Scott Peterson's appeal

[frydaddy]

Being forced (outvoted 3-1) to go pick up dinner, so I will catch up later. Geez EKG...hope you weren't on the clock when you typed up your manifesto (which I haven't read, only glanced at)! LOL

[ekg]

RAking leaves does not sound like a body being dragged on the ground. And Karen went INTO the back yard. And the HIG burglars would leave $100,000 worth of jewelry in plain site while stealing the pants that they later dressed Laci in??????? We're talking REASONABLE here.



what pants? why couldn't she have changed herself before her walk?



and why not... they left money and jewelry at the Medina didn't they...they got their stash and wanted to get the hell out of there..... probably kicked themselves in the butt later when they heard about all the stuff they left..

and don't forget the Croton that just happens to be missing and the Croton that just happens to show up in a pawn shop that was pawned by an unsavory character IMO....... we don't know postively one way or the other if the were the same or not...

In YOUR opinion they don't sound the same...but we don't know if "raking' was 'for lack of a better word' b/c that was the only way to describe it... or if in fact feet being raked alondg the grass would sound like a rake being raked along the grass... either way yours IS only an opinion, as is mine.... :seeya:


now I must let my fingers have a break...... then I'll catch up..:D

[Lavindar]

It was an appropriate response to a poster who had made what seemed to be a statement of fact that the common thief thugs of Medina's home were non violent.

The current Petit home invasion, murder, kidnapping etc is a perfect example of so called "non violent" thugs becoming violent when it apparently became a question of "you or me" IMO.

This is the most recent but far from the only case where someone has murdered who had no previous history. There has always got to be the first time. The good news these "previous non violent" petty thugs were caught red handed and will hopefully never have a chance to murder again.

I personally don't believe Todd abducted Laci, but, IMO I think there is a very good chance he knows who did. Quite frankly, I am surprised that he hasn't already had a tragic accident incident in jail.


Todd is in Deuel which is not known for violent offenders. I don't think Todd ever encountered Laci at all. If she saw something suspicious on the 24th, she would have called the police rather than endanger a baby she worked so hard to conceive. Todd does NOT fit the description of the van occupants by any stretch of the imagination, and Diane Jackson never said SAFE. Geragos said SAFE. Read post 3488 and you will see there's no safe mentioned in her report. That didn't enter the picture until Geragos put it there. And it was confirmed no safe was mentioned in cross.

[Miss Bootsie]

RAking leaves does not sound like a body being dragged on the ground. And Karen went INTO the back yard. And the HIG burglars would leave $100,000 worth of jewelry in plain site while stealing the pants that they later dressed Laci in??????? We're talking REASONABLE here.

Karen even identified the neighbors that were raking.


SERVAS: Okay. (writes on diagram) Okay. This is where I went to the front gate and the gate was looked and I heard the noise coming from the backyard so I went around, which is normally where I would go, through the gate. And then I walked with the dog along the cement by the pool up to right here at the end of the house and I looked to the left, didn't see anything, but the noise that I originally heard when I was up here at the gate. I determined was coming from either the Hogan's backyard or the Dunger's backyard. I think it was the Hogan's.

[ekg]

Being forced (outvoted 3-1) to go pick up dinner, so I will catch up later. Geez EKG...hope you weren't on the clock when you typed up your manifesto (which I haven't read, only glanced at)! LOL


no.... I was home...LOL .. BUT it was during a thunderstorm so I was copying and saving like crazy in case the power went off..... HA!:chicken:

but never let it be said that I am afraid to give an in depth answer or a line by line answer when asked.....:lol:

[ekg]

Karen even identified the neighbors that were raking.


.
does she say whether the noise was still going on when she was in the backyard?

[Lavindar]

what pants? why couldn't she have changed herself before her walk?



and why not... they left money and jewelry at the Medina didn't they...they got their stash and wanted to get the hell out of there..... probably kicked themselves in the butt later when they heard about all the stuff they left..

and don't forget the Croton that just happens to be missing and the Croton that just happens to show up in a pawn shop that was pawned by an unsavory character IMO....... we don't know postively one way or the other if the were the same or not...

In YOUR opinion they don't sound the same...but we don't know if "raking' was 'for lack of a better word' b/c that was the only way to describe it... or if in fact feet being raked alondg the grass would sound like a rake being raked along the grass... either way yours IS only an opinion, as is mine.... :seeya:


now I must let my fingers have a break...... then I'll catch up..:D

Croton watches come in all shapes and sizes and price ranges as evidenced by the information below

http://www.crotonwatch.com/adsview.aspx?id=2

To accept that a pawn broker would only offer $20 for a watch that Scott was trying to get $750 for on EBAY is ridiculous.

According to the Medinas, they didn't leave much - $40 I think
HARRIS: The burglar or burglars took the money, but they didn't take the key and they didn't take the combination?

MEDINA: Not all the money. He left me some, two $20 bills

[adnoid]

The current horrific murders of the Petit family was done by two thugs who had no prior history of violence...

It does not appear that they kidnapped the victims without leaving a single trace in the house and now have them soaking in various bathtubs to plant later in order to frame someone. They killed them in the house and set the house on fire - not even comparable.

But it DOES show that someone with no history of violence certainly can commit a murder - like Scott did. So you get points for that one.

Not that it will help Scott in his appeal.

[caphill]

Sorry for blasting in when I've never posted on the Peterson forum, but found this interesting and wanted to ask a question. Is this info from a hypnosis session admissible as evidence?

TIA and ALLMO,
R


Excuse the over simplification and also my possible faulty recall. This witness was not allowed to testify because of improper hypnosis from LE. Her statements to the police prior to the hypnosis, IIRC, were brought in through cross examination of the LE officer's report.

[adnoid]

www.peoplefinders.com. Go for it.

Wow. I looked myself up - it has the city where I went to college and where I was in my 20s. It also has a "roommate/associate" I've never heard of.

I looked up my father, and it appears he's married to (or related to) MY wife. It also has him living in a city I know he's never lived in.

Looks like a good source to me. If you're CRAZY.

[Mysteri]

20 mph winds are significant. Sunlight, even overcast conditions, has an effect. And 60 degrees may not be hot, but I don't know that you can consider that cold. Catch a fish and leave him on the bank in sunlight, 60 degrees, and gusty winds and see how soon he dries out. And we're talking about human tissue that's been submerged in sea water (or another fluid) for some time, who knows what that does to relative properties of human tissue.

Also potentially relevant is elevation, the 15-ish mile distance between Oakland Airport and Point Isabel, and the fact that you can look out into the ocean from Point Isabel, but not from Oakland Airport. Temps, precipitation, and air speed might be very different.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, I agree with you! ;)


Good show !
One weather site said there were 'gusts' of winds up to 26 MPH that day. Often at the Bay area beaches I have felt those gusts.

As you say, the salt water has a drying effect as well.

imo;)

[Lavindar]

what pants? why couldn't she have changed herself before her walk?

Then why did all the witnesses report to seeing her in black pants and a white top? Because it wasn't Laci. Did they also not take a top for her?

She was last seen in black pants and white top and ALL the witness sitings reported it. So they obviously did

NOT see her if she changed into khaki pants before she was kidnapped. Yet, they took her with no top.

OK, let's go through this again. Laci woke up, ate some cereal, looked on the computer, curled her hair, mopped the floor, watched Martha Stewart and all this before Scott left. Ok, he leaves AFTER 9:48 when he sees Martha Stewart discussing meringue. He loads the umbrellas into his truck, and leaves, calling his voice mail at 10:08. Laci finishes up the floor (the water was dirty- so says scott), and changes her clothes to walk the dog, puts the leash on the dog and lets him out in the back yard. She sees the Medina house being burglarized and goes to investigate and is kidnapped. All within 10 minutes? Or less, if you don't buy Karen Servas's recreation of her trip. Yet Karen sees none of this. No one sees or hears anything unusual. No barking dogs or anything.

[adnoid]

...This is the most recent but far from the only case where someone has murdered who had no previous history...

So what would you say to those who state Scott could not be the murderer because he had never been shown to be violent before?

This will probably not help Scott in his appeal.

[caphill]

It does not appear that they kidnapped the victims without leaving a single trace in the house and now have them soaking in various bathtubs to plant later in order to frame someone. They killed them in the house and set the house on fire - not even comparable.

But it DOES show that someone with no history of violence certainly can commit a murder - like Scott did. So you get points for that one.

Not that it will help Scott in his appeal.


Thanks you for the points. LOL. DO I lose some points because I don't understand the soaking in various bathtubs.(I thought maybe concrete cisterns or drums)

Does it show that someone with no previous history of violence or crime, of any kind, is more or less likely to murder than a thug encountering a witness or witnesses to their crime.

[Lavindar]

Thanks you for the points. LOL. DO I lose some points because I don't understand the soaking in various bathtubs.(I thought maybe concrete cisterns or drums)

Does it show that someone with no previous history of violence or crime, of any kind, is more or less likely to murder than a thug encountering a witness or witnesses to their crime.


Todd isn't even that good a burglar. He left a glove and hammer on the bed of the Medina's - yet he managed to kidnap a pregnant woman in broad daylight with no sound and leaving no evidence of any struggle?

[TopGunner]

The current horrific murders of the Petit family was done by two thugs who had no prior history of violence. It seems they had no car as they were apprehended leaving the burning house in the Petit car. My theory of why they killed this family is the fear of leaving them alive to later ID them. The perps spent some hours with this family and forced the mother to the bank for cash. After coming back from the bank they were faced with these 4 witnesses. IMO, that doesn't leave many choices in the mind of a thug.

Since Todd voiced concerns about being linked to the " missing woman with the baby", IMO, he wanted to pick a date that was anything but the 24th. Again, IMO, he had to change the date when when he realized the Medina's were back home by 27th.

I wouldn't put too much stock in anything Todd said as he was a known low life with a long criminial history.


The current murders of the Petit family has nothing to do with Laci Peterson. Nice try.

[Lavindar]

FRY..... you ask too many questions and I answer too many questions...LOL so this will have to be in 2 posts.....LOLOL

again, for the record........ I am being asked what I THINK and why I THINK it and to give a scenario that I THINK could have happened....this is ONLY MY OPINION...

also, Mock,Demand,Belittle if you will.... but you will be ignored... I am being asked a series of questions by someone I respect( as much as I can given our limited contact).. To be interested in the 'other' side is fine, to ask the 'other' side to explain themselves is even better.... to mock,joke,disrespect and/or belittle that person once they have given you what you asked for is not fine IMO...

so please, lets for once put the hurtful, snide comments in a PM... ok?






no, I can't get behind any of them 100% and that includes Scott.. just too many questions left unanswered for me for all of them




there were alot of articles on them back when the trial was going on..I wish I could give you the A=b-c... But I can't...I remember some names but I can't connect them so I won't even add them to the confusion...:shrug:

I want to say that Todd was linked to Dion Milam (http://www.adl.org/learn/news/Dion_Milam.asp) somehow... but I can't fully remember...... Dion could have been linked to the woman Perry Monroe killed, I just don't remember all the information from that far ago.. I wish the 10 mile thread had been archived if only for all it's links...b/c I do remember a link with Todd and the gang...




either b/c she saw them... or just b/c...
the HIG gang was a pretty nasty gang.. I wish I could find all the past articles on them......
but they could have been in the process of taking her when KS came into the back yard.... that could have been the noises she heard...

DJ saw 3 men by a van..Laci could have walked right up on them.... the HIG was known for home-invasions... it's possible KS scared them off and the took Laci b/c she could ID them.... this isn't some fanciful story b/c aw2b posted where the exact same thing just happened recently.... so why it's crazy for it to happen in this case IDK




around her house.. either as she was walking by or as she was coming in...




DJ saw a van.......Todd and Pearce had a corsica



b/c when "he" snitched she was still alive.. but when she died, the possible murder charge scared 'him' into stfu...:shrug:

we're not talking about upstanding ppl here either.... 'he' may have had a momentary lapse of weakness when he called in the tip



it was a vague description of the road.... but also a description of the house she was in and 2 other houses around her... Tracy is about 40 miles away, so maybe the 'tipster' didn't know the roads very well and could only ID the houses

here's the tip from the trial


seems like they knew the house but maybe not the road to get there..





yes, before...

why couldn't Scott have taped her?



why couldn't the burglars? I have about 6 rolls of duct tape... I presume everyone in FL does b/c it's on the hurricane supply list. I would think that it's also on an earth-quake supply list, so I don't think Scott having any is a big deal..




she only needed to be in water... I think the saltwater was narrowed down b/c of the barnacles and where she was found.... and if she had been in just regular water and then dumped by the shore and washed out into the bay, she'd get the barnacles within just a few hrs and any 'fresh' water would be washed away..

I guess we could know for 100% by testing her clothes or something couldn't we?? but as of right now, she didn't have to be in salt-water the whole time IMO...



any 55g drum will do..... there all over the place.......and what kind of 'storage container' was she being held in, in the tip that was called in?

another murderer put the body of his wife in one moved it months later.... his name and info has been posted a few times by me and aw2b....I'd give it to you again, but I'm having a brain-toot right now and can't remember....grrrr






IMO they were only focused on him... but with the tip being called in who knows... maybe they just wanted to get rid of the body.. you have to admit, anyone having that body(or any body for that matter) would want to get rid of it in a way that couldn't be connected to them...... and it wouldn't take a whole lot of brilliance to figure out where they needed to put it.... across the water from Brooks Island..... right where she was found... right where Scott said he was..

the container was dumped where connor was found...... Connor looked like he washed up from Brooks... but Laci didn't.. her origination couldn't be tracked from Brooks...

but she gets washed out from where her and Connor are dumped..and she washes a little ways away from him.....her trajectory doesn't match his remember..why not? by all accounts it should match... she should match atleast to where his 'starting off/their separation' point.... but she doesn't...why?




sure.... why not.. they didn't wash up in your theory either..*shrug*

..


I lived in Modesto during this crime and I never heard of the Aryan Broitherhood doing any HIGs. That's mostly a prison gang

[I'mSun]

Very nice, I found myself.

imoI'm happy you are no longer lost. ;)

[Miss Bootsie]

does she say whether the noise was still going on when she was in the backyard?

Well, as a matter of fact, if you read the TS closely, I believe she did indicate hearing noise from the neighbors raking while in the Peterson backyard.


She indicated that when walking the dog along the cement by the pool up to the end of the house, she looked to the left, didn't see anything, but then determined the raking noise was coming from either the Hogan's or the Dunger's backyard.
She was unable to determine where the raking noise was coming from when at the gate.
She had to hear the raking noise after entering the back yard to be able to determine where the noise was coming from.

Do find it unusual that people who live in a neighborhood heavily populated with trees, are out raking leaves in the month of December?




SERVAS: Okay. (writes on diagram) Okay. This is where I went to the front gate and the gate was looked and I heard the noise coming from the backyard so I went around, which is normally where I would go, through the gate. And then I walked with the dog along the cement by the pool up to right here at the end of the house and I looked to the left, didn't see anything, but the noise that I originally heard when I was up here at the gate I determined was coming from either the Hogan's backyard or the Dunger's backyard. I think it was the Hogan's.

[Lavindar]

Well, as a matter of fact, if you read the TS closely, I believe she did indicate hearing noise from the neighbors raking while in the Peterson backyard.


She indicated that when walking the dog along the cement by the pool up to the end of the house, she looked to the left, didn't see anything, but then determined the raking noise was coming from either the Hogan's or the Dunger's backyard.
She was unable to determine where the raking noise was coming from when at the gate.
She had to hear the raking noise after entering the back yard to be able to determine where the noise was coming from.

Do find it unusual that people who live in a neighborhood heavily populated with trees, are out raking leaves in the month of December?

Scott was out with his weed blower the sunday before as testified to by a neighbor

[Lavindar]

PART 2



I don't know.. this is moo

for the coffin birth? sure...I think it could happen that way

the decomp? IDK.as I said I want to find an expert to discuss this with so I can know for sure





some of those details can match all three 3 stories....the biggest change is the who




no, I'm pretty sure it was inconclusive..



she went back to the house that night remember....... maybe she was drunk when she kidnapped Laci, we know she went 'nutty' when she drank....

there is a pic of that cup in LE photos.... but is it still there now(not now-now of course...you know what I mean)...... When Kim happened along that night and interjected herself into the crime scene.... was it b/c she knew she needed to get that coffee cup?

and what did she interject herself to do???? make coffee...



as I said...... Kim said that she would see Laci walking in front of her house by the Gallo place.... she's a nut.. crazy women have befriended pregnant women before and harmed them.... maybe she struck up a conversation with Laci during those walks... IDK, maybe she just saw her and became obsessed....

also, I need some verification on this....... But I think Kim M b/f was Hawaiian and he hung around with 2 other dark skinned(but not black) ppl..

if it wasn't Kim who had this connection to the 3 dark-skinned guys I completely apologize.. I know they can be connected with someone in this case... and I think/thought it was her...




no actually I don't buy his story.....even tho I think it was corroborated???? by someone else????? but the fact that he works for Kim M step-dad and with her brother is such an odd coincidence don't you think? why does this person and ppl she knows keep interjecting themselves into this case?





thats the thing.... we don't know anything about this guy....... except that he was found with a hand in his car..... and that his victim had her head,arms and leg removed and was found in a body of water...(that head has never been found either IIRC)

we know he lived and went to school in Almeda which is a stones throw from where Laci and Connor washed up

we know that Evelyn Hernandez resembled Laci with the Dark hair, olive skin and pregnant... and she washed up in the same condition in the same area..

we know that Perry Monroe was in Fresno b/c he was caught there...

but since he's been in a nut-house he hasn't been interviewed by LE or had a trial yet.....(LE says their only interview of was very bizarre b/c he claims to have never lft CA so they can't get anywhere with him....) who knows what this guy was capable of....

but the circumstance of having a serial killer in the area that liked to cut off the heads and hide it..cut off the arms, and leg of his victim... and 2 almost identical remains of 2 very similar victims washing up just miles from his stomping grounds and him being in another area in Davis where some bones were found is enough to give me pause....

read this link...... Maybe it can show you why I want further investigation into Perry Monroe..

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=33788


so in this case against Scott..... we have a man with no criminal record... not even a traffic ticket.... everyone around him believes he and his wife are the ideal perfect couple full of love and adoration for each other(puke all you want but you can't deny that this is what ppl thought before dec. 24th).. a guy who all of a sudden commits a crime that there is no proof of, except for some arguable CE that could just show he was hiding an affair/affairS and not a murder..

or you have members of an extremely violent home invasion gang, robbing a house across the street.. you have a witness who heard noises from the back of the house and when she went back there they noises stopped so she assumed she was hearing them from another neighbors house....

you have a women who becomes(or already was) obsessed with Scott Peterson... and unstable women, under the care of a shrink and taking meds... who gets violent and weird when she drinks... a woman who interjects herself into this case from the 1st minute.... who also has access to medical supplies and has atleast a limited medical background...... a woman who took a LDT and didn't pass or fail.... a woman who lied to LE when she was caught breaking into the Peterson house.... who admittedly tried on some clothes of Laci, possibly even the wedding gown.... and who left without her pants on b/c they were found in the house IIRC..

and you have a possible serial killer....... you definitely have 2 pregnant women with brown hair and olive skin go missing and being found in the same condition in the same area... but also have a potential serial killer also...who lived a stones throw from where those 2 pregnant women washed up, a killer who was caught with his victims hands in his possession... a victim whose head is missing and whose dismembered torso,arms and leg are found in a pond...

a possible serial killer caught in Frenso that has been ruled incompetent and shut away in a nut-house since his arrest... who hasn't been questioned b/c he to F'd up in the head....

and yet you are 100% sure Scott Peterson did this???

could all the CE against Scott been b/c he was hiding an affair(or a hiding a wife from his lover) and not a murder...(if the boat wasn't a secret that is...)


hopefully this is what you asked for...... if not my fingers may revolt :lol: ....LOL

but this is why I can't jump to your side 100%...... of course you won't find anything I say believable..... but I think you are too polite to actually call is balderdash...LOL... but IMO, the theory given as to how and why Scott did it..... is just as questionable to me...


RUMORMILL INDEED - most facts are wrong in it. No sources for any of it other than the ramblings of some ignorant person who knows nothing about this case.

[TopGunner]

[QUOTE=TopGunner;8923523]

But the harm was he told the Rochas about "a recent insurance policy." And he led Richardson to believe the same. When he knew full well it was not recent. What was his motive? Why not just let the true facts speak for themselves?

Woo, I've heard this "rumor", and it's been vague I might add, but I have never read or heard from the testimony, Sharon's book, articles, interviews, etc., that Brochinni purposely told the Rocha family that ISP took out "recent" insurance on Laci. In fact, when Sharon tells the detailed story about the MOMENT she knew he killed Laci, no insurance was mentioned. In fact, she never mentions it.

So - where, specifically, are you getting this from?:seeya:

[Miss Bootsie]

Well, as a matter of fact, if you read the TS closely, I believe she did indicate hearing noise from the neighbors raking while in the Peterson backyard.


She indicated that when walking the dog along the cement by the pool up to the end of the house, she looked to the left, didn't see anything, but then determined the raking noise was coming from either the Hogan's or the Dunger's backyard.
She was unable to determine where the raking noise was coming from when at the gate.
She had to hear the raking noise after entering the back yard to be able to determine where the noise was coming from.

Do find it unusual that people who live in a neighborhood heavily populated with trees, are out raking leaves in the month of December?

Edited to add: Don't you think that at some point, in just talking to the neighbors about Laci's disappearance and finding Mac., Karen verified who the neighbors were that were raking?
I would be very surprised to learn this didn't happen.
How about the LE investigators. Don't you think at some point when talking and questioning the neighbors, they verified who was raking.
Don't you think the neighbors that were out raking would tell LE they were outside raking at that time? I think so.

[Lavindar]

we know that Evelyn Hernandez resembled Laci with the Dark hair, olive skin and pregnant... and she washed up in the same condition in the same area..

Evelyn Hernandez went missing from over 100 miles away from Modesto. Her body was found missing a torso arms and head - Laci was missing forearms, lower legs, forearms, head and neck. There was nothing of Hernandez from the waist up. She was also found on the OTHER SIDE of SF BAY, some 10 miles from Berkeley. The similarities are only that they were both pregnant and tossed in the same body of water from different locations with different current patterns. There is a suspect in the Hernandez case and it is not Scott. They did not even disappear at the same time of year or wash ashore at the same time of year

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Hernandez

[TopGunner]

Thanks you for the points. LOL. DO I lose some points because I don't understand the soaking in various bathtubs.(I thought maybe concrete cisterns or drums)

Does it show that someone with no previous history of violence or crime, of any kind, is more or less likely to murder than a thug encountering a witness or witnesses to their crime.

This is what we know for sure: There are THOUSANDS of pregnant woman who have died at the hands of their husbands/boyfriends with NO prior criminal record/behavior.

