?

[Lavindar]

I truly don't think SP will have any success on appeal. What do you think? I cannot see any issue on judicial review that would meet the standards to give him a new trial myself. I don't see it going to the Supreme Court either. Best he can hope for is pity from the governator but when the good people of Modesto are done with their letter writing campaign, not even the governator will have any pity for him. Who is gonna stand up for him besides his parents and their friends? They couldn't even get any person who was currently friends with Scott to testify. All the estimony was "I knwe him when."

[caphill]

WHERE IS YOU LINK TO DR. PETERSON and his history., You say an internet search. I did one and found nothing. Please share your knowledge with the rest uninformed people who do post links.

Here's your statement

"A little internet research may discover that he has had serious issues brought up concerning other testimony in other cases that favored the ones that signed his paycheck."

The County of Contra Costa signed his paycheck. So where are the links to his "shady" dealings.


I didn't seem to have any problem finding the following info on Dr. Peterson by doing an internet search.

http://www.kaiserconsumers.org/Coroners%20Page.htm

Scroll down and read of Dr. Peterson involvement in the medical opinions of cause of death for Mark Miller and Joey Deil.

Forensic Medical Services, Inc where he is reportedly a partner was also signing his paychecks.

www.crimenews2000.com/lacipeterson/transcripts/111703_brianpeterson_part_1.htm

That link also verifies Dr. Peterson was employed with Forensic Medical Services.

Reading this transcript is a very interesting read. It is Dr. Peterson testimony about such things as the umbilical cord, the size of the uterus and the size of the baby etc.

You will find the size of the uterus was 23 centimeters and the size of the fetus was 32 centimeters per his testimony. Since that fetus was larger than the uterus wonder how that mystery and magic can be explained.

[woohoo]

WHERE is this so-called circumstantial evidence that Laci knew about the boat????????????????? You must be psychic because no one else heard it at all. The jury sure didn't

That's what circumstantial evidence is all about isn't it?

Scott was fishing in the bay
The bodies were found on the shore by the bay
It is assumed by CE that he must have killed her.

Scott had been looking for a boat since November.
He withdrew funds from a joint account
He listed the Covena address for all pertinent papers
it in the warehouse.

Grogan testified 2 totally unbiased witnesses say they saw Laci at the warehouse Dec. 20th
Scott said she was at the warehouse Dec 20th
The boat was in the warehouse
Laci was in the warehouse
CE says she saw the boat

[Lavindar]

I didn't seem to have any problem finding the following info on Dr. Peterson by doing an internet search.

http://www.kaiserconsumers.org/Coroners%20Page.htm

Scroll down and read of Dr. Peterson involvement in the medical opinions of cause of death for Mark Miller and Joey Deil.

Forensic Medical Services, Inc where he is reportedly a partner was also signing his paychecks.

www.crimenews2000.com/lacipeterson/transcripts/111703_brianpeterson_part_1.htm

That link also verifies Dr. Peterson was employed with Forensic Medical Services.

Reading this transcript is a very interesting read. It is Dr. Peterson testimony about such things as the umbilical cord, the size of the uterus and the size of the baby etc.

You will find the size of the uterus was 23 centimeters and the size of the fetus was 32 centimeters per his testimony. Since that fetus was larger than the uterus wonder how that mystery and magic can be explained.
Gee, do you think it's cuz the baby is doubled up in the uterus? And how can they know the exact uterine measurement when the top of it is abraded

That's a 3 in difference. A baby is curled up in a uterus. Do you need a picture?

Here's what Galloway says about crown rump measurement:

HARRIS: You were asked about doing the measurement based on the long bones and versus doing the crown-rump or crown-heel measurements.