We now have one set of burglars that murdered someone, and I feel fairly confident that they have not yet taken, or most likely will not pass a lie detector test.:read: :eek:

[frydaddy]

FRY..... you ask too many questions and I answer too many questions...LOL so this will have to be in 2 posts.....LOLOL

again, for the record........ I am being asked what I THINK and why I THINK it and to give a scenario that I THINK could have happened....this is ONLY MY OPINION...

also, Mock,Demand,Belittle if you will.... but you will be ignored... I am being asked a series of questions by someone I respect( as much as I can given our limited contact).. To be interested in the 'other' side is fine, to ask the 'other' side to explain themselves is even better.... to mock,joke,disrespect and/or belittle that person once they have given you what you asked for is not fine IMO...

so please, lets for once put the hurtful, snide comments in a PM... ok?






no, I can't get behind any of them 100% and that includes Scott.. just too many questions left unanswered for me for all of them




there were alot of articles on them back when the trial was going on..I wish I could give you the A=b-c... But I can't...I remember some names but I can't connect them so I won't even add them to the confusion...:shrug:

I want to say that Todd was linked to Dion Milam (http://www.adl.org/learn/news/Dion_Milam.asp) somehow... but I can't fully remember...... Dion could have been linked to the woman Perry Monroe killed, I just don't remember all the information from that far ago.. I wish the 10 mile thread had been archived if only for all it's links...b/c I do remember a link with Todd and the gang...




either b/c she saw them... or just b/c...
the HIG gang was a pretty nasty gang.. I wish I could find all the past articles on them......
but they could have been in the process of taking her when KS came into the back yard.... that could have been the noises she heard...

DJ saw 3 men by a van..Laci could have walked right up on them.... the HIG was known for home-invasions... it's possible KS scared them off and the took Laci b/c she could ID them.... this isn't some fanciful story b/c aw2b posted where the exact same thing just happened recently.... so why it's crazy for it to happen in this case IDK




around her house.. either as she was walking by or as she was coming in...




DJ saw a van.......Todd and Pearce had a corsica



b/c when "he" snitched she was still alive.. but when she died, the possible murder charge scared 'him' into stfu...:shrug:

we're not talking about upstanding ppl here either.... 'he' may have had a momentary lapse of weakness when he called in the tip



it was a vague description of the road.... but also a description of the house she was in and 2 other houses around her... Tracy is about 40 miles away, so maybe the 'tipster' didn't know the roads very well and could only ID the houses

here's the tip from the trial


seems like they knew the house but maybe not the road to get there..





yes, before...

why couldn't Scott have taped her?



why couldn't the burglars? I have about 6 rolls of duct tape... I presume everyone in FL does b/c it's on the hurricane supply list. I would think that it's also on an earth-quake supply list, so I don't think Scott having any is a big deal..




she only needed to be in water... I think the saltwater was narrowed down b/c of the barnacles and where she was found.... and if she had been in just regular water and then dumped by the shore and washed out into the bay, she'd get the barnacles within just a few hrs and any 'fresh' water would be washed away..

I guess we could know for 100% by testing her clothes or something couldn't we?? but as of right now, she didn't have to be in salt-water the whole time IMO...



any 55g drum will do..... there all over the place.......and what kind of 'storage container' was she being held in, in the tip that was called in?

another murderer put the body of his wife in one moved it months later.... his name and info has been posted a few times by me and aw2b....I'd give it to you again, but I'm having a brain-toot right now and can't remember....grrrr






IMO they were only focused on him... but with the tip being called in who knows... maybe they just wanted to get rid of the body.. you have to admit, anyone having that body(or any body for that matter) would want to get rid of it in a way that couldn't be connected to them...... and it wouldn't take a whole lot of brilliance to figure out where they needed to put it.... across the water from Brooks Island..... right where she was found... right where Scott said he was..

the container was dumped where connor was found...... Connor looked like he washed up from Brooks... but Laci didn't.. her origination couldn't be tracked from Brooks...

but she gets washed out from where her and Connor are dumped..and she washes a little ways away from him.....her trajectory doesn't match his remember..why not? by all accounts it should match... she should match atleast to where his 'starting off/their separation' point.... but she doesn't...why?




sure.... why not.. they didn't wash up in your theory either..*shrug*

..


Before I attempt to answer this, I have two questions, anyone can answer and I may not post again for a bit (I was outvoted on clean up as well...there's something wrong with this system!), so forgive me.

1. What does HIG stand for? I think I know, but vanity dictates I ask rather than throw what I think out there! :o

2. When responding to a post like Eek did, does everyone simply copy and paste the [Quote] beginnings and ends, or am I missing an easier way? Is this not the 21st Century? Can I not think what I want real hard and have it appear? When your not a typist (I'm a pecker!), posting sometimes takes forever! :mad:

[Lavindar]

Before I attempt to answer this, I have two questions, anyone can answer and I may not post again for a bit (I was outvoted on clean up as well...there's something wrong with this system!), so forgive me.

1. What does HIG stand for? I think I know, but vanity dictates I ask rather than throw what I think out there! :o

2. When responding to a post like Eek did, does everyone simply copy and paste the [Quote] beginnings and ends, or am I missing an easier way? Is this not the 21st Century? Can I not think what I want real hard and have it appear? When your not a typist (I'm a pecker!), posting sometimes takes forever! :mad:


HIG = Home Invasion Gangs

[TopGunner]

Before I attempt to answer this, I have two questions, anyone can answer and I may not post again for a bit (I was outvoted on clean up as well...there's something wrong with this system!), so forgive me.

1. What does HIG stand for? I think I know, but vanity dictates I ask rather than throw what I think out there! :o

2. When responding to a post like Eek did, does everyone simply copy and paste the [Quote] beginnings and ends, or am I missing an easier way? Is this not the 21st Century? Can I not think what I want real hard and have it appear? When your not a typist (I'm a pecker!), posting sometimes takes forever! :mad:


Well Humpf FD - I'm mightly humbled here myself. Only responding 'cause I like to hear myself talk, LOL!!!!

I would GUESS that HIG = something "gang", lemme think, umm....I'll get back to you.

As for responding to long posts, I KNOW there's an easier way, I just don't know what it is! :tongue:

Sincerely hope that helps, LOL!

[Riviera]

Before I attempt to answer this, I have two questions, anyone can answer and I may not post again for a bit (I was outvoted on clean up as well...there's something wrong with this system!), so forgive me.

1. What does HIG stand for? I think I know, but vanity dictates I ask rather than throw what I think out there! :o

2. When responding to a post like Eek did, does everyone simply copy and paste the beginnings and ends, or am I missing an easier way? Is this not the 21st Century? Can I not think what I want real hard and have it appear? When your not a typist (I'm a pecker!), posting sometimes takes forever! :mad:

At the bottom right hand side of the post there's a "QUOTE" box. Click on that and it should copy the entire post you want to quote. Be sure to start your reply after the [ /Quote]

[Lavindar]

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/docs/autopsy.html?page=1

[ekg]

Didn't Perry Monroe's crime occur almost 6 months AFTER Laci's disappearance. Didn't he leave tons of evidence? Yet he could commit the perfect crime of getting rid of Laci and not leaving one clue. Go figure


we don't know if he was able to cover up the crime scene or not b/c IMO one has never been found... you just assume the house has to be the crimes scene b/c its the only way Scott can be guilty.. in fact the only way the house can be a crime scene AND it be Scott is if there isn't a noticable "crime" at the house.... if there was blood and mess it couldn't be Scott...

so we don't know if Perry was able to clean it up or not somewhere else b/c Perry is in a nut house and he ain't talking...

as for his crime? You mean the one that he was arrested for?

sure, that was june 23 2003.... and your point is?


are you saying that b/c Milam was killed in June 2003 that Monroe couldn't have killed Laci??

[attorneywan2be]

Something else I wanted to ask.
We know that at the time Dr. Peterson performed his examination, he described the edges of the fundus as being friable and crumbly. By your definition, reduced to powder
Going by your theory the body was planted, how did that area that was friable (reduced to powder) and crumbly remain intact?
How did that area remain intact while being submerged in water along the shore-line?


Let me start by saying that my theory was based on the idea she was PARTIALLY submerged in water which, IMO, would be consistent with the condition of her body..the upper part of her body was much more decomposed than the lower part of her body..the witness who found her body testified that she was PARTIALLY submerged..

IMO:

-Based on my theory: the edges of her uterus were already friable and crumbly BEFORE she was placed on the shore..that part of her body (the top of the fundus) was not submerged in water when she was found...so it was exposed to the splashing water but it was also exposed to wind, not enough for the already friable edges to become soft and macerated...

-Based on the body being submerged in the bay for 4 months: the tissues of the uterus would have retained a lot of water...there would have been no chance for the edges of the uterus to become friable and crumbly by the time the autopsy took place.....as I mentioned before, the humidity was fairly high that day, it also rained for a bit, the water was splashing over her body...it was an overcast day ..even with the wind it would have taken a very long time for those SUPPOSEDLY macerated tissues to dry out to the point of being friable and easily be reduced to powder..

The ME also testified that the fundus was frayed...that indicates to me that there was an incision in that area..

[ekg]

June 22, 2003

And that was sort of my point...he pulls off the perfect frame job and then six months later, he uses his real name to book a hotel room, then kills a woman in that room, then leaves with her hands in the car and all that evidence back at the hotel, then sleeps in his car as if it never happened.

The fact that the only real information out there on Perry Monroe is on blogs attempting to insinuate Monroe into the Peterson case alone is reason to dismiss it. Even the lead investigator scoffed at the idea the two cases were related, per one of the blogs.

true...... the only ones to link Perry to Laci or even Evelyn Hernandez to Laci or to even question if there is a link are newspapers and blogs....... LE just scoffs at the very idea.. and I don't get that at all.. when you have 3 victims found in similar, if not exactly the same conditions and circumstances and one guilty man...... it would seen atleast reasonable to look into a connection, don't you think?

but for whatever reason, nope.... no one but the looneys on blogs and newspapers think such wild thougts....... LOL

and no, I don't think he pulled of any 'frame' job at all..... I think MPD just wanted Scott to bad to look anywhere else...

[Miss Bootsie]

Before I attempt to answer this, I have two questions, anyone can answer and I may not post again for a bit (I was outvoted on clean up as well...there's something wrong with this system!), so forgive me.

1. What does HIG stand for? I think I know, but vanity dictates I ask rather than throw what I think out there! :o

2. When responding to a post like Eek did, does everyone simply copy and paste the [Quote] beginnings and ends, or am I missing an easier way? Is this not the 21st Century? Can I not think what I want real hard and have it appear? When your not a typist (I'm a pecker!), posting sometimes takes forever! :mad:

Fry, You can highlight the part of the post you want to respond to and click on the quote icon above.

[ekg]

I don’t claim to be a super sleuth, or psychic, so I can’t claim to know for sure what happened to Laci. But I have my ideas. My main course in this whole fiasco is and always has been the fact that Laci’s murder was NOT investigated properly and honestly and Scott was NOT proven guilty BARD. Not even close.

snipped for length

VERY GOOD JOB WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO :beer:

On the HIG, wasn't there a judge or something near Laci or Covena that had had a run in with them sometime around the same time? or saw someone 'casing' houses or something?? but he was also ignored and scoffed at by MPD...

and didn't the LE guy with the boots.... what was his name... grrrr He wore the boots..didn't he?? he was like the head of the LE department or a DA or something.....
grrrrrrr what was his name..... Brazil or something..he waved a gun around the office...

anyway. ...anyway, hadn't he just lost a murder trial where the hubby supposedly killed his wife?? Like he was going to loose another one...:rolleyes:

and I think he was the one who scoffed at the 'cult' theory..... but had something major to do with the prosecution of another cult murder..

God I hate it when a name is on the tip of my tongue.......... HA!

anyway..... Great Post woo, Thanks for chiming in.. I couldn't agree more with one of your earlier posts saying it was very hard to make one these posts b/c ppl want to demand links and such.. But you did a good job..:beer:



and it's all just my own opinion....

[TopGunner]

VERY GOOD JOB WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO :beer:

On the HIG, wasn't there a judge or something near Laci or Covena that had had a run in with them sometime around the same time? or saw someone 'casing' houses or something?? but he was also ignored and scoffed at by MPD...

and didn't the LE guy with the boots.... what was his name... grrrr He wore the boots..didn't he?? he was like the head of the LE department or a DA or something.....
grrrrrrr what was his name..... Brazil or something..he waved a gun around the office...

anyway. ...anyway, hadn't he just lost a murder trial where the hubby supposedly killed his wife?? Like he was going to loose another one...:rolleyes:

and I think he was the one who scoffed at the 'cult' theory..... but had something major to do with the prosecution of another cult murder..

God I hate it when a name is on the tip of my tongue.......... HA!

anyway..... Great Post woo, Thanks for chiming in.. I couldn't agree more with one of your earlier posts saying it was very hard to make one these posts b/c ppl want to demand links and such.. But you did a good job..:beer:



and it's all just my own opinion....

Hey ekg - :seeya:

Question: I've said this already, but I'll say it again - since none of us here, the victims families, the convicted killer's family, and so on, have access to the police reports, nor are we privy to what WAS or WAS NOT investigated, let alone to what extent, what's with the :beer: on Woo's statement saying the police didn't investigate other leads? You don't know that, nor do I for that matter, although, I am confident in my assumption that they knew what they were doing.

PS - I also don't see any other "lead" they could have followed since absolutely EVERYTHING led to ISP.

[ekg]

what pants? why couldn't she have changed herself before her walk?

Then why did all the witnesses report to seeing her in black pants and a white top? Because it wasn't Laci. Did they also not take a top for her?

She was last seen in black pants and white top and ALL the witness sitings reported it. So they obviously did

NOT see her if she changed into khaki pants before she was kidnapped. Yet, they took her with no top.

OK, let's go through this again. Laci woke up, ate some cereal, looked on the computer, curled her hair, mopped the floor, watched Martha Stewart and all this before Scott left. Ok, he leaves AFTER 9:48 when he sees Martha Stewart discussing meringue. He loads the umbrellas into his truck, and leaves, calling his voice mail at 10:08. Laci finishes up the floor (the water was dirty- so says scott), and changes her clothes to walk the dog, puts the leash on the dog and lets him out in the back yard. She sees the Medina house being burglarized and goes to investigate and is kidnapped. All within 10 minutes? Or less, if you don't buy Karen Servas's recreation of her trip. Yet Karen sees none of this. No one sees or hears anything unusual. No barking dogs or anything.


I've already said that I don't believe KS timeline..... so IMO, Laci could have made it all the way back home, changed and thats when whatever happened happened... and I doubt kidnappers would worry about whether they closed t he gate or not..

who knows.. maybe she went for her walk,felt dizzy after a just walking out the front door from everything she had done that morning and went back inside to lay down.... that would explain the crumpled look of the bed.. and when after she felt better she changed out of the morning clothes into something more comfy... or whatever...

and yes, there was a barking dog that morning..... Amie or Terra said they think it was Mac...

I don't think KS saw the dog until after she came home at 11:45am... and it's possible it wasn't until she left for Ripton later that night.......she changed her story so much, I just don't know what to believe....

IF KS timeline is off... there is plenty of time for whatever to happen

all in IMO of course..

[TopGunner]

Let me start by saying that my theory was based on the idea she was PARTIALLY submerged in water which, IMO, would be consistent with the condition of her body..the upper part of her body was much more decomposed than the lower part of her body..the witness who found her body testified that she was PARTIALLY submerged..

IMO:

-Based on my theory: the edges of her uterus were already friable and crumbly BEFORE she was placed on the shore..that part of her body (the top of the fundus) was not submerged in water when she was found...so it was exposed to the splashing water but it was also exposed to wind, not enough for the already friable edges to become soft and macerated...

-Based on the body being submerged in the bay for 4 months: the tissues of the uterus would have retained a lot of water...there would have been no chance for the edges of the uterus to become friable and crumbly by the time the autopsy took place.....as I mentioned before, the humidity was fairly high that day, it also rained for a bit, the water was splashing over her body...it was an overcast day ..even with the wind it would have taken a very long time for those SUPPOSEDLY macerated tissues to dry out to the point of being friable and easily be reduced to powder..

The ME also testified that the fundus was frayed...that indicates to me that there was an incision in that area..


MODESTO, Calif. — Scott Peterson opted to leave the courtroom at his preliminary hearing Monday rather than listen to the graphic testimony of a pathologist who examined the badly decomposed remains of his murdered wife and unborn son.

"I do not wish to be present," Peterson informed Superior Court Judge Al Girolami as the medical examiner who performed the autopsies of his wife, Laci, and the child they planned to name Conner, took the stand.

When the judge asked if anyone was pressuring him to depart, Peterson replied, "No, it's a choice."

His lawyer implied that Peterson would find the pathologist's account too wrenching. As bailiffs escorted Peterson from the court, he nodded grimly at his parents in the front row.

What he missed was a witness prosecutors hope will destroy the defense suggestion that Laci Peterson, nearly eight months pregnant at the time of her disappearance, was held until she gave birth and then killed.

If the murders occurred later than Dec. 24, the day Peterson reported his wife missing, the 31-year-old fertilizer salesman would all but be exonerated since he was under constant police scrutiny then.

But Dr. Brian Peterson, no relation to the couple, told the judge that the condition of the bodies indicated Laci Peterson was dumped into the bay still carrying her child.

The pathologist said that some time later, after weeks and perhaps months of massive decay to Laci Peterson's body, the child's remains eventually separated from her womb.

The remains of the fetus washed onto the shore of San Francisco Bay April 13 and Laci Peterson's the following day.

Dr. Peterson testified that the mother-to-be's remains were so badly decomposed that he could not determine how she was killed and could not offer a time of death more precise than "some months" before she was discovered.

Her head, forearms, hands, lower legs and most of her internal organs were missing. The fetus, on the other hand, showed signs of internal decomposition, but its skin was not missing or marred to the degree that Laci Peterson's was.

The doctor said he concluded the child's remains were less decayed because he was protected by his mother's uterus.

"With time, tidal action and animal feeding the uterus wore away and at that time, the fetus was released," said the medical examiner.

He said Laci Peterson did not deliver vaginally and there were no incision marks indicating a Caesarian section.

The doctor also cast doubt on the signficance of a tape found around the fetus' neck. The defense has suggested the tape is proof that the couple's child was born alive and then involved in some sort of ritualistic killing. But the doctor said the packing tape was "either flotsam or jetsam" that washed onto the body as it traveled through the water.



Pathologist Peterson said tape found on baby's neck was flotsam


Both defense lawyer Mark Geragos and the judge quizzed Dr. Peterson about that conclusion, asking how the relatively tight loop could have passed over the fetus' head. The pathologist said it was possible because the head had collapsed as it decayed.

Geragos noted that a bag was found near the bodies on the bayshore and hypothesized that the baby was born alive, placed in the bag and the bag secured with the tape.

The pathologist agreed the bag would have provided protection too, but said, "Based on the condition of the bodies, I don't think it's a likely choice and certainly, it's not my top choice."

AW2B - it befuddles me to no end why you think your theory surpasses a gentlemen trained, educated, and experienced in this arena.

What exactly are your credentials, i.e., backgroud that makes you believe you know better? This is not a sarcastic remark, I sincerely want to know.

[ekg]

Hey ekg - :seeya:

Question: I've said this already, but I'll say it again - since none of us here, the victims families, the convicted killer's family, and so on, do not have access to the police reports, nor are we privy to what WAS or WAS NOT investigated, let alone to what extent, what's with the :beer: on Woo's statement saying the police didn't investigate other leads? You don't know that, nor do I for that matter, although, I am confident in my assumption that they knew what they were doing.

PS - I also don't see any other "lead" they could have followed since absolutely EVERYTHING led to ISP.

that's cool TG..... you are completely entitled to that opinion..

I just don't happen to share it with you...:D

and my :beer: was to her entire post... I just snipped it after the 1st paragraph for space....

but...

I do not think Perry Monore was investigated
I do not think Kim M was properly investigated
I do not think a number of sex offender call-backs were investigated
I think MPD focused in on Scott and scoffed at the rest...

It's just my opinion tho... and I am just as confident in mine;)

[TopGunner]

that's cool TG..... you are completely entitled to that opinion..

I just don't happen to share it with you...:D

and my :beer: was to her entire post... I just snipped it after the 1st paragraph for space....

but...

I do not think Perry Monore was investigated
I do not think Kim M was properly investigated
I do not think a number of sex offender call-backs were investigated
I think MPD focused in on Scott and scoffed at the rest...

It's just my opinion tho... and I am just as confident in mine;)

Not questioning your entitlement to your opinion, not at all. I'm asking you who told you they weren't investigated properly? Who/what is your source? The rumor mill?

[ekg]

Todd isn't even that good a burglar. He left a glove and hammer on the bed of the Medina's - yet he managed to kidnap a pregnant woman in broad daylight with no sound and leaving no evidence of any struggle?


well he managed to cart out and then throw in the car a safe that needed 3 ppl to carry into the house..... with news vans on the road... and not be noticed..


711. You mentioned earlier a safe a fairly large safe was taken?

712. Yeah.

713. Can we assume the safe was fairly heavy as well with strong reinforcement?

714. Well, when my husband bought it from Costco, he took his cousins to help him.

715. He had to actually have people help him and carry the safe?

716. Yeah.

717. How many people did he have to have to carry the safe?

718. I don't want to call him weakling, but I think he also got his two cousins. I think his two cousins, Joey and Mario to help him.

719. So it took three people to actually put the safe into the house?

720. Hm-hmm.

and he was able to take


721. You also list -- and I'll just run through this. Automotive tools; is that right?

722. Yes.

723. Various different kinds of other types of tools, hammers, pliers, those kinds of things?

724. Hm-hmm.

725. Another large tool box. Do you recall another 24-inch tool box?

726. Yes.

727. Again, did that have tools this it, do you recall?

728. I can't recall if it has the tools.

729. Now there were also -- well, actually it lists as item No. 53, numerous items inside the tool box. There were also tools in the tool box.

730. My husband would know more his tools.

and cart it away on a bicylce with news vans on the road without being seen..


so he must have known what he was doing IMO

[TopGunner]

well he managed to cart out and then throw in the car a safe that needed 3 ppl to carry into the house..... with news vans on the road... and not be noticed..



and he was able to take



and cart it away on a bicylce with news vans on the road without being seen..


so he must have known what he was doing IMO



I think carting a safe, and taking hours to do it, oh...and "possibly" a toolbox is a wee bit different that kidnapping a pregnant woman with a dog, taking her home to change cloths, and then taking her to some place with water :confused: later.

IMO of course. :D

[ekg]

Edited to add: Don't you think that at some point, in just talking to the neighbors about Laci's disappearance and finding Mac., Karen verified who the neighbors were that were raking?
I would be very surprised to learn this didn't happen.
How about the LE investigators. Don't you think at some point when talking and questioning the neighbors, they verified who was raking.
Don't you think the neighbors that were out raking would tell LE they were outside raking at that time? I think so.


exactly....... and since she she says

" was coming from either the Hogan's backyard or the Dunger's backyard. I think it was the Hogan's."

that tells me either she didn't ask...b/c she doesn't know which on it was... or she asked it wasn't them..



IMO, I agree.... either KS or LE would have asked tho........ so IMO she didn't know at the time of her testimony b/c they denied it being them....

[Lavindar]

Nwe don't know if he was able to cover up the crime scene or not b/c IMO one has never been found... you just assume the house has to be the crimes scene b/c its the only way Scott can be guilty.. in fact the only way the house can be a crime scene AND it be Scott is if there isn't a noticable "crime" at the house.... if there was blood and mess it couldn't be Scott...

so we don't know if Perry was able to clean it up or not somewhere else b/c Perry is in a nut house and he ain't talking...

as for his crime? You mean the one that he was arrested for?

sure, that was june 23 2003.... and your point is?


are you saying that b/c Milam was killed in June 2003 that Monroe couldn't have killed Laci??

Did I say that? I don't think so. But he DID have some parts of her body in his possession, didn't he? Did he have any of laci's?

[Miss Bootsie]

Let me start by saying that my theory was based on the idea she was PARTIALLY submerged in water which, IMO, would be consistent with the condition of her body..the upper part of her body was much more decomposed than the lower part of her body..the witness who found her body testified that she was PARTIALLY submerged..

IMO:

-Based on my theory: the edges of her uterus were already friable and crumbly BEFORE she was placed on the shore..that part of her body (the top of the fundus) was not submerged in water when she was found...so it was exposed to the splashing water but it was also exposed to wind, not enough for the already friable edges to become soft and macerated...

-Based on the body being submerged in the bay for 4 months: the tissues of the uterus would have retained a lot of water...there would have been no chance for the edges of the uterus to become friable and crumbly by the time the autopsy took place.....as I mentioned before, the humidity was fairly high that day, it also rained for a bit, the water was splashing over her body...it was an overcast day ..even with the wind it would have taken a very long time for those SUPPOSEDLY macerated tissues to dry out to the point of being friable and easily be reduced to powder..

The ME also testified that the fundus was frayed...that indicates to me that there was an incision in that area..

Thanks for the reply, but you failed to address my question.

Going by your theory the body was planted, how did that exposed area that was friable (reduced to powder) and crumbly remain intact? After the abductors prepared the body to transport, transported the body, and then placed the body on the shore,- and after the body was found, preparing and carrying the body from the site, and transporting to the morgue -how did that friable area remain in tact in order for there to be a friable, crumbly edge, for Dr. Peterson to examine?


Definition of friable that you provided:
Originally post by attorneywan2be:Easily reduced to powder.
In bacteriology, denoting a dry and brittle culture falling into powder when touched or shaken

Also, please quote the TS where Dr. Peterson stated the fundus was frayed.

[The R]

Excuse the over simplification and also my possible faulty recall. This witness was not allowed to testify because of improper hypnosis from LE. Her statements to the police prior to the hypnosis, IIRC, were brought in through cross examination of the LE officer's report.

Thanks for the info.......I just wasn't sure that hypnosis results were admissible.....still not....lol.

ALLMO,
R

[Lavindar]

well he managed to cart out and then throw in the car a safe that needed 3 ppl to carry into the house..... with news vans on the road... and not be noticed..


Empty news vans and it was still dark outside.


and he was able to take



and cart it away on a bicylce with news vans on the road without being seen..

Testimony that shows he took all those things on his bicycle?


so he must have known what he was doing IMO[/QUOTE]

[Lavindar]

VERY GOOD JOB WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO :beer:

On the HIG, wasn't there a judge or something near Laci or Covena that had had a run in with them sometime around the same time? or saw someone 'casing' houses or something?? but he was also ignored and scoffed at by MPD...

and didn't the LE guy with the boots.... what was his name... grrrr He wore the boots..didn't he?? he was like the head of the LE department or a DA or something.....
grrrrrrr what was his name..... Brazil or something..he waved a gun around the office...

anyway. ...anyway, hadn't he just lost a murder trial where the hubby supposedly killed his wife?? Like he was going to loose another one...:rolleyes:

and I think he was the one who scoffed at the 'cult' theory..... but had something major to do with the prosecution of another cult murder..

God I hate it when a name is on the tip of my tongue.......... HA!

anyway..... Great Post woo, Thanks for chiming in.. I couldn't agree more with one of your earlier posts saying it was very hard to make one these posts b/c ppl want to demand links and such.. But you did a good job..:beer:



and it's all just my own opinion....

He was three or four blocks away and it was NOT a HIG. You seem to think everything is a HIG. Get over it. It was a panhandler who came to his door. The Judge lived in a much more affluent area than The Peterson's did

[ekg]

Before I attempt to answer this, I have two questions, anyone can answer and I may not post again for a bit (I was outvoted on clean up as well...there's something wrong with this system!), so forgive me.

1. What does HIG stand for? I think I know, but vanity dictates I ask rather than throw what I think out there! :o

2. [QUOTE]When responding to a post like Eek did, does everyone simply copy and paste the


Eek??

:eek:


hehe....

[TopGunner]

He was three or four blocks away and it was NOT a HIG. You seem to think everything is a HIG. Get over it. It was a panhandler who came to his door. The Judge lived in a much more affluent area than The Peterson's did


I have never had a HIG in my town. I've lived here close to 30 years. Is this a common thing?

[TopGunner]

Not questioning your entitlement to your opinion, not at all. I'm asking you who told you they weren't investigated properly? Who/what is your source? The rumor mill?

Bu......bu..........bum.............bumpin up my question (in case anyone feels inspired to answer it). :D

[ekg]

Before I attempt to answer this, I have two questions, anyone can answer and I may not post again for a bit (I was outvoted on clean up as well...there's something wrong with this system!), so forgive me.

1. What does HIG stand for? I think I know, but vanity dictates I ask rather than throw what I think out there! :o

2. When responding to a post like Eek did, does everyone simply copy and paste the [Quote] beginnings and ends, or am I missing an easier way? Is this not the 21st Century? Can I not think what I want real hard and have it appear? When your not a typist (I'm a pecker!), posting sometimes takes forever! :mad:


Im sorry fry.... I guess it helps if I finish what I was saying.

you can highlight what you want to reply to and then click this little icon

http://img37.imagevenue.com/loc959/th_14646_fry_122_959lo.JPG (http://img37.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=14646_fry_122_959lo.JPG)CLICK TO ENLARGE

[TopGunner]

Bu......bu..........bum.............bumpin up my question (in case anyone feels inspired to answer it). :D


OK, well then, I will take the silence to mean that there is no source, it's just literally made up which really doesn't do this board a lot of good.

[ekg]

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/docs/autopsy.html?page=1



remains of pelvis, two thighs and one lower extremity....:eek:

Laci was also missing one leg...

very weird...both pregnant,both olive skinned, both found in the bay, both around the same age...and remains are pretty similar..

how long was EH in the bay? was it the same amount of time that Laci was?

Thanks for the link L

[One2Snoop]

Thanks for the info.......I just wasn't sure that hypnosis results were admissible.....still not....lol.

ALLMO,
R

Here you go The R :seeya:

HYPNOSIS TESTIMONY DISCUSSED
February 18, 2004

Testimony from a hypnotized prosecution witness will not be allowed in trial, Judge Alfred
Delucchi ruled in San Mateo County Superior Court, handing a victory to the defense.

Judge Delucchi ruled that testimony from a woman who police had hypnotized will be
barred, ruling the hypnosis was not conducted in accordance with state law.

"It's not even a close question; there's no compliance," Geragos said.

He was referring to Dale Pennington, a clinical psychologist at Behavior Analysis
Training Institute in Santa Rosa and a former sheriff's deputy who
questioned Kristen Dempewolf when she was under hypnosis.

Dempewolf's testimony might have been used to counter likely defense witnesses who
said they saw Laci Peterson walking her dog after the time her husband said he left
to go fishing the day she was reported missing — Christmas Eve 2002.

Distaso conceded that he did not know until Tuesday that Pennington is not licensed
in California — a requirement for testimony from a hypnotized witness.

http://www.findlaci2003.us/hypnosis-2-18-04.html

[attorneywan2be]

remains of pelvis, two thighs and one lower extremity....:eek:

Laci was also missing one leg...

very weird...both pregnant,both olive skinned, both found in the bay, both around the same age...and remains are pretty similar..

how long was EH in the bay? was it the same amount of time that Laci was?

Thanks for the link L

She was missing for almost 3 months..as far as I remember, she disappeared on May 1st..and was found on July 23rd or around that date..

[Lavindar]

GERAGOS: Okay. Did something unusual occur on 12/23 at about 10:15?

CORDOVA: Someone knocked at my, on my door. I was, I think, already asleep, and my daughter alerted me to someone on the, on the front door, so I got up and answered the door.

GERAGOS: Okay. And what happened?

CORDOVA: There was a man walking away from my door, on the lawn. So I opened the door and asked him what he wanted and talked to him.

GERAGOS: Did you, did he indicate or make any indications to you as to why he was there?

CORDOVA: He was asking for money to help, I think his girlfriend had been stranded up in the foothills near Greely Hill, visiting, I believe, a sick relative, and her car had broken down, and he said she had the ATM card or the checkbook and was asking to borrow money from me.

GERAGOS: Okay.

CORDOVA: Or I guess for me, for me to give money to him.

GERAGOS: Okay. You were a lawyer in the Public Defender's office?

CORDOVA: Yes, I was.

GERAGOS: Okay. Was there something about that story that didn't ring true to you?

CORDOVA: The, the person mentioned that he had gone to other houses in the neighborhood and that other people hadn't been home, and I was the only one that had been home. So that sounded a little unusual to me.

GERAGOS: Okay. Did you have a belief as to what was going on there?

CORDOVA: I thought he was probably casing the neighborhood to see who was home. It was just before Christmas, and that seems to be a prime time for burglaries.

GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically on Christmas day, did you talk to a Detective Sebron Banks of the Modesto Police Department?

CORDOVA: Yes, I did.

GERAGOS: Okay. Did you know, prior to that did you know Detective Banks?

CORDOVA: Yes, I did.

GERAGOS: And specifically did you talk to him about this person that had come to the house on the 23rd?

CORDOVA: Yes, I did.

GERAGOS: Okay. And what did you do? What, what happened after that?

CORDOVA: I, the person that had come to the house mentioned that he had been staying in the neighborhood with a car, where a white station wagon was. So I walked with him towards the house with the white station wagon. And arrived near the corner of Encina and Edgebrook, excuse me, Covena and Edgebrook.
. Did you make any indication that you thought that the sandals might have something to do with anything?

CORDOVA: I, I think I made a comment: I wonder if these have anything to do with that.

GERAGOS: With what?

CORDOVA: With Ms. Peterson's disappearance.

GERAGOS: Okay. Specifically the, at some point on the 26th of December were you driving in the neighborhood?

CORDOVA: Yes.

GERAGOS: And did you observe a Modesto police search team?

CORDOVA: Yes, I did.

GERAGOS: Did you recognize somebody, a Doug Ridenour?

CORDOVA: Yes, I did.

GERAGOS: Did you tell him about the person who had been what you believed casing his home, the, on the 23rd?

CORDOVA: I briefly told him about that, and he suggested that I wait and talk to the sergeant that was in charge of the, of the search. And I waited and did that.

GERAGOS: Okay. And at that point did you wait and talk to somebody?

CORDOVA: Yes, I did.

GERAGOS: Okay. At some point did you, at that point talk to a neighbor of yours?

CORDOVA: Yes, I did.

GERAGOS: Okay. And the neighbor indicate also that another, a person had come by their house as well?

CORDOVA: Yes.

GERAGOS: The same person?

CORDOVA: That's correct.

Cross Examination by Birgit Fladager


FLADAGER: The individual that came to your house on December 23rd at about 10:00 o'clock at night came up and essentially was asking you for money; is that correct?

CORDOVA: That's correct.

FLADAGER: And indicated he needed, because he had a girlfriend he needed money?

CORDOVA: Yes.[/COLOR]

FLADAGER: She was stranded. Have you ever in your work at the Public Defender's office come across people running scams similar to that?

CORDOVA: Yes.

FLADAGER: And these scams were perhaps people who are in need of money or, are homeless or have some other problem and decide, if they go knock on a door and present some sort of a sad story, that there are a lot of people out there who are kind enough to go ahead and give them money?

CORDOVA: That's correct.

FLADAGER: And that's with some frequency?

CORDOVA: I believe so, yes.

FLADAGER: Do you find that that's done more frequently, or in your experience do you find it's done more frequently in nicer neighborhoods, more affluent neighborhoods?

CORDOVA: More than likely.

Where's the GANG?

[Luke Davis]

[QUOTE=frydaddy;8923777]Before I attempt to answer this, I have two questions, anyone can answer and I may not post again for a bit (I was outvoted on clean up as well...there's something wrong with this system!), so forgive me.

1. What does HIG stand for? I think I know, but vanity dictates I ask rather than throw what I think out there! :o

2. does everyone simply copy and paste the


Eek??

:eek:


hehe....

HIG hunting season opens (http://dot.kde.org/1178743323/)

[Lavindar]

Here you go The R :seeya:

HYPNOSIS TESTIMONY DISCUSSED
February 18, 2004

Testimony from a hypnotized prosecution witness will not be allowed in trial, Judge Alfred
Delucchi ruled in San Mateo County Superior Court, handing a victory to the defense.

Judge Delucchi ruled that testimony from a woman who police had hypnotized will be
barred, ruling the hypnosis was not conducted in accordance with state law.

"It's not even a close question; there's no compliance," Geragos said.

He was referring to Dale Pennington, a clinical psychologist at Behavior Analysis
Training Institute in Santa Rosa and a former sheriff's deputy who
questioned Kristen Dempewolf when she was under hypnosis.

Dempewolf's testimony might have been used to counter likely defense witnesses who
said they saw Laci Peterson walking her dog after the time her husband said he left
to go fishing the day she was reported missing — Christmas Eve 2002.

Distaso conceded that he did not know until Tuesday that Pennington is not licensed
in California — a requirement for testimony from a hypnotized witness.

http://www.findlaci2003.us/hypnosis-2-18-04.html


Yet Geragos has the NERVE to list Diane Jackson as a witness, someone who was hypnotised by the same person. He KNEW Diane's testimony would not be allowed and she had the dignity and grace to ABIDE by the gag order, which many of the defense witnesses did not - including Hollywood Mark himself.

[Lavindar]

Not questioning your entitlement to your opinion, not at all. I'm asking you who told you they weren't investigated properly? Who/what is your source? The rumor mill? Marlene? Bitwiz? That unmentionable site?

[ekg]

Not questioning your entitlement to your opinion, not at all. I'm asking you who told you they weren't investigated properly? Who/what is your source? The rumor mill?

rumor mill? no-no,LOL... I only found about them recently... in fact about 3 days after I 1st signed on here.... I mentioned something about Perry M and was asked for links.. and that was one I found..

moo about them not checking everything was from testimony and news clips........ they didn't follow up on tips/sightings, they didn't do anything more than call sex offenders and took them at their words on their alibi.. in one case they even said suspect has no marks or bruises on him, and it had to be changed b/c it was a phone interview...

and IIRC most of those interviews were done right before the trial...... a little late IMO..

all it would take for this case to no longer be about SP.....is for ONE of those sighting to really be her...but so many credible ppl were ignored...like the ex-cop who called in his tip a cpl times and never heard anything back IIRC. why would he be ignored? b/c he said she was wearing what Scott described, and MPD didn't think she ever changed out of what she wore that night to the salon, so they didn't find him credible..

IMO the sad part is that they had no idea if she would be found in black pants/white top and they still ignored the sightings... they didn't know until Ap. that she wasn't in thos black pants....but b/c they didn't believe Scott, they didn't look if anyone reported her in the clothes he mentioned...imo

now you can say they didn't believe Scott b/c he lied, so who would believe him..... but they took a chance that would piss me off if it was my kid, and they ignored the sighting b/c of the clothes they couldn't be sure of one way or the other...imo

[Otter]

The current horrific murders of the Petit family was done by two thugs who had no prior history of violence. It seems they had no car as they were apprehended leaving the burning house in the Petit car. My theory of why they killed this family is the fear of leaving them alive to later ID them. The perps spent some hours with this family and forced the mother to the bank for cash. After coming back from the bank they were faced with these 4 witnesses. IMO, that doesn't leave many choices in the mind of a thug.

Since Todd voiced concerns about being linked to the " missing woman with the baby", IMO, he wanted to pick a date that was anything but the 24th. Again, IMO, he had to change the date when when he realized the Medina's were back home by 27th.

I wouldn't put too much stock in anything Todd said as he was a known low life with a long criminial history.

I'm way behind in this thread ... but somehow I KNEW that this would come up. Jusifcation, appeasement, blah, blah, blah.

Ummm, the bodies of that unfortunate family were left in the house. No barrels, bathtubs, nuttin. Which is the whole point... They were left there. Any thug knows that you don't bother with the body. Too much work to move, IMO.

[Miss Bootsie]

Thanks for the reply, but you failed to address my question.

Going by your theory the body was planted, how did that exposed area that was friable (reduced to powder) and crumbly remain intact? After the abductors prepared the body to transport, transported the body, and then placed the body on the shore,- and after the body was found, preparing and carrying the body from the site, and transporting to the morgue -how did that friable area remain in tact in order for there to be a friable, crumbly edge, for Dr. Peterson to examine?


Definition of friable that you provided:


Also, please quote the TS where Dr. Peterson stated the fundus was frayed.

Edited to add:
This is your theory on how the body was stored.
she was PARTIALLY submerged in water which, IMO, would be consistent with the condition of her body..the upper part of her body was much more decomposed than the lower part of her body
So, we know there was not any adipocere on the upper part of the body, but we do know there was adipocere on the lower part of the body.
Dr. Peterson also testified that the adiopocere was a crumbly white material at the time he examined the body.

PETERSON: The duct tape was right here, going over the front of the leg on the right. I guess the other change I could point out is all this crumbly white material, that's adipocere that I was talking about. So that's the fat that's undergone a chemical change in a cold, moist environment.

Do you agree the adiopocere dried out after the body was submerged in water to become a crumbly white material before Dr. Peterson examined the body.

[attorneywan2be]

Thanks for the reply, but you failed to address my question.

Going by your theory the body was planted, how did that exposed area that was friable (reduced to powder) and crumbly remain intact? After the abductors prepared the body to transport, transported the body, and then placed the body on the shore,- and after the body was found, preparing and carrying the body from the site, and transporting to the morgue -how did that friable area remain in tact in order for there to be a friable, crumbly edge, for Dr. Peterson to examine?


Definition of friable that you provided:


Also, please quote the TS where Dr. Peterson stated the fundus was frayed.

How do we know the edges of the fundus were intact? maybe some of the edges did reduce to powder as she was being transported..!!

As to the testimony your requested:

Mark Geragos: Right. So we know that the, we have got in, uterus that's extended, and it's frayed, roughly the 9th rib., We have got a frayed end on the 9th rib, correct?
Brian Peterson: The fundus of the uterus was frayed and friable., The end of the rib was frayed. That's what we had.
Mark Geragos: Thank you. No further questions.

[Otter]

www.peoplefinders.com. Go for it.

Could you provide a description as to what this link is to? I don't "go for it" because you think its a good idea. I don't think its a good idea.

:seeya: Safe internetting!

[TopGunner]

rumor mill? no-no,LOL... I only found about them recently... in fact about 3 days after I 1st signed on here.... I mentioned something about Perry M and was asked for links.. and that was one I found..

moo about them not checking everything was from testimony and news clips........ they didn't follow up on tips/sightings, they didn't do anything more than call sex offenders and took them at their words on their alibi.. in one case they even said suspect has no marks or bruises on him, and it had to be changed b/c it was a phone interview...

and IIRC most of those interviews were done right before the trial...... a little late IMO..

all it would take for this case to no longer be about SP.....is for ONE of those sighting to really be her...but so many credible ppl were ignored...like the ex-cop who called in his tip a cpl times and never heard anything back IIRC. why would he be ignored? b/c he said she was wearing what Scott described, and MPD didn't think she ever changed out of what she wore that night to the salon, so they didn't find him credible..

IMO the sad part is that they had no idea if she would be found in black pants/white top and they still ignored the sightings... they didn't know until Ap. that she wasn't in thos black pants....but b/c they didn't believe Scott, they didn't look if anyone reported her in the clothes he mentioned...imo

now you can say they didn't believe Scott b/c he lied, so who would believe him..... but they took a chance that would piss me off if it was my kid, and they ignored the sighting b/c of the clothes they couldn't be sure of one way or the other...imo


ekg, I DO appreciate the response, and it's a good one, but IMO - if they didn't follow up more thoroughly on leads, it was simply because they already had their man. Really, just that simple.

[ekg]

Marlene? Bitwiz? That unmentionable site?

for the last time...... I do not know Marlene.... I did not post with Marlene... I do not know of a website with Marlene.... please do not link me with Marlene...

who is Bitwiz? if she/he was part of CTV, I don't recognize the name....b/c that(ctv) is where I got my info.....along with the TS I bought and paid for like a whole lot of other ppl.

and since it's an unmentionable site.. I can't comment..... but once again, during the trial I was a CTV poster only.......it wasn't until after the verdict that I went to 'private' site that has been disbanded b/c the owner was a Katrina survivor and had more important things to worry about, and even by that time SP was hardly ever mentioned..it became a file sharing place if anything......... and they didn't like Marlene much either IIRC..and the reason I don't remember is b/c she was not someone I posted with or about or used her info....

ok?! I used CTV and Timex......... now I use Timex,SII,CNN,petersonblog,crimenews2000, Mod bee and other random(but credible) sources.....

[Miss Bootsie]

How do we know the edges of the fundus were intact? maybe some of the edges did reduce to powder as she was being transported..!!

As to the testimony your requested:

Mark Geragos: Right. So we know that the, we have got in, uterus that's extended, and it's frayed, roughly the 9th rib., We have got a frayed end on the 9th rib, correct?
Brian Peterson: The fundus of the uterus was frayed and friable., The end of the rib was frayed. That's what we had.
Mark Geragos: Thank you. No further questions.

This is your theory on how the body was stored.

Quote:
she was PARTIALLY submerged in water which, IMO, would be consistent with the condition of her body..the upper part of her body was much more decomposed than the lower part of her body

So, we know there was not any adipocere on the upper part of the body, but we do know there was adipocere on the lower part of the body.
Dr. Peterson also testified that the adiopocere was a crumbly white material at the time he examined the body.



PETERSON: The duct tape was right here, going over the front of the leg on the right. I guess the other change I could point out is all this crumbly white material, that's adipocere that I was talking about. So that's the fat that's undergone a chemical change in a cold, moist environment.

Do you agree the adiopocere dried out after the body was submerged in water to become a crumbly white material before Dr. Peterson examined the body.

[ekg]

I think carting a safe, and taking hours to do it, oh...and "possibly" a toolbox is a wee bit different that kidnapping a pregnant woman with a dog, taking her home to change cloths, and then taking her to some place with water :confused: later.

IMO of course. :D

I agree....... IMO the women would be easier...:tongue:

[TopGunner]

How do we know the edges of the fundus were intact? maybe some of the edges did reduce to powder as she was being transported..!!

As to the testimony your requested:

Mark Geragos: Right. So we know that the, we have got in, uterus that's extended, and it's frayed, roughly the 9th rib., We have got a frayed end on the 9th rib, correct?
Brian Peterson: The fundus of the uterus was frayed and friable., The end of the rib was frayed. That's what we had.
Mark Geragos: Thank you. No further questions.


So we're taking one short sentence from Dr. Peterson and turning that into this incredible burglars-who-passed-the-lie-detector-test-stole-and-murdered Laci-storing-her-HALF-WAY-in-salt-water-somewhere AND disregarding the rest of his testimony (hours) where he CLEARLY stated Laci was in the SFB for months, and Conner was expelled during that time?