GALLOWAY: Yes. The crown-heel measurement requires -- or is based upon measurements of living children, or on ultrasounds. In those cases, the tissues between the bones -- and in children there are many soft -- good deal of soft tissue between the bones. Provides some resilience and pulls the bones together. In this infant, because of the state of decomposition, the child is sort of -- it was so decomposed that there was sort of -- I hate to say mushy, but that was sort of the way it was. And that doesn't allow you to get an accurate measurement. You could easily sort of stretch the body another inch or two just in positioning it. So it was not an EXACT measurement, nor was the measurement of the uterus because it was not intact

[woohoo]

What is the CE that made it "obvious" that Laci knew about the boat??
I gave my reasoning of the CE on this earlier

Also, where is the evidence that Ron didn't fish in the tube because that's what he LIKED to do, and that he couldn't have bought his own $1,400 if he'd wanted to?
RON said it!!
DISTASO: Okay. Did, did, at any time up until the 24th of December, did either Scott Peterson or Laci Peterson talk to you or mention that Scott Peterson had bought a boat there in the month of December?

GRANTSKI: No. Not at all. I, I mentioned at times I wished I had a boat, but I couldn't really afford one, so I had a float tube. That's what I have.

Did even one person say (either in court or out) that Ron had ever expressed a wish to have a fishing boat?

Yes. RONN did
DISTASO: All right. Let me ask you about that. So had you mentioned to Laci or Scott that, because you're fishing, that you would like to have some kind of boat to use?
GRANTSKI: Yeah. There are times I would like,
DISTASO: Okay.

GRANTSKI: to catch some better fish, probably different areas, so

[woohoo]

snipped.

After all, doesn't every new owner of a freshwater boat go 90 miles away to SALTWATER to test his boat (and probably ruin his motor in the process)? He didn't even know if the engine worked or if the boat leaked. I kinda wish he'd taken it out into the ocean myself.

Which really is clear and concise IMO that he wouldn't want to take these chances with a dead body in tow. No way !

[Lavindar]

I didn't seem to have any problem finding the following info on Dr. Peterson by doing an internet search.

http://www.kaiserconsumers.org/Coroners%20Page.htm

Scroll down and read of Dr. Peterson involvement in the medical opinions of cause of death for Mark Miller and Joey Deil.

Forensic Medical Services, Inc where he is reportedly a partner was also signing his paychecks.www.crimenews2000.com/lacipeterson/transcripts/111703_brianpeterson_part_1.htm
That link also verifies Dr. Peterson was employed with Forensic Medical Services.

Reading this transcript is a very interesting read. It is Dr. Peterson testimony about such things as the umbilical cord, the size of the uterus and the size of the baby etc.

You will find the size of the uterus was 23 centimeters and the size of the fetus was 32 centimeters per his testimony. Since that fetus was larger than the uterus wonder how that mystery and magic can be explained.

WAs dr. Peterson ever indicted for anything? These are just "stories" if no legal action was taken. Hearsay




BTW he testifies that he is employed by Contra Costa County, NOT Forensic Medical Services.


http://www.lartl.org/id27.htm Look at the 30 week picture - the fetus is hunched over so a crown rump Measurement would not be accurate as to the size of the uterus

[Lavindar]

WAs dr. Peterson ever indicted for anything? These are just "stories" if no legal action was taken. Hearsay




BTW he testifies that he is employed by Contra Costa County, NOT Forensic Medical Services.



http://www.lartl.org/id27.htm Look at the 30 week picture - the fetus is hunched over so a crown rump Measurement would not be accurate as to the size of the uterus

16 Q. And were you employed by Contra Costa County back
17 in April of this year?
18 A. I was.

He was employed with Forensic Medical Group at the TIME OF THE PRELIMINARY. He was employed by Countra Costa County when the autopsy was performed imo

[woohoo]

I think Deanna got the watch for Laci's abductors..I believe that the watch was Laci's..

I agree! This whole Renfro family was tied together. Rayonne Miranda, Sherrie Miranda aka Sherrie Mouton, Mary Ann Renfro and Donnie Renfro were questioned by police on December 30th regarding the rape in Laci's neighborhood. The next day Dec 31st Deanna Renfro pawned the watch.