Yeeshhhhhhhhhhhh......... !:cuss:

[ekg]

Bu......bu..........bum.............bumpin up my question (in case anyone feels inspired to answer it). :D

"If you're edged 'cause I'm weazin all your grindage, just chill. 'Cause if I had the whole brady bunch thing happenin' at my pad, I'd go grind over there, so dont tax my gig so hard-core cruster."


and

"I was Weezin' the juice!"




yeah encino man is on in my house right now..:D :lol:

but yeah, I was chowing and couldn't answer...sorry

[ekg]

N

Did I say that? I don't think so. But he DID have some parts of her body in his possession, didn't he? Did he have any of laci's?

not that I know of........ but at 6 months later maybe he had already dumped what he had and wanted new stuff....:shrug:

[Lavindar]

Could you provide a description as to what this link is to? I don't "go for it" because you think its a good idea. I don't think its a good idea.



:seeya: Safe internetting!I agree - a blanket link to a site is useless. Can't she link and also copy and post the information?

[Otter]

Thanks you for the points. LOL. DO I lose some points because I don't understand the soaking in various bathtubs.(I thought maybe concrete cisterns or drums)

Does it show that someone with no previous history of violence or crime, of any kind, is more or less likely to murder than a thug encountering a witness or witnesses to their crime.

Is your "LOL", about the theory that Laci wasn't dumped in the bathtub as your colleagues believe? A well???? And a drum is nothing like a well.

As to your second paragraph, I have to agree. Yeah, it happens. But then I bring up your first paragraph ... why would "thugs" go to this tremendous amount of effort? What do they care? They're "thugs". The crime is of the moment, IMO, not to do what you profess happened to Laci. They didn't take her to a bank. They didn't set fire to the house.

You disrespect more victims of murder. That's my FIRM opinion. Shame on you, to use the death of 3 innocent people to try to excuse another murderer. MOO.

Ugh, why do I bother? And I still have 2 pages to read. :-(

[TopGunner]

I agree....... IMO the women would be easier...:tongue:

Well, to each their own! :tongue:

I can tell you this FOR SURE however - when I was as pregnant as Laci was, first off, the last thing I'd do (and I'm pretty fearless) would confront ANYONE about ANYTHING.

However, if cornerd, those burglars would be high-tailing it to the police station with me chasing them.

Whenever we heard a weird noise in the house, my husband handed ME the baseball bat! :biggrin:

[attorneywan2be]

MODESTO, Calif. — Scott Peterson opted to leave the courtroom at his preliminary hearing Monday rather than listen to the graphic testimony of a pathologist who examined the badly decomposed remains of his murdered wife and unborn son.

"I do not wish to be present," Peterson informed Superior Court Judge Al Girolami as the medical examiner who performed the autopsies of his wife, Laci, and the child they planned to name Conner, took the stand.

When the judge asked if anyone was pressuring him to depart, Peterson replied, "No, it's a choice."

His lawyer implied that Peterson would find the pathologist's account too wrenching. As bailiffs escorted Peterson from the court, he nodded grimly at his parents in the front row.

What he missed was a witness prosecutors hope will destroy the defense suggestion that Laci Peterson, nearly eight months pregnant at the time of her disappearance, was held until she gave birth and then killed.

If the murders occurred later than Dec. 24, the day Peterson reported his wife missing, the 31-year-old fertilizer salesman would all but be exonerated since he was under constant police scrutiny then.

But Dr. Brian Peterson, no relation to the couple, told the judge that the condition of the bodies indicated Laci Peterson was dumped into the bay still carrying her child.

The pathologist said that some time later, after weeks and perhaps months of massive decay to Laci Peterson's body, the child's remains eventually separated from her womb.

The remains of the fetus washed onto the shore of San Francisco Bay April 13 and Laci Peterson's the following day.

Dr. Peterson testified that the mother-to-be's remains were so badly decomposed that he could not determine how she was killed and could not offer a time of death more precise than "some months" before she was discovered.

Her head, forearms, hands, lower legs and most of her internal organs were missing. The fetus, on the other hand, showed signs of internal decomposition, but its skin was not missing or marred to the degree that Laci Peterson's was.

The doctor said he concluded the child's remains were less decayed because he was protected by his mother's uterus.

"With time, tidal action and animal feeding the uterus wore away and at that time, the fetus was released," said the medical examiner.

He said Laci Peterson did not deliver vaginally and there were no incision marks indicating a Caesarian section.

The doctor also cast doubt on the signficance of a tape found around the fetus' neck. The defense has suggested the tape is proof that the couple's child was born alive and then involved in some sort of ritualistic killing. But the doctor said the packing tape was "either flotsam or jetsam" that washed onto the body as it traveled through the water.



Pathologist Peterson said tape found on baby's neck was flotsam


Both defense lawyer Mark Geragos and the judge quizzed Dr. Peterson about that conclusion, asking how the relatively tight loop could have passed over the fetus' head. The pathologist said it was possible because the head had collapsed as it decayed.

Geragos noted that a bag was found near the bodies on the bayshore and hypothesized that the baby was born alive, placed in the bag and the bag secured with the tape.

The pathologist agreed the bag would have provided protection too, but said, "Based on the condition of the bodies, I don't think it's a likely choice and certainly, it's not my top choice."

AW2B - it befuddles me to no end why you think your theory surpasses a gentlemen trained, educated, and experienced in this arena.

What exactly are your credentials, i.e., backgroud that makes you believe you know better? This is not a sarcastic remark, I sincerely want to know.


Why the large fonts?

I formed my opinion based on commonsense/researching medical sites.. AND based on expert opinions such as Dr. Wecht..I do believe that Dr. Peterson was biased and tailored his opinion to support the prosecution theory as much as he was able to...what he said is basically a theory..what Dr. Wecht said is also a theory...for example, he theorized that Conner could have been in a bag that provided him with a protected environment...given the bodies conditions there was enough room for the medical examiner to theorize..IMO, he simply adopted the prosecution theory..!

[TopGunner]

Is your "LOL", about the theory that Laci wasn't dumped in the bathtub as your colleagues believe? A well???? And a drum is nothing like a well.

As to your second paragraph, I have to agree. Yeah, it happens. But then I bring up your first paragraph ... why would "thugs" go to this tremendous amount of effort? What do they care? They're "thugs". The crime is of the moment, IMO, not to do what you profess happened to Laci. They didn't take her to a bank. They didn't set fire to the house.

You disrespect more victims of murder. That's my FIRM opinion. Shame on you, to use the death of 3 innocent people to try to excuse another murderer. MOO.

Ugh, why do I bother? And I still have 2 pages to read. :-(


Oh dear Otter, please don't give up.......if you keep reading, I promise you, you'll be highly entertained by the imaginations around here. If nothing else.:patriot:

[TopGunner]

Why the large fonts?

I formed my opinion based on commonsense/researching medical sites.. AND based on expert opinions such as Dr. Wecht..I do believe that Dr. Peterson was biased and tailored his opinion to support the prosecution theory as much as he was able to...what he said is basically a theory..what Dr. Wecht said is also a theory...for example, he theorized that Conner could have been in a bag that provided him with a protected environment...given the bodies conditions there was enough room for the medical examiner to theorize..IMO, he simply adopted the prosecution theory..!



Why the question about the large font? I wanted it to stand apart from the article I copied, and didn't know how BIG the numbers meant. #3 sounded reasonable, sorry if it OFFENDED you.

I'll take Petersons common sense and formal qualifications any day.

[ekg]

Empty news vans and it was still dark outside.



Testimony that shows he took all those things on his bicycle?


so he must have known what he was doing IMO[/QUOTE]

MG/Hicks testimony

92. Okay. The first time you report, at least I'm looking at your report, you don't have a supplemental, well, you do have a supplemental, but in the initial report he says he didn't go back until December 27th, right?

93. Right. The date was clarified in a separate property done by Detective Stough.

94. Okay. He said at approximately 3:00 in the morning on the 27th[B] he road his bicycle back to the Medina's house, correct?

95. Yes.

96. And he said that he, that when he arrived he parked his bicycle near the fence, right?

97. Yes.

98. And then he jumped into the backyard, right?

99. Yes.

100. And he said he started looking around the shed, right?

101. Correct.

102. A[B]nd then he saw, went inside the shed and he saw air tools, Craftsman air tools, air stapler, air compressor, a weed eater and an air blower, correct?

103. Yes.

104. And he said he loaded several of these items into a backpack, right?

105. Yes.

106. Then he loaded it or stacked the larger items near the fence by the Covena side of the house; is that right?

107. Yes.

108. Then he said he road his bike from that house at 3:30 in the morning, right?

109. Yes. I think it was between 4:00 and 5:00, actually.

110. Well, if I understand your report correct, it looks like he left at 3:30 and went back to his house and then between 4:00 and 5:00 he went back to the Medina's again?

111. Yes.

112. Okay. And he again said he was on his bicycle; is that right?

113. That's correct.

114. Okay. And he said that he walked around the backyard and made noises, he said he made noises himself?

115. Yes.

116. To make sure no one was home at the residence?

117. Yes.

118. Okay. Went over to a set of French doors, right?

119. Correct.

120. Used his foot to push open the doors?

121. Yes.

122. Then got into the house and he described what he did in the house, correct?

123. Yes.

124. Okay. And said he got a dolly from the backyard and he used that dolly to move the safe from the master bedroom out the front door of the residence to the porch area; is that correct?

125. Yes.

126. And then he said he moved that safe behind several bushes on the porch that were located just south of the front door, right?

127. Yes.

128. And after he moved the safe, he immediately got on his bicycle and road back to his residence?

129. Yes.

130. Okay. And he says he was riding away for the second time he noticed an elderly female at a residence located on the south side outside feeding her cats, correct?

131. Correct.






FLADAGER/Hicks testimony

35. How did you know Mr. Todd?

36. I have known Mr. Todd for about seven years.

37. And is that as a result of your being a police officer?

38. Yes it is.

39. Your contact with Mr. Todd over the course of those seven years, did you ever know him to have a car?

40. He's never had a car. He's always road a bicycle.

41. In fact, with his riding a bicycle, you have been aware of that for seven years?

42. Yes.

[attorneywan2be]

VERY GOOD JOB WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO :beer:

On the HIG, wasn't there a judge or something near Laci or Covena that had had a run in with them sometime around the same time? or saw someone 'casing' houses or something?? but he was also ignored and scoffed at by MPD...

and didn't the LE guy with the boots.... what was his name... grrrr He wore the boots..didn't he?? he was like the head of the LE department or a DA or something.....
grrrrrrr what was his name..... Brazil or something..he waved a gun around the office...

anyway. ...anyway, hadn't he just lost a murder trial where the hubby supposedly killed his wife?? Like he was going to loose another one...:rolleyes:

and I think he was the one who scoffed at the 'cult' theory..... but had something major to do with the prosecution of another cult murder..

God I hate it when a name is on the tip of my tongue.......... HA!

anyway..... Great Post woo, Thanks for chiming in.. I couldn't agree more with one of your earlier posts saying it was very hard to make one these posts b/c ppl want to demand links and such.. But you did a good job..:beer:



and it's all just my own opinion....


You are referring to Jim Brazelton...and I agree woo did a wonderful job...:beer:

[Lavindar]

I agree....... IMO the women would be easier...:tongue:

Todd was a slinny man. Scott was not. Scott belonged to a club where he worked out, yet it would be easier for askinny guy to subdue Laci But she was too heavy for Scott?????????????????????

[Otter]

"If you're edged 'cause I'm weazin all your grindage, just chill. 'Cause if I had the whole brady bunch thing happenin' at my pad, I'd go grind over there, so dont tax my gig so hard-core cruster."


and

"I was Weezin' the juice!"




yeah encino man is on in my house right now..:D :lol:

but yeah, I was chowing and couldn't answer...sorry

So ... these murders ARE just a game to you?

Hopefully, none of my post were entertaining for you. Sheesh. That's really sad ekg. I'm sorry for you.

[Lavindar]

You are referring to Jim Brazelton...and I agree woo did a wonderful job...:beer:
Except she has her facts wrong. The murder in Salida that Brazelton prosecuted was an anarchist group who happened to have a satanic bible in their possession. They killed a family in the late 1980s. They are all still in prison. There was no cult involved. Maybe you should verify your information before passing around the mug

[TopGunner]

FLADAGER/Hicks testimony[/QUOTE]


So does this confirm that he took both the safe and Laci on his bike?

[Lavindar]

Why the question about the large font? I wanted it to stand apart from the article I copied, and didn't know how BIG the numbers meant. #3 sounded reasonable, sorry if it OFFENDED you.

I'll take Petersons common sense and formal qualifications any day.

You call listening to a paid witness common sense? Issn't Dr. Wecht under indictment in his home state of PA? Great qualifications.

Sorry, TG, that is meant for the poster who thinks the indicted criminal Wecht is a god and that what he says on TV is more reliable than a witness who is under oath.

[ekg]

OK, well then, I will take the silence to mean that there is no source, it's just literally made up which really doesn't do this board a lot of good.


Sorry, TG....... I was asked to stop telling ppl when I logged off for the night or for dinner... (which I used to always do so as not to have someone make the wrong assumption on the 'silence')...but for you I will start it up again....
:o

[TopGunner]

Except she has her facts wrong. The murder in Salida that Brazelton prosecuted was an anarchist group who happened to have a satanic bible in their possession. They killed a family in the late 1980s. They are all still in prison. There was no cult involved. Maybe you should verify your information before passing around the mug



LOL!!!:beer:

[ekg]

GERAGOS: Okay. Did something unusual occur on 12/23 at about 10:15?

CORDOVA: Someone knocked at my, on my door. I was, I think, already asleep, and my daughter alerted me to someone on the, on the front door, so I got up and answered the door.

GERAGOS: Okay. And what happened?

CORDOVA: There was a man walking away from my door, on the lawn. So I opened the door and asked him what he wanted and talked to him.

GERAGOS: Did you, did he indicate or make any indications to you as to why he was there?

CORDOVA: He was asking for money to help, I think his girlfriend had been stranded up in the foothills near Greely Hill, visiting, I believe, a sick relative, and her car had broken down, and he said she had the ATM card or the checkbook and was asking to borrow money from me.

GERAGOS: Okay.

CORDOVA: Or I guess for me, for me to give money to him.

GERAGOS: Okay. You were a lawyer in the Public Defender's office?

CORDOVA: Yes, I was.

GERAGOS: Okay. Was there something about that story that didn't ring true to you?

CORDOVA: The, the person mentioned that he had gone to other houses in the neighborhood and that other people hadn't been home, and I was the only one that had been home. So that sounded a little unusual to me.

GERAGOS: Okay. Did you have a belief as to what was going on there?

CORDOVA: I thought he was probably casing the neighborhood to see who was home. It was just before Christmas, and that seems to be a prime time for burglaries.

GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically on Christmas day, did you talk to a Detective Sebron Banks of the Modesto Police Department?

CORDOVA: Yes, I did.

GERAGOS: Okay. Did you know, prior to that did you know Detective Banks?

CORDOVA: Yes, I did.

GERAGOS: And specifically did you talk to him about this person that had come to the house on the 23rd?

CORDOVA: Yes, I did.

GERAGOS: Okay. And what did you do? What, what happened after that?

CORDOVA: I, the person that had come to the house mentioned that he had been staying in the neighborhood with a car, where a white station wagon was. So I walked with him towards the house with the white station wagon. And arrived near the corner of Encina and Edgebrook, excuse me, Covena and Edgebrook.
. Did you make any indication that you thought that the sandals might have something to do with anything?

CORDOVA: I, I think I made a comment: I wonder if these have anything to do with that.

GERAGOS: With what?

CORDOVA: With Ms. Peterson's disappearance.

GERAGOS: Okay. Specifically the, at some point on the 26th of December were you driving in the neighborhood?

CORDOVA: Yes.

GERAGOS: And did you observe a Modesto police search team?

CORDOVA: Yes, I did.

GERAGOS: Did you recognize somebody, a Doug Ridenour?

CORDOVA: Yes, I did.

GERAGOS: Did you tell him about the person who had been what you believed casing his home, the, on the 23rd?

CORDOVA: I briefly told him about that, and he suggested that I wait and talk to the sergeant that was in charge of the, of the search. And I waited and did that.

GERAGOS: Okay. And at that point did you wait and talk to somebody?

CORDOVA: Yes, I did.

GERAGOS: Okay. At some point did you, at that point talk to a neighbor of yours?

CORDOVA: Yes, I did.

GERAGOS: Okay. And the neighbor indicate also that another, a person had come by their house as well?

CORDOVA: Yes.

GERAGOS: The same person?

CORDOVA: That's correct.

Cross Examination by Birgit Fladager


FLADAGER: The individual that came to your house on December 23rd at about 10:00 o'clock at night came up and essentially was asking you for money; is that correct?

CORDOVA: That's correct.

FLADAGER: And indicated he needed, because he had a girlfriend he needed money?

CORDOVA: Yes.[/COLOR]

FLADAGER: She was stranded. Have you ever in your work at the Public Defender's office come across people running scams similar to that?

CORDOVA: Yes.

FLADAGER: And these scams were perhaps people who are in need of money or, are homeless or have some other problem and decide, if they go knock on a door and present some sort of a sad story, that there are a lot of people out there who are kind enough to go ahead and give them money?

CORDOVA: That's correct.

FLADAGER: And that's with some frequency?

CORDOVA: I believe so, yes.

FLADAGER: Do you find that that's done more frequently, or in your experience do you find it's done more frequently in nicer neighborhoods, more affluent neighborhoods?

CORDOVA: More than likely.

Where's the GANG?

Thank you...... as I said, I couldn't remember...

do you know who the "Brazil something" guy is I was also wondering about? I think he was a big part of the case somehow.... and IIRC he liked to wear boots....

I just can't remember his name and I hate it when that happens.... grrrrrr

[Lavindar]

AW2B, I need to point out to you that if you want to believe someone who is paid to believe one thing, that it STILL cannot be used in the appeal and this IS the appeals thread. The man did not testify so his opinion has no bearing on this first stage of the appeal. Hey, the guy gets paid double. once by Geragos and again by Greta. He's got a real racket going on here, doesn't he?

[TopGunner]

Sorry, TG....... I was asked to stop telling ppl when I logged off for the night or for dinner... (which I used to always do so as not to have someone make the wrong assumption on the 'silence')...but for you I will start it up again....
:o



Hey, no prob. at all ekg - you answered my post, mucho gracious!

(sometimes patience IS my virtue, sometimes not, LOL).

[ekg]

ekg, I DO appreciate the response, and it's a good one, but IMO - if they didn't follow up more thoroughly on leads, it was simply because they already had their man. Really, just that simple.

but until her body washed up..... don't you think it prudent to check into all of those sightings? all it would take is for just one to be a valid sighting and Scott didn't do it..

why take that chance? even if you think the guy did it....... why take the chance...

if it was your child, would say..... "Well, the didn't need to investigate any of the tips or sightings b/c they thought they had the right guy"

I would be livid myself...

[Miss Bootsie]

Why the large fonts?

I formed my opinion based on commonsense/researching medical sites.. AND based on expert opinions such as Dr. Wecht..I do believe that Dr. Peterson was biased and tailored his opinion to support the prosecution theory as much as he was able to...what he said is basically a theory..what Dr. Wecht said is also a theory...for example, he theorized that Conner could have been in a bag that provided him with a protected environment...given the bodies conditions there was enough room for the medical examiner to theorize..IMO, he simply adopted the prosecution theory..!

Here you are, just as predicted, trying to discredit the expert witness.

Why didn't Dr. Wecht testify and give his opinion under oath?
I have never received a reasonable answer for that question.
Do you understand the difference in giving an opinion under oath and giving an opinion in the media?

[The R]

Here you go The R :seeya:

HYPNOSIS TESTIMONY DISCUSSED
February 18, 2004

Testimony from a hypnotized prosecution witness will not be allowed in trial, Judge Alfred
Delucchi ruled in San Mateo County Superior Court, handing a victory to the defense.

Judge Delucchi ruled that testimony from a woman who police had hypnotized will be
barred, ruling the hypnosis was not conducted in accordance with state law.

"It's not even a close question; there's no compliance," Geragos said.

He was referring to Dale Pennington, a clinical psychologist at Behavior Analysis
Training Institute in Santa Rosa and a former sheriff's deputy who
questioned Kristen Dempewolf when she was under hypnosis.

Dempewolf's testimony might have been used to counter likely defense witnesses who
said they saw Laci Peterson walking her dog after the time her husband said he left
to go fishing the day she was reported missing — Christmas Eve 2002.

Distaso conceded that he did not know until Tuesday that Pennington is not licensed
in California — a requirement for testimony from a hypnotized witness.

http://www.findlaci2003.us/hypnosis-2-18-04.html


TYVM O2S!!!!
:seeya:

ALLMO,
R

[ekg]

You are referring to Jim Brazelton...and I agree woo did a wonderful job...:beer:

http://www.awimb.com/fudforum/images/smiley_icons/bow.gif

thank you !!!! Thank you!!!!! Thank you.....


ahhhhhhhhhhh now I can rest.....

[TopGunner]

but until her body washed up..... don't you think it prudent to check into all of those sightings? all it would take is for just one to be a valid sighting and Scott didn't do it..

why take that chance? even if you think the guy did it....... why take the chance...

if it was your child, would say..... "Well, the didn't need to investigate any of the tips or sightings b/c they thought they had the right guy"

I would be livid myself...


Good (and fair) question. In another senerio, my answer might be different, but no.......in this case, they had their man. Sharon knew it too. She WANTED with all of her heart and soul for the killer to NOT be ISP, but she knew. If you read her book, she highly commends the work the LE did and ITA. It is beyond difficult to even imagine myself in Sharon's shoes ekg, I doubt I would have been anywhere near as strong as she, I think I'd join my child - however, if I knew what Sharon knew, yes, for sure, I'd be just fine with them not chasing a million dead end leads.

[Miss Bootsie]

You call listening to a paid witness common sense? Issn't Dr. Wecht under indictment in his home state of PA? Great qualifications.

Sorry, TG, that is meant for the poster who thinks the indicted criminal Wecht is a god and that what he says on TV is more reliable than a witness who is under oath.

Totally unbelievable, isn't it?

[TopGunner]

Here you are, just as predicted, trying to discredit the expert witness.

Why didn't Dr. Wecht testify and give his opinion under oath?
I have never received a reasonable answer for that question.
Do you understand the difference in giving an opinion under oath and giving an opinion in the media?



MuWHA Boots! Thank you, thank you, thank you for beating the dead horse, because it appears to be NECESSARY, LOL!!! Poor horsey....:rolleyes:

[ekg]

So ... these murders ARE just a game to you?

Hopefully, none of my post were entertaining for you. Sheesh. That's really sad ekg. I'm sorry for you.


no...... not a game at all..

was just bringing some humor in on why I wasn't around to answer TG question on where I get my sources...

you know, humor....kinda like some ppl were having fun with the Nelly song earlier.....
http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8922743&postcount=3425

maybe next time you would rather I just post a zany picture?
http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8919727&postcount=3011

I can only speak for myself, but I you don't need to sad for me at all....

and with that......... Good night Otter,:seeya:

[ekg]

FLADAGER/Hicks testimony


So does this confirm that he took both the safe and Laci on his bike?[/QUOTE]

no he used the car for the safe.... and Laci..

[Miss Bootsie]

How do we know the edges of the fundus were intact? maybe some of the edges did reduce to powder as she was being transported..!!

As to the testimony your requested:

Mark Geragos: Right. So we know that the, we have got in, uterus that's extended, and it's frayed, roughly the 9th rib., We have got a frayed end on the 9th rib, correct?
Brian Peterson: The fundus of the uterus was frayed and friable., The end of the rib was frayed. That's what we had.
Mark Geragos: Thank you. No further questions.

AW, why would Dr. Peterson's use of the word "frayed" make a difference?

Frayed - To wear, rub, or become worn, as by friction
Frayed is basically the same thing as abraded.
Abrade - to rub or wear off

:confused:

[ekg]

Good (and fair) question. In another senerio, my answer might be different, but no.......in this case, they had their man. Sharon knew it too. She WANTED with all of her heart and soul for the killer to NOT be ISP, but she knew. If you read her book, she highly commends the work the LE did and ITA. It is beyond difficult to even imagine myself in Sharon's shoes ekg, I doubt I would have been anywhere near as strong as she, I think I'd join my child - however, if I knew what Sharon knew, yes, for sure, I'd be just fine with them not chasing a million dead end leads.

I'm way too superstitious to try and walk in her shoes even in my head for any amount of time....I don't ever want to know what she went thru..and I wish to God she was the last mother to ever have to go thru it....:rose:

I understand your scenario, but I think I would still want them to check those early sightings and tips out........ just to put my mind to rest..

[Otter]

no...... not a game at all..

was just bringing some humor in on why I wasn't around to answer TG question on where I get my sources...

you know, humor....kinda like some ppl were having fun with the Nelly song earlier.....
http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8922743&postcount=3425

maybe next time you would rather I just post a zany picture?
http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8919727&postcount=3011

I can only speak for myself, but I you don't need to sad for me at all....

and with that......... Good night Otter,:seeya:

Deflect all you want. Those posts had nothing to do with the murder -- they had to do with something different altogether. Your's did. My opinion only of course.

And I'll still feel sad for you, because I'm a compassionate person. I hope I never get so jaded and cynical that tragedy is funny.

MOO.

[attorneywan2be]

Snip


Dr. Peterson also testified that the adiopocere was a crumbly white material at the time he examined the body.

Snip

Do you agree the adiopocere dried out after the body was submerged in water to become a crumbly white material before Dr. Peterson examined the body.


Nope!! I don't agree simply because adipocere is a white crumbly material..that's the description of adipocere..!


Quote:

Adipocere (Grave Wax)

Soft whitish crumbly or greasy material that forms upon the postmortem hydrolysis and hydrogenation of body fats.

http://www.ucok.edu/funeral/Ken%20Adjunct/Embalming/embalming_glossary.htm

-----------

Quote:

"Adipocere (grave wax) may be formed during the decay process if the condi-tions are suitable and this is capable of influencing the future course of decay(Fiedler and Graw, 2003; Forbes et al., 2004). It is a fatty substance that is variously described as being whitish, greyish or yellowish and with a consis-tency ranging from paste-like to crumbly."

media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/65/04700127/0470012765.pdf

[ekg]

Here you are, just as predicted, trying to discredit the expert witness.

Why didn't Dr. Wecht testify and give his opinion under oath?
I have never received a reasonable answer for that question.
Do you understand the difference in giving an opinion under oath and giving an opinion in the media?

IMO MG thought it was better to get what wehct would say out of the DA witness, than it would be for the jury to hear wecht also agree with the DA's witness on Cross.

I think he would have said everything he said on Greta or where ever..... but he would have been asked if he could prove it and he couldn't.... it was his opinion...

I think it would have been more damaging to have the def. witness agree with the Pros, than it was for the Pros witness to agree with MG

BUT, I think it was mistake to not put him on anyway....

[ekg]

Deflect all you want. Those posts had nothing to do with the murder -- they had to do with something different altogether. Your's did. My opinion only of course.

And I'll still feel sad for you, because I'm a compassionate person. I hope I never get so jaded and cynical that tragedy is funny.

MOO.

no, my post had to deal with why I didn't answer TG question..... that question was why I didn't think LE investigated enough and where I got my info...what sources...

and I'm not sad,cynical or jaded in the least....and I hope no tragedy takes my ability to laugh from me....without humor and smiles in your life, what is the point... IMO

but have a good night anyway....


night all....... must read my book now :seeya:

[Otter]

IMO MG thought it was better to get what wehct would say out of the DA witness, than it would be for the jury to hear wecht also agree with the DA's witness on Cross.

I think he would have said everything he said on Greta or where ever..... but he would have been asked if he could prove it and he couldn't.... it was his opinion...

I think it would have been more damaging to have the def. witness agree with the Pros, than it was for the Pros witness to agree with MG

BUT, I think it was mistake to not put him on anyway....

ITA! This discussion would be totallly different if Dr. Wecht was under oath. But he wasn't. No cross, no redirect, no recross. Just LKL. :rolleyes:

And what a friendly environment LKL was! So much for the media bias IMO.

[Miss Bootsie]

Nope!! I don't agree simply because adipocere is a white crumbly material..that's the description of adipocere..!


Quote:

Adipocere (Grave Wax)

Soft whitish crumbly or greasy material that forms upon the postmortem hydrolysis and hydrogenation of body fats.

http://www.ucok.edu/funeral/Ken%20Adjunct/Embalming/embalming_glossary.htm

-----------

Quote:

"Adipocere (grave wax) may be formed during the decay process if the condi-tions are suitable and this is capable of influencing the future course of decay(Fiedler and Graw, 2003; Forbes et al., 2004). It is a fatty substance that is variously described as being whitish, greyish or yellowish and with a consis-tency ranging from paste-like to crumbly."

media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/65/04700127/0470012765.pdf

So, that settles it. If the adiopocere could be crumbly after forming when submerged in water, the abraded edges of the fundus when submerged in water could also be friable and crumbly.

Thank You AW.;)

[Otter]

no, my post had to deal with why I didn't answer TG question..... that question was why I didn't think LE investigated enough and where I got my info...what sources...

and I'm not sad,cynical or jaded in the least....and I hope no tragedy takes my ability to laugh from me....without humor and smiles in your life, what is the point... IMO

but have a good night anyway....:seeya:

Again, deflect away!

I guess some of us don't see the humor and laughter in this. But that's just me. Since we're both here discussing this tragedy I don't find myself laughing much.

You must be a hoot at a funeral. MOO.

[attorneywan2be]

IMO MG thought it was better to get what wehct would say out of the DA witness, than it would be for the jury to hear wecht also agree with the DA's witness on Cross.

I think he would have said everything he said on Greta or where ever..... but he would have been asked if he could prove it and he couldn't.... it was his opinion...

I think it would have been more damaging to have the def. witness agree with the Pros, than it was for the Pros witness to agree with MG

BUT, I think it was mistake to not put him on anyway....


I totally agree !!

[attorneywan2be]

So, that settles it. If the adiopocere could be crumbly when submerged in water, the abraded edge of the fundus could also be friable and crumbly when submerged in water.

Thanks You AW.;)



LOL..of course not..we are talking about human tissues which would be macerated and soft if they were submerged in water..vs a fatty wax like material which has a crumbly consistency...IMO

[Lavindar]

EKG, do you have a link to that CE yet? I am curious who would have said Laci was ever IN the boat.

[Miss Bootsie]

LOL..of course not..we are talking about human tissues which would be macerated and soft if they were submerged in water..vs a fatty wax like material which has a crumbly consistency...IMO

No, what we are talking about is dead human tissue.
Sure, the abraded edges of the fundus would be soft until exposed to air. Once exposed to air, it would dry out and then become friable and crumbly.
I really think you understand.;)

Nothing but common sense.

[Lavindar]

LOL..of course not..we are talking about human tissues which would be macerated and soft if they were submerged in water..vs a fatty wax like material which has a crumbly consistency...IMO

http://scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/Pwitnesses/Petersonbrian.htm

http://www.deathonline.net/decomposition/body_changes/grave_wax.htm

Laci's tissues were NOT mascerated and soft. Most of her tissue was gone; what was left had turned to adipocere.

Read and learn

[attorneywan2be]

http://scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/Pwitnesses/Petersonbrian.htm

http://www.deathonline.net/decomposition/body_changes/grave_wax.htm

Laci's tissues were NOT mascerated and soft. Most of her tissue was gone; what was left had turned to adipocere.

Read and learn


LOL.........:seeya:

[caphill]

Thanks for the info.......I just wasn't sure that hypnosis results were admissible.....still not....lol.

ALLMO,
R


In the Peterson case it were not admitted and Diane Jackson was not put on the stand. There was legal wrangling about the admissibility and the defense won the battle of least getting the prior hypnosis police interview introduced to the court via the cross exam of the LE officer. The jury was able to hear of the van, the men with the van and the safe on the front lawn of the Medina's house on the 24th of Dec.

This is all IIRC and IMO in case the "link and prove" crew are lurking around.

[frydaddy]

FRY..... you ask too many questions and I answer too many questions...LOL so this will have to be in 2 posts.....LOLOL

I apologize...sometimes as I read, I formulate questions as I go. I can recall them so long as I don't deviate with a single thought other than the question itself. If I try to PC them up, I'll forget half. If I go back to fix it afterwards...post size doubles and post time triples!

no, I can't get behind any of them 100% and that includes Scott.. just too many questions left unanswered for me for all of them

I guess my issue is...purely from an observers point of view, the arguments for Scott on the individual pieces are so random and unrelated, that there's no alternate theory that's cohesive. Some try to debunk every single piece and others patch three or four theories together. Appears as if some folks are certain of uncertainty on the alternate theories and vice versa on Scott. I've always been perplexed by this.

I want to say that Todd was linked to Dion Milam (http://www.adl.org/learn/news/Dion_Milam.asp) somehow... but I can't fully remember...... Dion could have been linked to the woman Perry Monroe killed, I just don't remember all the information from that far ago.. I wish the 10 mile thread had been archived if only for all it's links...b/c I do remember a link with Todd and the gang...

There's a great many stories linking A to B to C. I obviously can't state as fact that they all are wrong, but it appears as if people have gone to great lengths to connect folks to defend Scott. There's a great mistrust in LE and an assumption that cops just want to close the deal on whoever they decide they don't like. Well, most of these "some other dudes" have been painted as pretty sinister fellows (and dames). I can assure you that every cop I know, roughly a dozen, would likely have wanted to beat the hell out of Scott based on his swagger and pompous demeanor alone. But most cops realize guys like Scott will get his on his own someday. If they thought for a half a second that they can put lifer scumbags away for killing Laci and Conner, Scott wouldn't have been given a second thought as the killer. My personal opinion of the generalized links to all the bad guys, is that they are attempts to portray someone else as worse and more likely than Scott. They may be worse than Scott, but not worse for this crime.

either b/c she saw them... or just b/c...
the HIG gang was a pretty nasty gang.. I wish I could find all the past articles on them......
but they could have been in the process of taking her when KS came into the back yard.... that could have been the noises she heard...

DJ saw 3 men by a van..Laci could have walked right up on them.... the HIG was known for home-invasions... it's possible KS scared them off and the took Laci b/c she could ID them.... this isn't some fanciful story b/c aw2b posted where the exact same thing just happened recently.... so why it's crazy for it to happen in this case IDK

Again with Karen Servas! LOL I'm not sure what vibe people have picked up on Karen, but my gut says that she started the ball rolling, so she is one of the first needed to be discredited. My dad's third wife was an airhead supreme and Karen sounds just like her. Some people just are as together as us posters! :D At any rate, for Karen to have jacked things up as bad as she did in the eyes of advocates, there's have to have been intent. I don't see it.
As for what Laci saw...what could she have seen? At worst, a burglary. Even a third striker would take his chance at pleading to a misdemeanor, if caught, than risk an injection.

I'm done with Diane Jackson and the three men. Nothing personal towards you, but it's a ruse in my eyes. A lot has been made of the hypnosis thing, but it was done at a time when they held out hope Laci'd be found alive. Distaso obviously knew the rule on needing a Cali licensed hypnotist. He just didn't know this guy wasn't licensed. Bottom line, as above, if DJ could have given LE collectively any credible info on three dudes on the 24th, LE would have jumped all over that. I just can't get behind LE purposely using a non-licensed guy or stifling whatever was culled from her under hypnosis.

around her house.. either as she was walking by or as she was coming in...

Laci would have avoided confrontation at all costs and I doubt she'd have been led away without evidence of a struggle if a confrontation turned ugly. I'm ignoring the obvious that I don't think she ever stepped foot out the house, but even if she did, I'd never believe she nose in even a little, no matter how high spirited she was.

DJ saw a van.......Todd and Pearce had a corsica

I'll take your word for this...as long as I've been following case debate on this, I've never been able to determine what Pearce has and what Pearce used. Todd had a Schwinn.

b/c when "he" snitched she was still alive.. but when she died, the possible murder charge scared 'him' into stfu...:shrug:

we're not talking about upstanding ppl here either.... 'he' may have had a momentary lapse of weakness when he called in the tip

I don't see it. If you want to end things before it escalates to murder, you make damn sure it gets ended with a tip that leaves no doubt. With the exception of giving your name, you could have hung those guys out to dry and they'd have never known. Vague tips don't help your cause, all it does is create attention to your area, and nothing good comes from that for any of them.

it was a vague description of the road.... but also a description of the house she was in and 2 other houses around her... Tracy is about 40 miles away, so maybe the 'tipster' didn't know the roads very well and could only ID the houses

here's the tip from the trial


seems like they knew the house but maybe not the road to get there..

Too much detail about everything but the road to get there. Guess I'd need to know more about the circumstances about how the tipster was involved.

yes, before...

why couldn't Scott have taped her?

why couldn't the burglars? I have about 6 rolls of duct tape... I presume everyone in FL does b/c it's on the hurricane supply list. I would think that it's also on an earth-quake supply list, so I don't think Scott having any is a big deal..

My point here is that advocates scoff at any wrapping and taping of Laci by Scott. So, this part is moot if you agree that both Scott or someone else could have and that neither is more unreasonable than the other. (See, I can cooperate! LOL)

she only needed to be in water... I think the saltwater was narrowed down b/c of the barnacles and where she was found.... and if she had been in just regular water and then dumped by the shore and washed out into the bay, she'd get the barnacles within just a few hrs and any 'fresh' water would be washed away..

I guess we could know for 100% by testing her clothes or something couldn't we?? but as of right now, she didn't have to be in salt-water the whole time IMO...

I don't profess to know the science, so I'd defer these things to experts. I would think in the CSI world, there'd be tests, but who knows.

any 55g drum will do..... there all over the place.......and what kind of 'storage container' was she being held in, in the tip that was called in?

Guess my issue here is picturing a pregnant Laci fitting into a standard 55g drum. And then we'd have to discuss that tedious rigor mortis argument again!

another murderer put the body of his wife in one moved it months later.... his name and info has been posted a few times by me and aw2b....I'd give it to you again, but I'm having a brain-toot right now and can't remember....grrrr

Was she pregnant?

[frydaddy]

IMO they were only focused on him... but with the tip being called in who knows... maybe they just wanted to get rid of the body.. you have to admit, anyone having that body(or any body for that matter) would want to get rid of it in a way that couldn't be connected to them...... and it wouldn't take a whole lot of brilliance to figure out where they needed to put it.... across the water from Brooks Island..... right where she was found... right where Scott said he was..

the container was dumped where connor was found...... Connor looked like he washed up from Brooks... but Laci didn't.. her origination couldn't be tracked from Brooks...

but she gets washed out from where her and Connor are dumped..and she washes a little ways away from him.....her trajectory doesn't match his remember..why not? by all accounts it should match... she should match atleast to where his 'starting off/their separation' point.... but she doesn't...why?

IMO - From what little I've heard and read of these sinister people, they lack the sophistication to think of dumping the bodies in the manner that they would have had to in order to frame Scott.

Again, I'm no tidal expert and in truth, I can't comprehend the science Cheng brought to the table. But, I do know that very little in tracking trajectories without 100% accuracy on all the details of the bodies and how they were dumped would result in a best guess. Then you add a storm in there and who knows what the actual paths should have or would have looked like. Frankly, Chang's info isn't very high on my reasons that prove Scott did it. I think where I disconnect from a dump/frame is that I consider myself at least as bright as lifer criminals as they are described and I'd have a hard time discerning where to dump them in a successful effort to frame Scott.

sure.... why not.. they didn't wash up in your theory either..*shrug*


Don't forget, my theory has anchors attached to those limbs!

Thanks, for showing me how quoting is done, to you and the others! Makes my job much easier and it is appreciated! I will have to tackle the rest of your response and any other posts tomorrow...I'm whooped! Also wanted to say that my responses are not meant as proof you are wrong, they are simply reasons why I dismiss them.

[Miss Bootsie]

LOL..of course not..we are talking about human tissues which would be macerated and soft if they were submerged in water..vs a fatty wax like material which has a crumbly consistency...IMO

You may want this info. for your notes AW.

Adipocere becomes friable-crumbly when dry.

So, the adipocere that formed was not crumbly when the body was submerged in the Bay.




5. ADIPOCERE
Saponification or adipocere formation is a modification of putrefaction characterised by the transformation of fatty tissues into a yellowish-white, greasy, (but friable when dry),wax-like substance, with a sweetish rancid odour. Mant states that when its formation is complete it has a sweetish smell, but during the early stages of its production a penetrating ammoniacal odour is emitted and the smell is very persistent.







http://www.dundee.ac.uk/forensicmedicine/notes/timedeath.pdf

[attorneywan2be]

Snip

Adipocere becomes friable-crumbly when dry.

Snip




Thanks for the info..but the other sites I provided described adipocere in GENERAL as a whitish crumbly material..anyhow, IMO, we can't compare adipocere to human tissues anyway..! ...one can dry out much faster than the other...

[attorneywan2be]

Snip

Adipocere becomes friable-crumbly when dry.

Snip




BTW, at one point, the ME also described the adipocere as soapy white material...and Dr. Galloway also described the adipocere found on Laci's body as white sort of soapy substance..so was it crumbly or soapy like?

Also, there was no adipocere on Conner, IMO, had he been in her uterus he would have been exposed to water, the uterus had an opening at the top, I would think they should have found adipocere..

Quote:

Interestingly, placing the ‘body’ in a plastic bag retarded the formation of adipocere but if the ‘body’ was clothed and then placed in the plastic bag adipocere formation was promoted.

media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/65/04700127/0470012765.pdf

[Miss Bootsie]

Thanks for the info..but the other sites I provided described adipocere in GENERAL as a whitish crumbly material..anyhow, IMO, we can't compare adipocere to human tissues anyway..! ...one can dry out much faster than the other...

Sure, we can compare if we have an open mind.
After all, Adipocere is formed from human soft tissue.


BTW, at one point, the ME also described the adipocere as soapy white material...and Dr. Galloway also described the adipocere found on Laci's body as white sort of soapy substance..so was it crumbly or soapy like?

There is a wet and dry adipocere.
Adipocere is most commonly produced in waterlogged burials and on the bodies of drowning victims, although it can also form in the presence of less moisture; thus, there are generally two types of adipocere, known respectively as 'wet' and 'dry'.

It's really elementary level understanding.imo
In the case of a body submerged in water the adipocere is considered wet.
When exposed to an environment with less moisture, the adipocere is dry. So, common sense tells us when the wet adiocere is exposed to an environment with less moisture, it becomes dry and therefore friable.

I believe Dr. Peterson explained the process of adipocere formation as it occurred on the body when submerged in the Bay.

Some of what Dr. Galloway saw may have been wet adipocere, but as Dr. Peterson referenced the duct tape on the right leg, he also made a remark about the crumbly white material.

So, cs tells me he was looking at photos of dry adipocere on the lower part of the body. After washing ashore, the adipocere become friable/crumbly after being exposed to air in an environment with less moisture.

IMO, If we have an open mind, it is very understandable that the abraded edges also became friable/crumbly after being exposed to air.


Also, there was no adipocere on Conner, IMO, had he been in her uterus he would have been exposed to water, the uterus had an opening at the top, I would think they should have found adipocere..

Thank-you AW, but I'm not going to get into this with you again. The deal with the opening to the uterus has been discussed more times than I can count.
Reasonable explanations have been provided time and again, so any further discussion on the subject will be futile and nothing but a rehash. imo

We keep going backward instead of forward.

[frydaddy]

PART 2



I don't know.. this is moo

for the coffin birth? sure...I think it could happen that way

the decomp? IDK.as I said I want to find an expert to discuss this with so I can know for sure

I wasn't sure how you were imagining coffin birth previously, but by the textbook definition, I don't think coffin birth occured in any scenario. Only place I recall it discussed in in speculative articles in the media, didn't the ME dismiss this on cross? Coffin birth occurs through the birth canal. Laci still had her underwear and pants on, so I don't see how it's possible. Plus, in a 55g drum, she'd likely have to be in a cannonball position (remember swimming as a kid...BIG SPLASH!), I can't imagine there'd be room for much movement like coffin birth in the drum.

As for decomp, I don't know, again with the science. However, depending on the liquid, I struggle with the basics of decomp in a compact area that was virtually still and sealed from the environment as compared to the bay waters. I couldn't factually argue for or against you here, I've never seen an example of either, it just "feels" like there would be pretty major differences. But again, it might depend on when she was dumped and how long she was in the bay water.

One thing to add...dumping a body or extracting one from a 55g drum seems like a difficult and clumsy task. The weight alone stands out. Perhaps I should become more familiar with the locations of both bodies to see if I could imagine someone pulling the task itself off or not.

some of those details can match all three 3 stories....the biggest change is the who

The main issue I have with this is one woman able to overpower another woman without some sort of indication that it happened. Size and strength of Kim vs Laci. Not saying it's impossible...just less reasonable.

no, I'm pretty sure it was inconclusive..

I need to look this up...for my own recall. She took it, which indicates more COI than Scott...I can't believe LE would ignore anything other than a passed test, especially if she was as off as she's been described.

she went back to the house that night remember....... maybe she was drunk when she kidnapped Laci, we know she went 'nutty' when she drank....

there is a pic of that cup in LE photos.... but is it still there now(not now-now of course...you know what I mean)...... When Kim happened along that night and interjected herself into the crime scene.... was it b/c she knew she needed to get that coffee cup?

and what did she interject herself to do???? make coffee...

I need to hone my memory on this. Laci had traces of caffeine in her system, could she have drank tea or coffee from that cup? I'm unsure about which night is "that night" and when she interjected herself into the crime scene. My fault...I'll look that part up OR someone can fill me in on what I can't remember.

as I said...... Kim said that she would see Laci walking in front of her house by the Gallo place.... she's a nut.. crazy women have befriended pregnant women before and harmed them.... maybe she struck up a conversation with Laci during those walks... IDK, maybe she just saw her and became obsessed....

also, I need some verification on this....... But I think Kim M b/f was Hawaiian and he hung around with 2 other dark skinned(but not black) ppl..

if it wasn't Kim who had this connection to the 3 dark-skinned guys I completely apologize.. I know they can be connected with someone in this case... and I think/thought it was her...