At one time one of the forums had access to records which showed that all these people were related in some way. Rayonne was married to Sherrie, Donnie & Mary Ann were married. Rayonne was the son of Mary Renfro from a previous marriage and Deanna the daughter of Donnie from a previous marriage. At one time they were all shown to live at the same address.

There is no way I can produce those criminal files now.
So I will say all the above is from memory and is my opinion.

[Lavindar]

I agree! This whole Renfro family was tied together. Rayonne Miranda, Sherrie Miranda aka Sherrie Mouton, Mary Ann Renfro and Donnie Renfro were questioned by police on December 30th regarding the rape in Laci's neighborhood. The next day Dec 31st Deanna Renfro pawned the watch.

At one time one of the forums had access to records which showed that all these people were related in some way. Rayonne was married to Sherrie, Donnie & Mary Ann were married. Rayonne was the son of Mary Renfro from a previous marriage and Deanna the daughter of Donnie from a previous marriage. At one time they were all shown to live at the same address.

There is no way I can produce those criminal files now.
So I will say all the above is from memory and is my opinion.

It was Mary Ann and Donnie RenfroW and Deanna Renfro. Deanna had a home, the others were living out of a van at Woodward Lake outside of Oakdale. I am sure you saw a connection somewhere - people were making up stuff all over the place. But was it a RELIABLE source? We do not even know if Renfro was Deanna's married or birth name.

Mary Ann and Donnie were evicted from a place in Ceres. Deanna lived in Modesto. How do I know - my friend was the one who evicted the RenfroWs. Deanna was NOT living there.

[woohoo]

Oh Lord!!! I am so far behind. I've been away and reading to catch up I see that my posts do not fit into the current conversation.

Sorry!
G'night

[adnoid]

I agree! This whole Renfro family was tied together...Rayonne was married to Sherrie, Donnie & Mary Ann were married. Rayonne was the son of Mary Renfro from a previous marriage and Deanna the daughter of Donnie from a previous marriage. At one time they were all shown to live at the same address...

Ah, the old "guilt by association", Skov-style. How exactly is this an appeal issue? It's not.

[frydaddy]

16) David Harris: And then the second date was the February 16th, and you indicated that was based on the second ultrasound?

For clinical purposes we usually base it on the original due date,

There was clearly a SECOND due date discussed with Scott & Laci. That's a fact you have proved by your post.
The doctors told them about this. Thus, IMO "for clinical purposes" since there was only a 6 day difference, she is saying "we usually base it on the original due date."

For all practical purposes, it's common knowledge that babies can come a week before or a week after the due date. Either way would create no alarm!
But you cannot dispute the fact that based on the results of the sonogram, it was showing a due date of February 16th and the doctors told Scott & Laci those results.

Prelim: Det. Phil Owen

Q. Did Dr. Yip indicate if they went through the process of determining a due date for the baby?

A. Yes.

Q. What did Dr. Yip indicate to you?

A. That they -- based on her cycle, they were able to come up with a calendar date on when she was due. And then they had a follow-up with a sonogram, and based on the sonogram, they were able to come up with a due date. The two due dates were within a week apart.

Q. Okay. So going back through this, when Dr. Yip meets with Laci, they ask her when her last menstrual cycle was?

A. Correct.

Q. And from that, they were able to do some type of gestational due date?

A. Correct.

Q. Did Dr. Yip indicate to you when the due date was?

A. He said around February the 10th, I believe. Yes.

Q. So the due date is estimated February 10th?

A. Correct.

Q. And a few weeks later, do they do some type of procedure, an ultrasound, I believe you said?

A. Yes, sonogram.

Q. Sonogram? And after that, did they indicate if they were -- kept the same due date?

A. Yes. They said that the sonogram indicated the size of the baby to be close enough, within a week of the calendar, so they kept the due date as February the 10th.