Can't argue this part one way or the other. Too much unknown speculation here and I can't dispute any of it, I simply don't know. But in this particular part, this theory is where it starts to appear that an alternate suspect is chosen and then they work backwards to fit them around the case. This is not meant to be disrespectful to you, again, just the feel I get in imagining the scenario.

no actually I don't buy his story.....even tho I think it was corroborated???? by someone else????? but the fact that he works for Kim M step-dad and with her brother is such an odd coincidence don't you think? why does this person and ppl she knows keep interjecting themselves into this case?

Reward...15 minutes of fame...everyone wants to do their part to help, be a hero. Can't say. But of all the sightings discussed...don't you find it incredibly odd that not one person spoke to Laci, not even a "Hi!", in all those sightings?

If you look at Google maps at the two Encina addresses where this gentleman supposedly saw Laci, it's a pretty good distance for both. To save time, I won't elaborate too much other than to say that his story makes no sense to me. I can explain another time.

I'll also add that once these people were injected into the case with rather weak information, advocates and MG kept them there, which makes them seem more prevalent than they are, IMO. See my post on the Dalton witnesses some time ago for example.

thats the thing.... we don't know anything about this guy....... except that he was found with a hand in his car..... and that his victim had her head,arms and leg removed and was found in a body of water...(that head has never been found either IIRC)

we know he lived and went to school in Almeda which is a stones throw from where Laci and Connor washed up

we know that Evelyn Hernandez resembled Laci with the Dark hair, olive skin and pregnant... and she washed up in the same condition in the same area..

we know that Perry Monroe was in Fresno b/c he was caught there...

but since he's been in a nut-house he hasn't been interviewed by LE or had a trial yet.....(LE says their only interview of was very bizarre b/c he claims to have never lft CA so they can't get anywhere with him....) who knows what this guy was capable of....

but the circumstance of having a serial killer in the area that liked to cut off the heads and hide it..cut off the arms, and leg of his victim... and 2 almost identical remains of 2 very similar victims washing up just miles from his stomping grounds and him being in another area in Davis where some bones were found is enough to give me pause....

*snipped link for space*

Here's one thing that stands out, as most things do, in Scott's case. Coincidence...there's a ton of them on a number of different issues. And the ones with Perry Monroe are said to be pretty strong. But I don't see it. I could go into it in more detail, but this is just brain surface stuff. Almeda and Fresno are not Modesto and Berkeley. Monroe's victims had their limbs cut off, Laci's limbs were missing. This is similarity, not the same, thus not a coincidence. Body of water is somewhat a coincidence, but there's only two places to dump a body, land and sea, so water dumps are not that uncommon to attach a lot of value to it. Laci was killed by someone who obviously took a lot of effort to conceal her death and discard. Monroe registered for the room in his name, left plenty of evidence, and had evidence in his car. Most will tell you the profile of Laci's killer was calculated sociopath. Most will tell you Monroe was a schizophrenic. Scott is in prison, Monroe's in a psych ward. The two crimes are not all that similar.

One other thing...bloggers speculate that Monroe could turn out to be a serial killer based on some loose coincidence. But ask any who consider that possibility on Monroe if similar loose coincidences make Scott a potential serial killer and the reaction, be it humor, anger, ridicule or whatever, it will be emotional and it will be adamant. It's why I think some people got a vibe for Scott early on and have tried to fit everything around getting him freed regardless of his guilt. Not you per se...but some on the net.

[frydaddy]

so in this case against Scott..... we have a man with no criminal record... not even a traffic ticket.... everyone around him believes he and his wife are the ideal perfect couple full of love and adoration for each other(puke all you want but you can't deny that this is what ppl thought before dec. 24th).. a guy who all of a sudden commits a crime that there is no proof of, except for some arguable CE that could just show he was hiding an affair/affairS and not a murder..

I don't put much weight on the lack of a criminal record or on how they were described as a couple. World is full of people who never had a rap sheet and committed a heinous, unthinkable crime. ALL criminals start somewhere and some start big. As for Scott, we know he had people fooled on part of his life. And HE showed me that what they described about his love and adoration by HIS lack of concern after she disappeared. All this says is that Scott was a chameleon...no more, no less.

or you have members of an extremely violent home invasion gang, robbing a house across the street.. you have a witness who heard noises from the back of the house and when she went back there they noises stopped so she assumed she was hearing them from another neighbors house....

There's violent, unstable people in every town in America. That's a connection every murder has at the onset. You have to believe a lot of little and big things happened at the same time on Christmas Eve in Modesto to connect the violent people to Laci. It's a much more complex story that has morphed over the years into a very elaborate hunch. All this stuff had to be set in motion immediately after Scott left. It's just too unbelievable.

you have a women who becomes(or already was) obsessed with Scott Peterson... and unstable women, under the care of a shrink and taking meds... who gets violent and weird when she drinks... a woman who interjects herself into this case from the 1st minute.... who also has access to medical supplies and has atleast a limited medical background...... a woman who took a LDT and didn't pass or fail.... a woman who lied to LE when she was caught breaking into the Peterson house.... who admittedly tried on some clothes of Laci, possibly even the wedding gown.... and who left without her pants on b/c they were found in the house IIRC..

Most of this comes from MG or bloggers...which means either MPD stifled all this info about her or much of it is exaggerated to make her fit the crime. Given that there are more than a dozen people that have to be painted in this manner to find a minimum of one to be more likely than Scott, it gives the appearance that people don't care to find THE one, they simply want to make sure that one isn't Scott. I don't need it to be Scott, I know many didn't want it to be Scott. They need it not to be, they want it not to be.

and you have a possible serial killer....... you definitely have 2 pregnant women with brown hair and olive skin go missing and being found in the same condition in the same area... but also have a potential serial killer also...who lived a stones throw from where those 2 pregnant women washed up, a killer who was caught with his victims hands in his possession... a victim whose head is missing and whose dismembered torso,arms and leg are found in a pond...

a possible serial killer caught in Frenso that has been ruled incompetent and shut away in a nut-house since his arrest... who hasn't been questioned b/c he to F'd up in the head....

The authorities don’t think there is a connection, they are closer to it than I am. Truth is, I think Scott is a more viable suspect in both Laci and Evelyn’s death than Perry Monroe is for either of them. Not saying I think he killed Evelyn, just that the coincidences fit him better.

and yet you are 100% sure Scott Peterson did this???

99% is more like it, but yes, I do, because all the other theories seem too contrived.

could all the CE against Scott been b/c he was hiding an affair(or a hiding a wife from his lover) and not a murder...(if the boat wasn't a secret that is...)

No, I don’t think so. He squashed that likelihood by saying Laci knew about the affair. Now, you know I think that’s bunk, but it can’t be both ways. And the adoration you mentioned, he squashed that with the lack of concern after she was gone. Of all the things that people use to speculate about Scott’s innocence, not once have I seen something that fits logically into the story AND appears as a natural occurrence.


hopefully this is what you asked for...... if not my fingers may revolt ....LOL

but this is why I can't jump to your side 100%...... of course you won't find anything I say believable..... but I think you are too polite to actually call is balderdash...LOL... but IMO, the theory given as to how and why Scott did it..... is just as questionable to me...

Yes it’s what I asked for and it is appreciated. It helps give me insight to your thought processes. Won’t ask you to do it again, because my brain, my eyes, and my arse are feeling the burn! LOL

Hope you know though, that it’s not what you say I find unbelievable, it’s the information that causes you to think what you do. I don’t think less of you because you believe it though, I hope that is obvious! At least you seem more open than most AND you are willing to put yourself out there. You get props for that.

[frydaddy]

[QUOTE=ekg;8923912]

HIG hunting season opens (http://dot.kde.org/1178743323/)

:lol: I definitely think there is a connection between Laci's disappearance and these HIG's!

[frydaddy]

In the Peterson case it were not admitted and Diane Jackson was not put on the stand. There was legal wrangling about the admissibility and the defense won the battle of least getting the prior hypnosis police interview introduced to the court via the cross exam of the LE officer. The jury was able to hear of the van, the men with the van and the safe on the front lawn of the Medina's house on the 24th of Dec.

This is all IIRC and IMO in case the "link and prove" crew are lurking around.

Pretty shrewd but cowardly act by MG here. Got DJ's testimony in without DJ answering the prosecutions questions and got Dempewolf's blocked for the most part. Gives the impression he had something to hide...like the truth! IMO

[frydaddy]

[QUOTE=frydaddy;8923777]Before I attempt to answer this, I have two questions, anyone can answer and I may not post again for a bit (I was outvoted on clean up as well...there's something wrong with this system!), so forgive me.

1. What does HIG stand for? I think I know, but vanity dictates I ask rather than throw what I think out there! :o

2. does everyone simply copy and paste the


Eek??

:eek:


hehe....

Just to clarify the Eek thing. I seem to have a habit of creating a version of someone's name different than the name itself. Probably a bad habit I should stop. Anyway, ekg could be ee-kay-gee or as I said it eek-ay-gee. Hence the Eek. Good thing you're not GEKG...I might have called you Geek! :D

[TopGunner]

Thanks for the info..but the other sites I provided described adipocere in GENERAL as a whitish crumbly material..anyhow, IMO, we can't compare adipocere to human tissues anyway..! ...one can dry out much faster than the other...


How much does everyone wanna bet that the word "adipocere" and all it's meanings are never even touched on in the appeals process???:tongue:

[Wearing A Halo]

How much does everyone wanna bet that the word "adipocere" and all it's meanings are never even touched on in the appeals process???:tongue:

Hi TG, before I place a bet; what are the "odds"?:D

[Miss Bootsie]

IMO MG thought it was better to get what wehct would say out of the DA witness, than it would be for the jury to hear wecht also agree with the DA's witness on Cross.

I think he would have said everything he said on Greta or where ever..... but he would have been asked if he could prove it and he couldn't.... it was his opinion...
I think it would have been more damaging to have the def. witness agree with the Pros, than it was for the Pros witness to agree with MG
BUT, I think it was mistake to not put him on anyway

Thank-you ekg, but imo, that is not a reasonable explanation.

A trial is more balanced than you perceive it to be.
Both the prosecution and defense are given equal opportunity to question a witness on their expert opinion.
It is up to the 12 jurors to decide what they find reasonable, and how much weight they give the testimony of the witness.
For these reasons, I respect our Judicial system and the way it works.


Why would agreement with the expert witness on either side be more damaging?
Sure, agreement from one side will be damaging if one expert can prove the opinion of the other expert is wrong or can show why the opinion is not reasonable.

I have no other choice than to believe this was the case with Wecht, because I have yet to receive a reasonable explanation of why he didn't testify.

[Miss Bootsie]

I don't put much weight on the lack of a criminal record or on how they were described as a couple. World is full of people who never had a rap sheet and committed a heinous, unthinkable crime. ALL criminals start somewhere and some start big. As for Scott, we know he had people fooled on part of his life. And HE showed me that what they described about his love and adoration by HIS lack of concern after she disappeared. All this says is that Scott was a chameleon...no more, no less.



There's violent, unstable people in every town in America. That's a connection every murder has at the onset. You have to believe a lot of little and big things happened at the same time on Christmas Eve in Modesto to connect the violent people to Laci. It's a much more complex story that has morphed over the years into a very elaborate hunch. All this stuff had to be set in motion immediately after Scott left. It's just too unbelievable.



Most of this comes from MG or bloggers...which means either MPD stifled all this info about her or much of it is exaggerated to make her fit the crime. Given that there are more than a dozen people that have to be painted in this manner to find a minimum of one to be more likely than Scott, it gives the appearance that people don't care to find THE one, they simply want to make sure that one isn't Scott. I don't need it to be Scott, I know many didn't want it to be Scott. They need it not to be, they want it not to be.



The authorities don’t think there is a connection, they are closer to it than I am. Truth is, I think Scott is a more viable suspect in both Laci and Evelyn’s death than Perry Monroe is for either of them. Not saying I think he killed Evelyn, just that the coincidences fit him better.



99% is more like it, but yes, I do, because all the other theories seem too contrived.



No, I don’t think so. He squashed that likelihood by saying Laci knew about the affair. Now, you know I think that’s bunk, but it can’t be both ways. And the adoration you mentioned, he squashed that with the lack of concern after she was gone. Of all the things that people use to speculate about Scott’s innocence, not once have I seen something that fits logically into the story AND appears as a natural occurrence.




Yes it’s what I asked for and it is appreciated. It helps give me insight to your thought processes. Won’t ask you to do it again, because my brain, my eyes, and my arse are feeling the burn! LOL

Hope you know though, that it’s not what you say I find unbelievable, it’s the information that causes you to think what you do. I don’t think less of you because you believe it though, I hope that is obvious! At least you seem more open than most AND you are willing to put yourself out there. You get props for that.

Really a great post Fry.:seeya:

[woohoo]

OK, well then, I will take the silence to mean that there is no source, it's just literally made up which really doesn't do this board a lot of good.

Hi TG, Was this ever responded to? I am reading trying to catch up so I haven't read all the posts.

If it won't be redundant opinions or references, I'll take a stab. But it will take me awhile, because I can remember several right off the top!

[Miss Bootsie]

exactly....... and since she she says

" was coming from either the Hogan's backyard or the Dunger's backyard. I think it was the Hogan's."

that tells me either she didn't ask...b/c she doesn't know which on it was... or she asked it wasn't them..



IMO, I agree.... either KS or LE would have asked tho........ so IMO she didn't know at the time of her testimony b/c they denied it being them....

I think because of anxiety associated with having to testify at a murder trial, she briefly confused the names.
I believe this is one reason, "Failure of recollection is not uncommon" is standard in Jury instructions.
Allowances should be made because it is understandable that a lay witness will feel anxious.
IMO, the fact she was able to state specifically that it was either the Hogan's or the Dunger's raking is sufficient.

[Lavindar]

I wasn't sure how you were imagining coffin birth previously, but by the textbook definition, I don't think coffin birth occured in any scenario. Only place I recall it discussed in in speculative articles in the media, didn't the ME dismiss this on cross? Coffin birth occurs through the birth canal. Laci still had her underwear and pants on, so I don't see how it's possible. Plus, in a 55g drum, she'd likely have to be in a cannonball position (remember swimming as a kid...BIG SPLASH!), I can't imagine there'd be room for much movement like coffin birth in the drum.

As for decomp, I don't know, again with the science. However, depending on the liquid, I struggle with the basics of decomp in a compact area that was virtually still and sealed from the environment as compared to the bay waters. I couldn't factually argue for or against you here, I've never seen an example of either, it just "feels" like there would be pretty major differences. But again, it might depend on when she was dumped and how long she was in the bay water.

One thing to add...dumping a body or extracting one from a 55g drum seems like a difficult and clumsy task. The weight alone stands out. Perhaps I should become more familiar with the locations of both bodies to see if I could imagine someone pulling the task itself off or not.



The main issue I have with this is one woman able to overpower another woman without some sort of indication that it happened. Size and strength of Kim vs Laci. Not saying it's impossible...just less reasonable.



I need to look this up...for my own recall. She took it, which indicates more COI than Scott...I can't believe LE would ignore anything other than a passed test, especially if she was as off as she's been described.



I need to hone my memory on this. Laci had traces of caffeine in her system, could she have drank tea or coffee from that cup? I'm unsure about which night is "that night" and when she interjected herself into the crime scene. My fault...I'll look that part up OR someone can fill me in on what I can't remember.



Can't argue this part one way or the other. Too much unknown speculation here and I can't dispute any of it, I simply don't know. But in this particular part, this theory is where it starts to appear that an alternate suspect is chosen and then they work backwards to fit them around the case. This is not meant to be disrespectful to you, again, just the feel I get in imagining the scenario.

Reward...15 minutes of fame...everyone wants to do their part to help, be a hero. Can't say. But of all the sightings discussed...don't you find it incredibly odd that not one person spoke to Laci, not even a "Hi!", in all those sightings?

If you look at Google maps at the two Encina addresses where this gentleman supposedly saw Laci, it's a pretty good distance for both. To save time, I won't elaborate too much other than to say that his story makes no sense to me. I can explain another time.

I'll also add that once these people were injected into the case with rather weak information, advocates and MG kept them there, which makes them seem more prevalent than they are, IMO. See my post on the Dalton witnesses some time ago for example.



Here's one thing that stands out, as most things do, in Scott's case. Coincidence...there's a ton of them on a number of different issues. And the ones with Perry Monroe are said to be pretty strong. But I don't see it. I could go into it in more detail, but this is just brain surface stuff. Almeda and Fresno are not Modesto and Berkeley. Monroe's victims had their limbs cut off, Laci's limbs were missing. This is similarity, not the same, thus not a coincidence. Body of water is somewhat a coincidence, but there's only two places to dump a body, land and sea, so water dumps are not that uncommon to attach a lot of value to it. Laci was killed by someone who obviously took a lot of effort to conceal her death and discard. Monroe registered for the room in his name, left plenty of evidence, and had evidence in his car. Most will tell you the profile of Laci's killer was calculated sociopath. Most will tell you Monroe was a schizophrenic. Scott is in prison, Monroe's in a psych ward. The two crimes are not all that similar.

One other thing...bloggers speculate that Monroe could turn out to be a serial killer based on some loose coincidence. But ask any who consider that possibility on Monroe if similar loose coincidences make Scott a potential serial killer and the reaction, be it humor, anger, ridicule or whatever, it will be emotional and it will be adamant. It's why I think some people got a vibe for Scott early on and have tried to fit everything around getting him freed regardless of his guilt. Not you per se...but some on the net.

Maybe you can't, but I can. Kim said she saw Laci walk past the Gallo "place" Do you mean home, or warehouse, or corporate or what? There is no Gallo place within a mile and a half of Covena, and it's in the Airport District, which Laci would not walk in if she had half a brain, and she did have a brain. Scott TOLD Brocchini that she would NOT walk the city streets, but walked a mile loop in the Park. Where does this misinformation come from?

[Lavindar]

I wasn't sure how you were imagining coffin birth previously, but by the textbook definition, I don't think coffin birth occured in any scenario. Only place I recall it discussed in in speculative articles in the media, didn't the ME dismiss this on cross? Coffin birth occurs through the birth canal. Laci still had her underwear and pants on, so I don't see how it's possible. Plus, in a 55g drum, she'd likely have to be in a cannonball position (remember swimming as a kid...BIG SPLASH!), I can't imagine there'd be room for much movement like coffin birth in the drum.

As for decomp, I don't know, again with the science. However, depending on the liquid, I struggle with the basics of decomp in a compact area that was virtually still and sealed from the environment as compared to the bay waters. I couldn't factually argue for or against you here, I've never seen an example of either, it just "feels" like there would be pretty major differences. But again, it might depend on when she was dumped and how long she was in the bay water.

One thing to add...dumping a body or extracting one from a 55g drum seems like a difficult and clumsy task. The weight alone stands out. Perhaps I should become more familiar with the locations of both bodies to see if I could imagine someone pulling the task itself off or not.



The main issue I have with this is one woman able to overpower another woman without some sort of indication that it happened. Size and strength of Kim vs Laci. Not saying it's impossible...just less reasonable.



I need to look this up...for my own recall. She took it, which indicates more COI than Scott...I can't believe LE would ignore anything other than a passed test, especially if she was as off as she's been described.



I need to hone my memory on this. Laci had traces of caffeine in her system, could she have drank tea or coffee from that cup? I'm unsure about which night is "that night" and when she interjected herself into the crime scene. My fault...I'll look that part up OR someone can fill me in on what I can't remember.



Can't argue this part one way or the other. Too much unknown speculation here and I can't dispute any of it, I simply don't know. But in this particular part, this theory is where it starts to appear that an alternate suspect is chosen and then they work backwards to fit them around the case. This is not meant to be disrespectful to you, again, just the feel I get in imagining the scenario.



Reward...15 minutes of fame...everyone wants to do their part to help, be a hero. Can't say. But of all the sightings discussed...don't you find it incredibly odd that not one person spoke to Laci, not even a "Hi!", in all those sightings?

If you look at Google maps at the two Encina addresses where this gentleman supposedly saw Laci, it's a pretty good distance for both. To save time, I won't elaborate too much other than to say that his story makes no sense to me. I can explain another time.

I'll also add that once these people were injected into the case with rather weak information, advocates and MG kept them there, which makes them seem more prevalent than they are, IMO. See my post on the Dalton witnesses some time ago for example.



Here's one thing that stands out, as most things do, in Scott's case. Coincidence...there's a ton of them on a number of different issues. And the ones with Perry Monroe are said to be pretty strong. But I don't see it. I could go into it in more detail, but this is just brain surface stuff. Almeda and Fresno are not Modesto and Berkeley. Monroe's victims had their limbs cut off, Laci's limbs were missing. This is similarity, not the same, thus not a coincidence. Body of water is somewhat a coincidence, but there's only two places to dump a body, land and sea, so water dumps are not that uncommon to attach a lot of value to it. Laci was killed by someone who obviously took a lot of effort to conceal her death and discard. Monroe registered for the room in his name, left plenty of evidence, and had evidence in his car. Most will tell you the profile of Laci's killer was calculated sociopath. Most will tell you Monroe was a schizophrenic. Scott is in prison, Monroe's in a psych ward. The two crimes are not all that similar.

One other thing...bloggers speculate that Monroe could turn out to be a serial killer based on some loose coincidence. But ask any who consider that possibility on Monroe if similar loose coincidences make Scott a potential serial killer and the reaction, be it humor, anger, ridicule or whatever, it will be emotional and it will be adamant. It's why I think some people got a vibe for Scott early on and have tried to fit everything around getting him freed regardless of his guilt. Not you per se...but some on the net.

How much does everyone wanna bet that the word "adipocere" and all it's meanings are never even touched on in the appeals process???:tongue:
My bet is on your side on this one

[enlightenme]

Thank-you ekg, but imo, that is not a reasonable explanation.

A trial is more balanced than you perceive it to be.
Both the prosecution and defense are given equal opportunity to question a witness on their expert opinion.
It is up to the 12 jurors to decide what they find reasonable, and how much weight they give the testimony of the witness.
For these reasons, I respect our Judicial system and the way it works.


Why would agreement with the expert witness on either side be more damaging?
Sure, agreement from one side will be damaging if one expert can prove the opinion of the other expert is wrong or can show why the opinion is not reasonable.

I have no other choice than to believe this was the case with Wecht, because I have yet to receive a reasonable explanation of why he didn't testify.

:seeya: Miss Bootsie!

At the very least Wecht could have testified (like he did on TV) that the tape/twine could not get around Conner's neck & shoulders by tidal action "in a million years". No other witness claimed that.

In fact, I believe he said quite a few things that supposedly would help the defense that no one else testified to. To say that he couldn't add to what the pros. witnesses said is incorrect then. It's more likely that his opinions would not hold up well under cross.

IMO

[Lavindar]

:seeya: Miss Bootsie!

At the very least Wecht could have testified (like he did on TV) that the tape/twine could not get around Conner's neck & shoulders by tidal action "in a million years". No other witness claimed that.

In fact, I believe he said quite a few things that supposedly would help the defense that no one else testified to. To say that he couldn't add to what the pros. witnesses said is incorrect then. It's more likely that his opinions would not hold up well under cross.

IMO
Wasn't there debris found near the body that was identical to the twine around his neck, shoulder, and arm?

[I'mSun]

:seeya: Miss Bootsie!

At the very least Wecht could have testified (like he did on TV) that the tape/twine could not get around Conner's neck & shoulders by tidal action "in a million years". No other witness claimed that.

In fact, I believe he said quite a few things that supposedly would help the defense that no one else testified to. To say that he couldn't add to what the pros. witnesses said is incorrect then. It's more likely that his opinions would not hold up well under cross.

IMOI assure you, if Wecht or Lee could have possibly helped Geragos, they would have been called to testify. They couldn't, so they weren't.

[woohoo]

I think the one instance that bothers me the most is the TRACY TIP. I think if listed in order of importance it would be the Tracy Tip, investigation of Kim McGregor and Matt Laologi, and investigation or lack of investigation of the transients. ( I have posted that TS before) And finally the Laci sightings. On several occasions when tips were called in they were told that it was irrevelent because the tip wasn’t going in the direction the officers felt the case was going. I don’t think that’s acceptable.

But to begin with the Tracy Tip:
GERAGOS: Okay. Do you know if, whether or not Officer Beffa responded to a location in Tracy that was supposed to be a location or general area where Laci Peterson was being held?
BROCCHINI: No.
GERAGOS: Did you get a report of any kind, I have got a multipage report I'm going to show you. Anybody ever show this to you?
BROCCHINI: I have never seen this that I know of, that I can remember.
GERAGOS: Okay.
BROCCHINI: I have seen that.
GERAGOS: I'm going to, you have never seen this report that I just showed you, which was the Tracy report, correct?
GERAGOS: Did you receive a tip from a Detective Dan Scheppel from the Tracy Police Department?
BROCCHINI: I didn't receive a tip. I received some information from him.
GERAGOS: Well, he called to report that he was working a kidnapping in Tracy that occurred on December 22nd at about 1:30, correct?
BROCCHINI: Yes.
GERAGOS: He said a male Pacific Islander male driving a two tone white Suburban with a gold stripe had pulled a fifteen-year-old female out of her vehicle and attempted to put her into his vehicle, correct?
BROCCHINI: Yes.
GERAGOS: Were you aware that it was considered to be too dangerous to go into that area?
BROCCHINI: No.
GERAGOS: Did you, were you familiar with this first tip that I just read you about the kidnapping in Tracy on 12-22, the one we talked about?
BROCCHINI: Yes. The information from the detective, I took that information.
GERAGOS: Okay. And what did you do to follow up on that?
BROCCHINI: I spoke to him. He said they had a warrant out for the subject's arrest. Subject had tried to pull a fifteen-year old girl into his vehicle. He was wanted as of the 22nd of December, and that was it. He's wanted.
GERAGOS: Have you done anything to this day since then?
BROCCHINI: No, not on that tip.
GERAGOS: Not on that tip. Did you have tips later on that somebody was seen in a van on that street on Covena, the description, and the description was dark-skinned, not African-American, which would seem to, at least, be close to Pacific Islander?
GERAGOS: Did you ever connect that tip with some of the other information that you had from Covena, and the witnesses from Covena?
BROCCHINI: Which tip?
GERAGOS: The Tracy tip.
BROCCHINI: No.

Then the testimonu of Matt Laologi, the boyfriend of Kim McGregor to follow up.
GERAGOS: Mr. Laolagi, has anybody from either Modesto PD or the DA's office in the month of January 2003, or February of 2003, did they ever come out and personally talk to you?
LAOLAGI: No.
GERAGOS: Did, you had one contact, isn't that correct?
LAOLAGI: Yes.
GERAGOS: And that was a phone call?
LAOLAGI: Yes.
GERAGOS: And that was some officer asking you what day you saw Kim McGregor?
LAOLAGI: Yes.
GERAGOS: And other than that, that officer never asked you about your roommates, correct?
LAOLAGI: Yes.
GERAGOS: And never asked you about what they drove, correct?
LAOLAGI: Correct.
GERAGOS: And never asked you what you drove, correct?
LAOLAGI: Correct.
GERAGOS: Never asked you to come down so they could take a look at you, correct?
LAOLAGI: Correct.
GERAGOS: Never asked you any questions about where you were working that day on the 24th, correct?
LAOLAGI: Correct.
Laci Sightings:
BROCCHINI: I don't know when Homer Maldonado was viewed.
GERAGOS: It's your belief, as you sit here today, that Homer Maldonado was interviewed by the Modesto PD?
BROCCHINI: I don't know. I didn't interview him.
GERAGOS: Did you say another officer did?
BROCCHINI: I don't know. I don't know if another officer did or not.
GERAGOS: How about a, is there a Bill and Vivian Mitchell? Are you familiar with them?
BROCCHINI: I have heard of them.
GERAGOS: Okay. You heard of them because they had been interviewed by some TV stations saying that they had seen Laci walking that day; is that correct?
BROCCHINI: Yes.
GERAGOS: I know that Vivian Mitchell has since passed away. Is that your understanding?
BROCCHINI: Yes.
GERAGOS: But Bill Mitchell, did you ever go and interview him?
BROCCHINI: I did not.
GERAGOS: Do you know if anybody from the Modesto PD ever went to interview Bill Mitchell about whether he saw Laci walking MacKenzie on the morning of the 24th?
BROCCHINI: I do not know.
GERAGOS: Okay. Now, did you go back, or are you aware, you personally, did you personally go back and interview people or a series of people who claimed to see Laci walking that morning on the 24th; is that correct? Or a pregnant woman with a Golden Retriever?
BROCCHINI: I did not personally do that.

And Judge Cordova: I would think that ANYTHING unusual in the neighborhood would be of interest on December 25th. But the shoes were ignored.

GERAGOS: Okay. Would it, is it fair to say that you then saw some, you observed a pair of women's sandals with a flower pattern lying in the roadway there?
CORDOVA: Yes, I did.
GERAGOS: Did you point those out to the detective?
CORDOVA: I did. They were near the, they were off the pavement. There's no gutter there, but it looked like it was in the grassy area off the pavement into the first, the house's yard, and I saw some sandals, flip-flop, looked like women's flip-flops to me.
GERAGOS: Okay. Did you point those out to Detective Banks?
CORDOVA: Yes, I did.
GERAGOS: Okay. And when you pointed them out to Detective Banks, did Detective Banks do anything?
CORDOVA: He didn't. He left the sandals there.
GERAGOS: Okay. And that was what date?
CORDOVA: That was on Christmas morning. The 25th of December.
GERAGOS: On the 25th of December? Okay. Did you make any indication that you thought that the sandals might have something to do with anything?
CORDOVA: I, I think I made a comment: I wonder if these have anything to do with that.
GERAGOS: With what?
CORDOVA: With Ms. Peterson's disappearance.

There's a lot more of the same throughout the TS. But it's a waste of time to try and dig it all up because it's not going to change any opinions whatsoever. And I'm really not trying to change any opinions. But my own personal opinions do have a basis and are not fantasy as some want to believe. Every single doubt has a basis in fact.

[ekg]

EKG, do you have a link to that CE yet? I am curious who would have said Laci was ever IN the boat.

I have no idea what you're talking about

[Lavindar]

In the Peterson case it were not admitted and Diane Jackson was not put on the stand. There was legal wrangling about the admissibility and the defense won the battle of least getting the prior hypnosis police interview introduced to the court via the cross exam of the LE officer. The jury was able to hear of the van, the men with the van and the safe on the front lawn of the Medina's house on the 24th of Dec.

This is all IIRC and IMO in case the "link and prove" crew are lurking around.

I posted it earlier. Guess I will have to write down the post #s where I post things since no one seems to read them

[ekg]

I apologize...sometimes as I read, I formulate questions as I go. I can recall them so long as I don't deviate with a single thought other than the question itself. If I try to PC them up, I'll forget half. If I go back to fix it afterwards...post size doubles and post time triples!

well....... atleast your excuse is better than mine... mine is simply that I talk WAY too much....... HA!






There's a great many stories linking A to B to C. I obviously can't state as fact that they all are wrong, but it appears as if people have gone to great lengths to connect folks to defend Scott.

I used to have list I was collecting of all the strange 'links' in this case... I don't mean links as in nefariousness... I mean just weird stuff like all the ppl named Peterson..or Ava Frey's b/f living a cpl roads from Sharon and Ron..just odd coincidences that's all.... I wish I had saved it, it just was always good for atleast a "hmmmmmm"


but anyway... I know what you're saying.. I can be linked to Kevin Bacon in 3 turns, so I don't put too much into all the a+b+c linkage-LOL.... what I was talking about or what I am talking about is actual undeniable links..Maybe one day I will come across the treasure trove on old websites having to do with this case...lol










I'll take your word for this...as long as I've been following case debate on this, I've never been able to determine what Pearce has and what Pearce used. Todd had a Schwinn.

Thank you, but you don't need to just take my word for it :) ... I got my info from Pearce's interview with Garth Stapely from the Mod Bee...

http://crimeshots.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-335.html
Pearce, who turns 46 on Thursday, said Steven Wayne Todd awakened him early Dec. 26, 2002 — two days after the pregnant woman was reported missing. Pearce said he drove Todd in a Chevrolet Corsica to Covena Avenue about 6:30 a.m. and parked in front of a house.


I don't see it. If you want to end things before it escalates to murder, you make damn sure it gets ended with a tip that leaves no doubt. With the exception of giving your name, you could have hung those guys out to dry and they'd have never known. Vague tips don't help your cause, all it does is create attention to your area, and nothing good comes from that for any of them.

the problem here is history has shown us that this isn't always how it works... it's how it SHOULD work IMO, but it just doesn't always.. No, I don't have a link to a specific story, but I think we can agree that there are accessories to crimes that have just given enough of a tip to be deemed credible, but left enough out so that either they weren't implicated or b/c they were scared or whatever.... and some might know what is right and wrong, and not agree with the other person is doing, but for whatever reason they don't speak up loud enough.

it's possible the tip wasn't too explicit b/c he was afraid of being connected somehow... even tho he wanted her found, he still didn't want to be blamed... so he called in with as much info as he could give without implicating too many ppl...... I think the tip was more of a "Help her" tip than a pointing the finger at who did it tip, or someones name would have been mentioned...know what I mean?

but when she could no longer be helped..... it became a CYA thing...






My point here is that advocates scoff at any wrapping and taping of Laci by Scott. So, this part is moot if you agree that both Scott or someone else could have and that neither is more unreasonable than the other. (See, I can cooperate! LOL)


Sure, I'll agree with that.....I'm flexible.:tongue:






Guess my issue here is picturing a pregnant Laci fitting into a standard 55g drum. And then we'd have to discuss that tedious rigor mortis argument again!

I've seen a tool box like the DA used with their pregnant lady demonstration... and if she could fit in that she could fit in a 55g drum IMO...a rigor wouldn't be a problem since she would have been put into it right when she died IMO....

[Lavindar]

Can someone tell me WHERE Garegos gives a Bates Stamp # in this interrogation

1) Mark Geragos: Detective, specifically, once again, this is a sheet like what we had up before on Harshman's, correct?
2) Craig Grogan: Correct.
3) Mark Geragos: Okay. And specifically it's a sheet that was phoned in at, looks like 4:10, looks like from Sergeant Ed Steele; is that right?
4) Craig Grogan: Yes.
5) Mark Geragos: And who is he?
6) Craig Grogan: He's a sergeant with the Modesto Police Department. He was assigned to go –
7) Judge Delucchi: Detective Grogan, you're talking away from the microphone. I'm not sure they can hear you.
8) Craig Grogan: Assigned to go to the volunteer center after it was opened at the hotel.
9) Mark Geragos: Okay. And he talked to Diane Jackson, who, the woman that we had pointed out, lived on this Edgebrook Street in that La Loma neighborhood; is that correct?
10) Craig Grogan: I'm not sure if he talked to her directly when, when she called in, or if he received that information and then just passed it on.
11) Mark Geragos: Okay. And then he said that, what was on the call sheet was that she witnessed a burglary on Covena, correct? 459 is a Penal Code Section for burglary?
12) Craig Grogan: Yes.
13) Mark Geragos: On 12:24 at 11:40 a.m.?
14) Craig Grogan: That's what it says.
15) Mark Geragos: Okay. And she said she saw the van and the safe being removed from the house, correct?
16) Craig Grogan: That's what it says.


On cross, it is stated that the information comes from a report:

686) Birgit Fladager: And I'm going to refer you to a defense report. Do you have a copy of it? There is not a Bates number on it.
687) Judge Delucchi: Remind the jury, this is the testimony that was off reports. A little different from the other.
688) Craig Grogan: All right, I have that report.
689) Birgit Fladager: What is the date of that interview?
690) Craig Grogan: I believe it's January 16th. Yes.
691) Birgit Fladager: The reports, in the course of that interview, is there any indication at all by Miss Jackson that she said she saw a safe?
692) Craig Grogan: No.
693) Birgit Fladager: Is there any indication at all in that interview that Ms. Jackson claimed to have witnessed a burglary?
694) Craig Grogan: No. It indicates that she made observations. And then she heard about the burglary and thought that the two individuals or these other vehicles and the burglary may be related.
695) Birgit Fladager: Is that because she saw a van?
696) Craig Grogan: Yes, it appears so.
697) Birgit Fladager: And that she saw three short, dark-skinned males by the van?

[woohoo]

Hi ekg,
I was reading your posts about past files and linking people. I remember them well. At one time some could have read like a genealogy charting. I was and still am amazed at the connecting threads that ran thru this case.

[Lavindar]

Pretty shrewd but cowardly act by MG here. Got DJ's testimony in without DJ answering the prosecutions questions and got Dempewolf's blocked for the most part. Gives the impression he had something to hide...like the truth! IMO It certainly does.

[Lavindar]

Hi ekg,
I was reading your posts about past files and linking people. I remember them well. At one time some could have read like a genealogy charting. I was and still am amazed at the connecting threads that ran thru this case.


One major problem. There has been nothing posted to SHOW those links. So they are only opinion. And as opinion, I say that SHAWN AND ADAM TENBRINK are NOT related. My opinion is as good as hers.

[woohoo]

no, my post had to deal with why I didn't answer TG question..... that question was why I didn't think LE investigated enough and where I got my info...what sources...

and I'm not sad,cynical or jaded in the least....and I hope no tragedy takes my ability to laugh from me....without humor and smiles in your life, what is the point... IMO

but have a good night anyway....


night all....... must read my book now :seeya:

LOL ekg, I am reading trying to catch up and just realized this is all from last night!! That's about par for me.
Anyway, I tried to post some of the TS that were relative to my thoughts as to the case not being thoroughly investigated. It's in the first days that I was concerned with. The reports of Laci sightings that were passed over, the information given to Brocchini about Tracy, and the tip from Harshman first came in on the 28th, saying he had seen her a few days before. Or rather seeing a woman fitting her description. That was really close in time to Laci's disappearance. It was filed away under the name of "Harsh." Brocchini described a basket he threw tips into. Maybe that's where it went.

[Lavindar]

LOL ekg, I am reading trying to catch up and just realized this is all from last night!! That's about par for me.
Anyway, I tried to post some of the TS that were relative to my thoughts as to the case not being thoroughly investigated. It's in the first days that I was concerned with. The reports of Laci sightings that were passed over, the information given to Brocchini about Tracy, and the tip from Harshman first came in on the 28th, saying he had seen her a few days before. Or rather seeing a woman fitting her description. That was really close in time to Laci's disappearance. It was filed away under the name of "Harsh." Brocchini described a basket he threw tips into. Maybe that's where it went.
597) Birgit Fladager: The traffic that runs through that area, are you familiar with it?
598) Craig Grogan: Yes.
599) Birgit Fladager: That is a fairly busy street?
600) Craig Grogan: Yes.
601) Birgit Fladager: The location of La Loma that Mr. Freitas indicated, about how far away would you say that is from the Covena address?
602) Craig Grogan: It would be an estimate. I would say maybe three quarters of a mile. I think it's the, it's about six blocks.
603) Birgit Fladager: From the Covena house to where Mr. Freitas indicated he thought he saw Laci Peterson?
604) Craig Grogan: Yes, ma'am.
605) Birgit Fladager: Let's talk a little bit about Homer Maldonado. Is he another person who claimed to have seen Laci Peterson?
606) Craig Grogan: Yes.
607) Birgit Fladager: And his claim was that he saw her up by a gas station by Covena and Camelia?
608) Craig Grogan: Miller and Camelia.
609) Birgit Fladager: In the various statements, let me back up. Did Mr. Maldonado give different statements on different days?
610) Craig Grogan: Yes.
611) Birgit Fladager: And initially did he give a description of the clothing that this woman was wearing?
612) Craig Grogan: In his initial tip, no.
613) Birgit Fladager: Did he later then call in again, or talk to someone else, and then say that she was wearing black pants?
614) Mark Geragos: Objection. Leading.
615) Judge Delucchi: Overruled.
616) Craig Grogan: Yes. In an interview with a defense investigator, he said that she was wearing dark pants and a light top. And it appears it was in an interview in January. I have seen the videotape of this as well.
617) Birgit Fladager: And the timeframe where he indicated he saw Laci Peterson was what?
618) Craig Grogan: In that report, or the initial tip?
619) Birgit Fladager: In the initial report.
620) Craig Grogan: In the initial tip it was 9:45 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.
621) Birgit Fladager: On the area that you have indicated for the jury earlier, correct?
622) Craig Grogan: Yes. One of the dots up there that's marked.
623) Birgit Fladager: And Grace Wolf indicated that she saw the person she thought was Laci Peterson on December 24th between 9:30 and 9:45?
624) Mark Geragos: Objection. That misstates the evidence. And it's leading. And it's assuming facts not in evidence.
625) Judge Delucchi: It's leading. I'll sustain the objection. What date, what time did Miss Wolf tell you that they saw Laci Peterson?
626) Craig Grogan: Sorry, your Honor. One moment. 9:30 and 9:45.
627) Birgit Fladager: And did Ms. Wolf put this person in black pants as well?
628) Craig Grogan: Yes.
629) Birgit Fladager: And Ms. Wolf indicated she saw this person at the intersection of Encina and Santa Barbara?
630) Craig Grogan: Yes.
631) Birgit Fladager: And approximately how far away is that from where Mr. Maldonado indicated that he saw the person he saw at 9:45, between 9:45 and 10?
632) Craig Grogan: Encina and Santa Barbar
633) Birgit Fladager: Where is that little one you put up, Mr. Geragos?
634) Mark Geragos: You have the other one you marked.
635) Judge Delucchi: I think the other one is more helpful to the jury, the one Mr. Geragos marked. She can project upthere, and I think it's, do you want to give her the number?
636) Mark Geragos: She's got it.
637) Judge Delucchi: I think it's there. That's much better.
638) Birgit Fladager: All right. I'm just going to point what.
639) Judge Delucchi: M-1 is where Mr. Maldonado said he saw her. And,
640) Birgit Fladager: M-1 is Homer Maldonado.
641) Mark Geragos: M-1 is Maldonado. F is Freitas, and W-1 is Wolf.
642) Birgit Fladager: Okay. Detective Grogan, on these particular sightings that we have been talking about, as well as the various other ones which are indicated on the diagram up there, do you consider any of these verifiable sightings?
643) Craig Grogan: No, ma'am.
644) Birgit Fladager: Of the ones that we are look at here on the screen, Homer Maldonado, Freitas, and Grace Wolf, given the timeframe of 10:08 to 10:18, would any of these work to be Laci Peterson?
645) Craig Grogan: No.
646) Birgit Fladager: With the distance between these locations and the Covena Avenue home, well, let me just ask it this way. Why wouldn't they work?
647) Craig Grogan: Well, none of them fall within that time range that I, that you just spoke of, 10:08 to 10:18. And they are spread out quite a distance away. La Loma Avenue, if you, when we watched the video the other day, starting from the house and driving over to La Loma, it takes a few minutes even to drive that. I didn't time it, but you watched it I think in real time at least once. It's a distance to walk.



Grogan answers why the witnesses were not considered reliable. The Harshman tip did NOT come in the 28th - the siting was on the 28th.

538) Craig Grogan: It appears the date is December 28th, and some time between 2:00 and 4:00 p.m.
539) Birgit Fladager: And why is it you come to that conclusion?
540) Craig Grogan: Well, he said that his initial call into the Police Department was the same day that he made those observations. His call into the Police Department is on the 28th. Also, he said something initially. He estimated it was probably a week after she that she, being Laci Peterson, disappeared that he made these observations. And he said something about already seeing her in the media and there were flyers up. So clearly it wasn't the 24th.
541) Birgit Fladager: He reported seeing the flyers and the information in the media prior to actually seeing this event occur?
542) Craig Grogan: Correct.
543) Birgit Fladager: And in your investigation into Mr. Harshman, did you also review the daily log of contact at the Command Center that was provided by Sergeant Cloward?
544) Craig Grogan: Yes.
545) Birgit Fladager: And did you review the report from January 3rd, 2003, contacts from that day?
546) Craig Grogan: Yes, I have seen it.
547) Birgit Fladager: Specifically looking at the top of Bates stamp 41006.
548) Craig Grogan: I'm sorry just a moment
549) Birgit Fladager: And I have a copy I'd be happy to share with you if you can't find it.
560) Craig Grogan: That would help.
561) Birgit Fladager: Was there anything this that report, detective, which reaffirmed for you that this sighting, alleged sighting,
562) Mark Geragos: Objection. Leading.
563) Judge Delucchi: Well, I think it's, the way it's going is capable of a yes or no answer, so I'll permit it.
564) Birgit Fladager: Was there anything that report, detective, which confirmed for you that this sighting of Laci Peterson, in fact, occurred after December 24th, and was on or about December 28th?
565) Craig Grogan: Yes.
566) Birgit Fladager: What was that?
567) Craig Grogan: The log from the Command Post, which is dated January 3rd. When Mr. Harshman contacted somebody at the Command Post on that day, he said it was six days prior which, I believe, would be the 28th.

[frydaddy]

Thank you, but you don't need to just take my word for it :) ... I got my info from Pearce's interview with Garth Stapely from the Mod Bee...

http://crimeshots.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-335.html
Pearce, who turns 46 on Thursday, said Steven Wayne Todd awakened him early Dec. 26, 2002 — two days after the pregnant woman was reported missing. Pearce said he drove Todd in a Chevrolet Corsica to Covena Avenue about 6:30 a.m. and parked in front of a house.

Thanks for this!

the problem here is history has shown us that this isn't always how it works... it's how it SHOULD work IMO, but it just doesn't always.. No, I don't have a link to a specific story, but I think we can agree that there are accessories to crimes that have just given enough of a tip to be deemed credible, but left enough out so that either they weren't implicated or b/c they were scared or whatever.... and some might know what is right and wrong, and not agree with the other person is doing, but for whatever reason they don't speak up loud enough.

it's possible the tip wasn't too explicit b/c he was afraid of being connected somehow... even tho he wanted her found, he still didn't want to be blamed... so he called in with as much info as he could give without implicating too many ppl...... I think the tip was more of a "Help her" tip than a pointing the finger at who did it tip, or someones name would have been mentioned...know what I mean?

but when she could no longer be helped..... it became a CYA thing...