Q. And do you recall when it was that that ultrasound was performed?

A. I believe it was the 24th. 9-24-02.



:shrug: Guess if they kept the same due date of the 10th, it's not so obvious they told Laci and Scott anything about the 16th.

[frydaddy]

So where'd the placenta and umbilical cord go...hefty bags in the real murderer's trash?

Explain this to me...

Burglars abduct Laci. They hold her for fear of being caught. She dies, thus Conner dies. They decide to perform a crude C-section, dispose of the placenta and cord to appear as if the bodies were in the bay, they somehow simulate the bodies being in the bay, and they place the bodies separately a distance apart to also simulate their separation in a storm. Is this what you believe? Aside from the basics, that it would be nearly impossible to simulate things as they were supposedly simulated, why wouldn't burglars take Laci and Conner in tact and dump them? How would they know all this science that is being argued would be necessary to frame Scott?

You see, the problem with folks arguing against individual pieces of this case is that one argument contradicts another. When asked for the full picture of what happened, the full pictures given become much more unreasonable than the Scott did it theory. Either I'm missing something, or people are purposely carrying on these arguements for other reasons than feeling sorry for someone they believe was falsely convicted.

Bumping for EKG...in case she misses it catching up.

[frydaddy]

IMO, it is not as complex as you portrayed it to be..I think she died in labor or she died as they were trying to get Conner out of her womb via a crude C -section, maybe they thought they can keep Conner alive but they couldn't... as they were doing that naturally they had to cut the cord and dispose of it as well as the placenta..they didn't need any scientific knowledge to simulate that the bodies had been in water...they knew that the theory was that Scott dumped Laci's body in the bay..anyone would know that a body in water would be in a different condition that a body buried inland..they were not simulating their separation in a storm at all..the bodies had already been separated due to the crude C-Section they already performed...the ideal situation for them would have been if Conner was still in her womb..but that was too late, he was already out of her womb..so they needed to deal with that problem..their goal was to make it look like the bodies washed ashore to pin it on Scott...they probably figured that it would look suspicious if they would place them next to each other..so they decided that it would be best to place them apart to make it look like they washed ashore....

Who is they?

When did Laci go into labor or when did they perform the crude c-section?

Why would they try to keep Conner alive if she went into labor during a random abduction?

Where did they get the information on cutting the cord and the placenta? What was placed on Conner's end of the cord when it was cut while they were trying to keep him alive and where did it go afterwards? Chip clip that they decided to keep when disposing of Conner, those things aren't cheap, even at the dollar store.

How is it natural for them to simulate Laci being in the bay for four months, but Connor to appear as if he was in the water for a short time? Is there a "Framing for Dummies" book I am unaware of?

What did they do with Laci's head and limbs?

Did they preserve Laci's dignity by leaving her clothing on and yet get lucky that there was no blood staining on the clothes from the crude C-section, no indication that they had done any of this?

The questions regarding this nonsense are endless. How anyone can think your version is more reasonable than Scott doing this defies logic and all common sense. IMO

[Miss Bootsie]

Link to where Dr Peterson testified he was in utero for 4 months. Also isn't there testimony from Dr. Peterson that said this babycould have been born alive.

Anything he said about where this baby had been for almost 4 months was speculation on his part, IMO. He admitted and could not get around the fact that he believed this to be a full term baby. After the discovery of Laci's remains, Dr. Peterson had to srcamble and stutter to please the prosecution and the State with his testimony, IMO. IIRC,his tape recorded initial autopsy findings, oops, had been erased to save the State money in recyling the tapes in the recorder. That was mightly frugal of him.

He wasn't asked or did he offer any explanation as to how Laci's uterus had contracted back to a size that was too small to house and hold the fetus. He gave the measurements of uterus and the baby but certainly let that mystery slid by.

A little internet research may discover that he has had serious issues brought up concerning other testimony in other cases that favored the ones that signed his paycheck.

Link to where Dr Peterson testified he was in utero for 4 months. Also isn't there testimony from Dr. Peterson that said this babycould have been born alive.

Anything he said about where this baby had been for almost 4 months was speculation on his part, IMO. He admitted and could not get around the fact that he believed this to be a full term baby. After the discovery of Laci's remains, Dr. Peterson had to srcamble and stutter to please the prosecution and the State with his testimony, IMO. IIRC,his tape recorded initial autopsy findings, oops, had been erased to save the State money in recyling the tapes in the recorder. That was mightly frugal of him.

He wasn't asked or did he offer any explanation as to how Laci's uterus had contracted back to a size that was too small to house and hold the fetus. He gave the measurements of uterus and the baby but certainly let that mystery slid by.

A little internet research may discover that he has had serious issues brought up concerning other testimony in other cases that favored the ones that signed his paycheck.

Here ya go.
I will change my statement to read, Dr. Galloway testified Laci was a marine environment for a minimum of 3 months/ maximum - 6 months.
Dr. Peterson's final conclusion was, Conner was protected in the Uterus. However, these changes do not change a thing.


PETERSON: So the question is how can one reasonably explain the fact, both fluid environments, there's so much more of her missing, there's really little of him missing, how does that happen. And my conclusion was the fluid was different. He was protected in the uterus. There was amniotic fluid. She was in the ocean. Different kind of protection

PETERSON: I did. And ultimately this came by comparing the two autopsies and by comparing the condition of Laci's uterus to the rest of her body. My thinking was that Conner had likely been protected by that uterus, and ultimately, with time in the water and with tidal action, the uterus was abraded open. At that time Conner was released and ended up washing ashore very shortly thereafter.
Dr. PETERSON:Well, I guess a lot of it had to do with being in training and then being in practice on one coast or the other. When I was on the East Coast for my fellowship, I spent three months at the Medical Examiner's Office for Maryland, which is in Baltimore, on the coast. And then my practice in San Diego, being in the Navy, we also received many bodies out of the water. In terms of range, I've seen bodies that are essentially fresh, say, somebody has just jumped off a bridge, all the way to bodies that have been in the water for months and months and have been skeletonized, and pretty much anything in between.
PETERSON:So, again, it's as to being on the coast, but I've examined many, many bodies out of the water.
So with that background, you're starting to explain to the Court what you saw of the bodies and what that meant to you.

HARRIS: Was Doctor Galloway brought in to try and help give a time interval of how long Laci Peterson had been in the marine environment?

PETERSON: That was another contribution she made, yes.

HARRIS: And since he had you looking at her report, did you, did you include that, or was that included in her report, the determination that she made?

PETERSON: In her report she said three to six months in marine environment.


The prosecution established the fact - Conner was in Utero for four months and washed ashore


We have true circumstances I have listed below. I'm not going to even list all the many other circumstances we know are true. What I have listed is sufficient to establish the fact that Conner was in utero for four months and washed ashore. Bear in mind, the prosecution was not required to prove scientific certainties.

Purchase of the boat
Scott - boat - SF bay - Dec. 24
Laci - disappeared on Dec 24
Bodies found ashore in same vicinity
Dr. Cheng created a trajectory for Conner. Expert:
Dr. Galloway testified Laci's body was in a marine environment for a minimum of 3 months - maximum -6 months. Expert:
Dr. Peterson testified to his conclusion - Conner was in utero. Expert:

These are circumstances that we know are true. Right?
These true circumstances prove a fact from which the inference can be drawn of the existence of the fact - Conner's body was in utero for four months.
Conner's body washed ashore.

You can say Dr. P. did this or he did that, but your statements won't change that the prosecution did establish these facts.

Your request that I post a link to the testimony where Dr. Peterson directly stated, "Conner was in utero for four months", does not change one thing.

[aingael]

Snipped

You will find the size of the uterus was 23 centimeters and the size of the fetus was 32 centimeters per his testimony. Since that fetus was larger than the uterus wonder how that mystery and magic can be explained.

I have to be honest, I really hate it when this is brought up. Trying to show logic when there is an illogical statement.

Have you ever heard of the ~fetal position~ The fetus is curled up into a ball inside the uterus. If it weren't we would have babies growing up out of our mouths.



http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb59/aingaelsmileys/nut.gif

[Lavindar]

Here ya go.
I will change my statement to read, Dr. Galloway testified Laci was a marine environment for a minimum of 3 months/ maximum - 6 months.
Dr. Peterson's final conclusion was, Conner was protected in the Uterus. However, these changes do not change a thing.



The prosecution established the fact - Conner was in Utero for four months and washed ashore


We have true circumstances I have listed below. I'm not going to even list all the many other circumstances we know are true. What I have listed is sufficient to establish the fact that Conner was in utero for four months and washed ashore. Bear in mind, the prosecution was not required to prove scientific certainties.

Purchase of the boat
Scott - boat - SF bay - Dec. 24
Laci - disappeared on Dec 24
Bodies found ashore in same vicinity
Dr. Cheng created a trajectory for Conner. Expert:
Dr. Galloway testified Laci's body was in a marine environment for a minimum of 3 months - maximum -6 months. Expert:
Dr. Peterson testified to his conclusion - Conner was in utero. Expert:

These are circumstances that we know are true. Right?
These true circumstances prove a fact from which the inference can be drawn of the existence of the fact - Conner's body was in utero for four months.
Conner's body washed ashore.

You can say Dr. P. did this or he did that, but your statements won't change that the prosecution did establish these facts.

Your request that I post a link to the testimony where Dr. Peterson directly stated, "Conner was in utero for four months", does not change one thing.


I woke up this morning and a light bulb went off. Caphill posts that WE should provide link while never providing any - yet AW2B jumps in and provides links for Caphill. I seem to recall a poster several montha ago who was banned for this same thing - not posting a link while others posted them for her

[Lavindar]

Ah, the old "guilt by association", Skov-style. How exactly is this an appeal issue? It's not.
I have looked and can find no connection between them. They never lived at the same address or even in the same city at the same time. More fantasies. I am sure they think that Jacqueline Peterson is the same person as Scott Peterson based on the registration of the Mercedes too

[enlightenme]

I have to be honest, I really hate it when this is brought up. Trying to show logic when there is an illogical statement.

Have you ever heard of the ~fetal position~ The fetus is curled up into a ball inside the uterus. If it weren't we would have babies growing up out of our mouths.



http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb59/aingaelsmileys/nut.gif


Not only that, not ONE single medical professional has publicly stated anything about this supposedly "glaring" error or anomoly. Not even Dr. March, who was on the stand. No one except some posters on the internet. The one who discovered this "exonerating" evidence said she emailed or somehow contacted Geragos and Judge D. DURING the trial about nine times with this info. They never responded and apparently Geragos couldn't find a doctor or expert to put on the stand to testify about it.

The poster surmised that they "just didn't understand" her info. (i.e. HER intrepretation of the evidence).

:rolleyes:

[Lavindar]

That's what circumstantial evidence is all about isn't it?

Scott was fishing in the bay
The bodies were found on the shore by the bay
It is assumed by CE that he must have killed her.

Scott had been looking for a boat since November.
He withdrew funds from a joint account
He listed the Covena address for all pertinent papers
it in the warehouse.

Grogan testified 2 totally unbiased witnesses say they saw Laci at the warehouse Dec. 20th
Scott said she was at the warehouse Dec 20thThe boat was in the warehouse
Laci was in the warehouse
CE says she saw the boat

Link to Grogan's testimony please

None of the above says that Laci knew about the boat. You are making a faulty logic leap. You could say that Scott stored the boat in Modesto. I lived in Modesto at the time. Therefore I KNEW about the boat. What you say makes about that much sense.

PLEASE PROVIDE ANYTHING THAT SAYS LACI WAS IN the warehouse