Impossible to know for sure either way, we're guessing at behavior of deviants here, so call it a coin flip...for now! :)

I've seen a tool box like the DA used with their pregnant lady demonstration... and if she could fit in that she could fit in a 55g drum IMO...a rigor wouldn't be a problem since she would have been put into it right when she died IMO....

I believe if my math is correct and my recall of grade school volume formulas aren't faulty, that the Greenlee toolbox when empty has more than double the space of a 55g drum when empty. She may be able to fit, but with significant difficulty going in and more importantly, coming out. The weight of the drum with Laci and water would be significant. I think I read once that a 55g drum full of water would weigh 450 lbs. I'm having difficulty imagining a plausible scenario between her being in the drum and being placed on the shore.

BBL for more!

[woohoo]

I used to have list I was collecting of all the strange 'links' in this case... I don't mean links as in nefariousness... I mean just weird stuff like all the ppl named Peterson..or Ava Frey's b/f living a cpl roads from Sharon and Ron..just odd coincidences that's all.... I wish I had saved it, it just was always good for atleast a "hmmmmmm"
....

Here's one of those hum-m-m-m's.

I was always curious about the "Longview" sighting. It was tossed away like an old shoe and the clerk was made out to be in need of "15 minutes of fame." Did MPD ever really look at the tapes? They did not allow Scott to see them - and I think they should have.
But in the conversation between Scott and "Jacobs" from Longview Police Dept. there was one small remark that caught my interest. If it had already been decided Laci was NOT on these tapes - WHO decided that??
But more important is the fact that this conversation leads me to think there was a pregnant woman on those tapes. But SOMEONE had discounted it being Laci. Who could that be? What do you think?

Scott PETERSON: All right. Did they…did they look at the tapes?

Detective JACOBS: They’re going to get a copy of ‘em.

Scott PETERSON: They’re going to get a copy?

Detective JACOBS: Uh-huh (affirmative).

Scott PETERSON: So they haven’t received one yet?

Detective JACOBS: Nope.

Scott PETERSON: Okay. Uh…I’ll certainly give them a call, but can you tell me…I mean unequivocally it was, it was not her or is there a chance?

Detective JACOBS: She’s not there. She’s not on the videotapes at all.

Scott PETERSON: Was there a pregnant woman there at all or was it just…?

Detective JACOBS: One that didn’t look like her.

Scott PETERSON: Really?

Detective JACOBS: That’s it. There’s no one…

Scott PETERSON: Not even close, huh?

Detective JACOBS: Not even close. But you’ll have to talk to the Modesto Police Department, okay?Scott PETERSON: Certainly. I wanted to get it, you know, straight from you as well.

Detective JACOBS: Okay.

[ekg]

Hi ekg,
I was reading your posts about past files and linking people. I remember them well. At one time some could have read like a genealogy charting. I was and still am amazed at the connecting threads that ran thru this case.

It's utterly mind boggling........... at times I was waiting for the camera to come out and say "You've just been Punk'd"

but at the same time it was fascinating finding them all.:seeya:

[Otter]

Here's one of those hum-m-m-m's.

I was always curious about the "Longview" sighting. It was tossed away like an old shoe and the clerk was made out to be in need of "15 minutes of fame." Did MPD ever really look at the tapes? They did not allow Scott to see them - and I think they should have.
But in the conversation between Scott and "Jacobs" from Longview Police Dept. there was one small remark that caught my interest. If it had already been decided Laci was NOT on these tapes - WHO decided that??
But more important is the fact that this conversation leads me to think there was a pregnant woman on those tapes. But SOMEONE had discounted it being Laci. Who could that be? What do you think?



Who decided it wasn't Laci? Would that be hard for anyone at that point in time?

Here's articles from the Longview Daily News. I live about 2 hours north of Longview, been through it many times and this was big news for this little town.

"We saw no one we would say looked like Laci Peterson," he said. They did see one pregnant woman, but she was not accompanied by a man and did not make a transaction such as the one the clerk described, he said.

Detectives plan to interview the clerk again.

"We will try to confirm if that is still the story," Chief Bob Burgreen said. "We want to discover a rational reason why what she told us what happened was not on the tape."

The Daily News visited the clerk's house in Longview Friday morning and left a message on her phone, but she did not call back. Burgreen said she has not left town.

"We will make a decision in the next day or so what to do with this case," he said. Police have not decided whether the clerk will be charged with making a false report, he said.

"Our interest is not in prosecution, but to determine what the truth is," he said.

He said officers will also do a follow-up interview with a female customer who told them she saw someone who looked like Peterson.

Burgreen called the initial report a "glimmer of hope" in a case which has captured national attention since Peterson disappeared.

"As a dad, as a grandfather, I hoped we would see Laci," Burgreen said. "I hoped this would be the lead that would help law enforcement find her alive." He said his officers have related their findings to Modesto police, who told them this is one of numerous false leads that have come in since Peterson disappeared.



http://www.tdn.com/articles/2003/02/01/area_news/news02.txt


Here's another, but the clerk was sticking with her story despite the facts.

http://www.tdn.com/articles/2003/02/05/area_news/news06.txt

And another:

http://www.tdn.com/articles/2003/01/31/area_news/news02.txt

And another:

http://www.tdn.com/articles/2003/01/30/area_news/news01.txt

See, this was a huge deal in Longview. If Longview LE had any suspicion that Laci was on that tape, they'd be all over it. They saw the tape first, and IMO we'd know if there was anything there. Four articles about a false sighting? Yeah, it was a big deal.

Unless, of course, the conspiracy spread farther north than was thought.

[Lavindar]

Here's one of those hum-m-m-m's.

I was always curious about the "Longview" sighting. It was tossed away like an old shoe and the clerk was made out to be in need of "15 minutes of fame." Did MPD ever really look at the tapes? They did not allow Scott to see them - and I think they should have.
But in the conversation between Scott and "Jacobs" from Longview Police Dept. there was one small remark that caught my interest. If it had already been decided Laci was NOT on these tapes - WHO decided that??
But more important is the fact that this conversation leads me to think there was a pregnant woman on those tapes. But SOMEONE had discounted it being Laci. Who could that be? What do you think?

Scott PETERSON: All right. Did they…did they look at the tapes?

Detective JACOBS: They’re going to get a copy of ‘em.

Scott PETERSON: They’re going to get a copy?

Detective JACOBS: Uh-huh (affirmative).

Scott PETERSON: So they haven’t received one yet?

Detective JACOBS: Nope.

Scott PETERSON: Okay. Uh…I’ll certainly give them a call, but can you tell me…I mean unequivocally it was, it was not her or is there a chance?

Detective JACOBS: She’s not there. She’s not on the videotapes at all.

Scott PETERSON: Was there a pregnant woman there at all or was it just…?

Detective JACOBS: One that didn’t look like her.

Scott PETERSON: Really?

Detective JACOBS: That’s it. There’s no one…

Scott PETERSON: Not even close, huh?

Detective JACOBS: Not even close. But you’ll have to talk to the Modesto Police Department, okay?Scott PETERSON: Certainly. I wanted to get it, you know, straight from you as well.

Detective JACOBS: Okay.

Read teh update on January 31
http://www.lacipeterson.com/longview.html

[frydaddy]

interestingly enough...... the copy of the PC release is the cover of her book..

http://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Game-Untold-Peterson-Investigation/dp/0060766123

click on the 'see inside' and it brings up the cover... you can just barely read at the top of the book..

Office of the Chief of Police
Wednesday 25,2002
10am for immediate release

Press Conference to be held on eight month Pregnant woman missing

but I can't find anything on it....... I can find one the 30th, but not on the 25th...hopefully someone else can

but I already posted where it was said to Brochinni..... and I can't imagine that he wouldn't have looked into it...


Sorry, this was from awhile back in the thread, but I found what you were looking for. http://www.scottisinnocent.com/ Look up Defense Exhibit 7V...it's number three on top right! Just FYI!

[ekg]

Yes it’s what I asked for and it is appreciated. It helps give me insight to your thought processes. Won’t ask you to do it again, because my brain, my eyes, and my arse are feeling the burn! LOL

Hope you know though, that it’s not what you say I find unbelievable, it’s the information that causes you to think what you do. I don’t think less of you because you believe it though, I hope that is obvious! At least you seem more open than most AND you are willing to put yourself out there. You get props for that.

I was going to go thru and reply/quote everything again. But I think we both made our points clear and understandable and all the next replies will do is circle around our original answers, but not change anything..

but if you would like another point/counter point or more clarification.. I really have no life right now b/c it just too damn hot so I will be glad to give it to you.....LOL..:lol:

But I did want to reply to this last part... When I said you wouldn't find any of it believable, I used the wrong words.. I meant what you said-lol, it's the information you don't necessarily believe.. and I don't think any less of you for not believing it either.

I get the whole K.I.S.S theory... and in that theory Scott is the man who did it..... and I have my days when I say... Yep, he did it.... but it's the nagging "there's something not right" feeling in the back of brain that compels me to look again and again to find what it is I'm missing..and it's during the looking that I find all these other ppl or circumstances that just don't add up to it being him.. IMO I could believe it was him so much easier if there wasn't an Amber. Or if he hadn't been 'composed' (for lack of a better word), or if he had begged for her return...I can find more 'guilt' in trying to act not-guilty than actually acting like you just don't care..:shrug:

I don't know if I just look for bad LE.. or if there really are alot of them around... just going by the last few high profile cases over the years...IMO there seems to be alot of them around... so I ask myself, why not in this case?

going by personal experience I've dealt with both good cops and bad cops...some have jumped to an erroneous conclusion b/c the road I live on rhymes with Compton. Yes, I'm serious.. the comment was "Well you know what <insert my street name> rhymes with don't you? Compton. That must mean something"... of course it was my reply that probably got me in the most trouble (which was "yeah, it means you're an idiot. what the hell does that have to do with anything?"--HA!)

It's the questions I have that lead me to these other suspects...and hopefully I've given you enough insight into why I can't assimilate into the Guilty camp until those suspects and answers are finally put to rest.

Thanks for the conversation.... I think we can both(all) learn alot from this kind of exchange..... It when it turns ugly,demanding and insulting that defenses go up and nothing is learned..sometimes there just isn't a link to explain why.....

and hell, just b/c aingael was so respectful and kindly illustrated her point of the fetus/uterus measurement I can almost put that issue to bed........not totally to bed, LOL.. but a little closer than it was before she entered the conversation..

so I'm glad we did this......... you're a cool guy Fry! :beer:


hey, I'm a poet and don't know it...:read:
:lol:

[ekg]

Sorry, this was from awhile back in the thread, but I found what you were looking for. http://www.scottisinnocent.com/ Look up Defense Exhibit 7V...it's number three on top right! Just FYI!

Holy crap!:eek: LOL

thanks Fry..... I can't even remember why I searched all over for it..... but I know it had something to do with Jackie's dead cell phone statement....

Thanks for digging up and answering an old question....:beer:





ahhhhhhh I remember... someone asked who was at the PC and thats why I went looking for it.....

thanks again Fry

[TopGunner]

This might be a tad OT, but I just watched (for the 200th time), the A&E video on this case. It's objective reporting and a thorough recap on all the events as they unfolded. How I wish I could link everyone here to it. Seeing his mug all over again just reinforces what I've never doubted to begin with - he's a sociopath and he's a murderer.

Talking about it is one thing, SEEING and HEARING him is another.

As Dennis, Sharon, Brent, Amy and Ron are BEGGING for her return, doubled over in pain, unable to continue talking - ISP is strutting around like a rooster about to get lucky, completely IGNORNING the press, hiding out in the crowd away from all the family members at the vigil and then you hear the GLEE in his voice "Amber! Amber can you hear me? Amber it's New Years! The crowds here are huge!!!"

Nobody will ever convince me he was grieving in his own way. He is literally giddy with joy in that conversation while everyone in the entire situation is folded in pain.

No wonder LE had their eyes on him. How in the world could they IGNORE that monster???:shrug:

[woohoo]

597) Grogan answers why the witnesses were not considered reliable. [B]The Harshman tip did NOT come in the 28th - the siting was on the 28th.[/
567) Craig Grogan: The log from the Command Post, which is dated January 3rd. When Mr. Harshman contacted somebody at the Command Post on that day, he said it was six days prior which, I believe, would be the 28th.

Your post is non-responsive! You say "it did NOT come in on the 28th" Then you post all this rhetoric showing that it does! What gives??

Oh and of course Grogan explains why they paid no attention to the tips. They didn't fit a "pre-determined" time frame. 10:08-10:18. That's not really investigating IMO.

B]538) Craig Grogan: It appears the date is December 28th, and some time between 2:00 and 4:00 p.m.
539) Birgit Fladager: And why is it you come to that conclusion?
540) Craig Grogan: Well, he said that his initial call into the Police Department was the same day that he made those observations. His call into the Police Department is on the 28th

[Radio Flyer]

How much does everyone wanna bet that the word "adipocere" and all it's meanings are never even touched on in the appeals process???:tongue:


why would it?

[TopGunner]

why would it?


No clue. :D

[attorneywan2be]

why would it?


Hi Radio Flyer :seeya:

Who said it would ...LOL

[Radio Flyer]

Pretty shrewd but cowardly act by MG here. Got DJ's testimony in without DJ answering the prosecutions questions and got Dempewolf's blocked for the most part. Gives the impression he had something to hide...like the truth! IMOThe judge made the ruling disallowing the testimony. See, the prosecutor failed to follow the law when hypnotizing a witness. Had the judge allowed anything more than he did, it would have been reversible error.

Now, you wouldn't the judge to commit that type of error would you? I would think not, but you blame Geragos for the error committed by the Prosecutor claiming Geragos is trying to keep something hidden. Why would the Pros go against the law if he wasn't try to hide something?

[attorneywan2be]

Snip


I can find more 'guilt' in trying to act not-guilty than actually acting like you just don't care..:shrug:

Snip




I totally agree excellent point....with that said.. I believe he cared about Laci though...

[Radio Flyer]

Hi Radio Flyer :seeya:

Who said it would ...LOL
I'm not entirely sure :biggrin:


Hiya AW2B :seeya:

[Radio Flyer]

This might be a tad OT, but I just watched (for the 200th time), the A&E video on this case. It's objective reporting and a thorough recap on all the events as they unfolded. How I wish I could link everyone here to it. Seeing his mug all over again just reinforces what I've never doubted to begin with - he's a sociopath and he's a murderer.

Talking about it is one thing, SEEING and HEARING him is another.

As Dennis, Sharon, Brent, Amy and Ron are BEGGING for her return, doubled over in pain, unable to continue talking - ISP is strutting around like a rooster about to get lucky, completely IGNORNING the press, hiding out in the crowd away from all the family members at the vigil and then you hear the GLEE in his voice "Amber! Amber can you hear me? Amber it's New Years! The crowds here are huge!!!"

Nobody will ever convince me he was grieving in his own way. He is literally giddy with joy in that conversation while everyone in the entire situation is folded in pain.

No wonder LE had their eyes on him. How in the world could they IGNORE that monster???:shrug:
IF Scott had never said a word that was recorded, would he have been convicted?

[rachelslaw]

why would it?

I wouldn't

:shrug:


:tongue:

[TopGunner]

The judge made the ruling disallowing the testimony. See, the prosecutor failed to follow the law when hypnotizing a witness. Had the judge allowed anything more than he did, it would have been reversible error.

Now, you wouldn't the judge to commit that type of error would you? I would think not, but you blame Geragos for the error committed by the Prosecutor claiming Geragos is trying to keep something hidden. Why would the Pros go against the law if he wasn't try to hide something?

I disagree flyer. Think about it. Diane Jackson "thought" she saw three men near a van. She described those three men as looking the complete opposite as the burglars with bikes. MG is the one who ended up with THE VAN in his possession.

Nothing came of Jackson, NOT because she was hypnotized using incorrect procedure (after all, she was hypnotized in an attempt to identify suspects, not to nail ISP, big difference). MG would have changed his diaper if this witness had ANYTHING of substance to say and was not allowed to do so.:tongue:

[TopGunner]

I totally agree excellent point....with that said.. I believe he cared about Laci though...


Sure he did AW2B, so much so that he murderer her, and his son.

After lying and cheating on her.

After spending family money for fake diploma's, roses, champane and strawberries.

He cared about her SO MUCH, he choose NOT to attend a Christmas party with her, but to let her drive herself to their friends house in bad weather, while he went out with his lady friend.

He adorded her so silly, he tried selling her HOME, and everything she OWNED while she hadn't even been gone a full week.

Yuppers............a real caring SOB, any which way you look at it.

[TopGunner]

IF Scott had never said a word that was recorded, would he have been convicted?


According to the 12 jurors, YES.

According to my personal opinion, YES.

I will add, however, that he should have followed everyone's advice and kept his mouth shut - the arrogance he showed by ignoring that advice didn't HELP him.

[woohoo]

Who decided it wasn't Laci? Would that be hard for anyone at that point in time?

Here's articles from the Longview Daily News. I live about 2 hours north of Longview, been through it many times and this was big news for this little town.

"We saw no one we would say looked like Laci Peterson," he said. They did see one pregnant woman, but she was not accompanied by a man and did not make a transaction such as the one the clerk described, he said.

Detectives plan to interview the clerk again.

"We will try to confirm if that is still the story," Chief Bob Burgreen said. "We want to discover a rational reason why what she told us what happened was not on the tape."

The Daily News visited the clerk's house in Longview Friday morning and left a message on her phone, but she did not call back. Burgreen said she has not left town.

"We will make a decision in the next day or so what to do with this case," he said. Police have not decided whether the clerk will be charged with making a false report, he said.

"Our interest is not in prosecution, but to determine what the truth is," he said.

He said officers will also do a follow-up interview with a female customer who told them she saw someone who looked like Peterson.

Burgreen called the initial report a "glimmer of hope" in a case which has captured national attention since Peterson disappeared.

"As a dad, as a grandfather, I hoped we would see Laci," Burgreen said. "I hoped this would be the lead that would help law enforcement find her alive." He said his officers have related their findings to Modesto police, who told them this is one of numerous false leads that have come in since Peterson disappeared.



http://www.tdn.com/articles/2003/02/01/area_news/news02.txt


Here's another, but the clerk was sticking with her story despite the facts.

http://www.tdn.com/articles/2003/02/05/area_news/news06.txt

And another:

http://www.tdn.com/articles/2003/01/31/area_news/news02.txt

And another:

http://www.tdn.com/articles/2003/01/30/area_news/news01.txt

See, this was a huge deal in Longview. If Longview LE had any suspicion that Laci was on that tape, they'd be all over it. They saw the tape first, and IMO we'd know if there was anything there. Four articles about a false sighting? Yeah, it was a big deal.

Unless, of course, the conspiracy spread farther north than was thought.

Thanks for the links. I have them saved and really do want to read them. I am still struggling with my pc. We're going with Hughes Net and are waiting for the installer. If I link now, I lose my login to this board.

[woohoo]

According to the 12 jurors, YES.

According to my personal opinion, YES.

I will add, however, that he should have followed everyone's advice and kept his mouth shut - the arrogance he showed by ignoring that advice didn't HELP him.



Ah-h-h yes, the 12 jurors. Now there definitely is a possible appeal issue.

The ones described as mulling the "popular verdict, the community verdict, or the verdict that will write the best book." I think they went with the "book verdict" but did it sell very well? Or was it ever written?

[attorneywan2be]

Your post is non-responsive! You say "it did NOT come in on the 28th" Then you post all this rhetoric showing that it does! What gives??

Oh and of course Grogan explains why they paid no attention to the tips. They didn't fit a "pre-determined" time frame. 10:08-10:18. That's not really investigating IMO.

B]538) Craig Grogan: It appears the date is December 28th, and some time between 2:00 and 4:00 p.m.
539) Birgit Fladager: And why is it you come to that conclusion?
540) Craig Grogan: Well, he said that his initial call into the Police Department was the same day that he made those observations. His call into the Police Department is on the 28th


Exactly woo..

Harshman phoned the police on Dec 28th..he stated that he saw a pregnant woman being pushed into a van 3 or 4 days earlier..however, whoever wrote his name made a mistake, he recorded his name as "Thomas Harsh"..that indicates to me that he most likely saw Laci on Dec 24th...


Mark Geragos: So, at this point, Mr. Harshman has called on the 28th at ]6:50 said he saw a woman being forced into a van, gave a description of the van. Then approximately two months later a New York City police detective says, I have talked to, presumably, Harshman's wife who may have witnessed the incident, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes. He got the information from a friend of Miss Harshman's, Mr. Harshman's wife, I believe.

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

Mark Geragos: And he had said, and as I indicated, when he first called in, you were unaware of this. His name was captured as Harsh, as opposed to Harshman, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes. Based on the tip that you just showed me, if the phone numbers match.
Mark Geragos: That says given to Detective Holmes. That's specifically who the tip was given to, correct? To Detective Holmes?
Craig Grogan: Yes. That's his report from December 28th. And the tip, I think the Harshman tip is, or the Harsh tip –
Mark Geragos: The Harsh tip.
Craig Grogan: Is from the 28th also.
Mark Geragos: It says three or four days ago is when he saw this, correct?
Craig Grogan: Right.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, specifically he describes this female as having a, he describes the van as being extended higher than normal, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes. The top of the van had a fiberglass top that raises it up over the standard height.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And he describes one of the people as being thirties, tall, thin with a ponytail, three-to-four-day growth of beard, dirty blonde to gray hair, scrubby looking?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Says the female was squatting with her back against the chainlink fence, correct? And described her as might have been urinating?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And said that she had a scared look on her face when he looked in her direction?
Craig Grogan: That’s correct.
Mark Geragos: Saw the female walk to the driver's side of the van with the male subject, right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And a second male reached out the open driver's door with his hand and held the female's hand, pulling her into the van at the driver's door, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: He said he was traveling at about twenty miles an hour when he drove past them, right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And it looked to him like the female may have needed assistance, line and he thought the male was trying to stay close by her, trying to control her, right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: He said that she was pregnant. She was wearing a red shirt and black pants, correct? Top of 4528.
Craig Grogan: Pregnant, wearing a red shirt and black pants, yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And he had described himself as a reserve police officer for the Martinez Police Department back in the early 70s, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.

[Lavindar]

The judge made the ruling disallowing the testimony. See, the prosecutor failed to follow the law when hypnotizing a witness. Had the judge allowed anything more than he did, it would have been reversible error.

Now, you wouldn't the judge to commit that type of error would you? I would think not, but you blame Geragos for the error committed by the Prosecutor claiming Geragos is trying to keep something hidden. Why would the Pros go against the law if he wasn't try to hide something?

It wasn't that the judge didn't allow it. It was that he allowed Geragos to make up lies about it. Tell me that Scott didn't get a fair trial - he got every break in the book.

[Lavindar]

Ah-h-h yes, the 12 jurors. Now there definitely is a possible appeal issue.

The ones described as mulling the "popular verdict, the community verdict, or the verdict that will write the best book." I think they went with the "book verdict" but did it sell very well? Or was it ever written?

Can you prove this or is it mudslinging again.

[Lavindar]

Exactly woo..

Harshman phoned the police on Dec 28th..he stated that he saw a pregnant woman being pushed into a van 3 or 4 days earlier..however, whoever wrote his name made a mistake, he recorded his name as "Thomas Harsh"..that indicates to me that he most likely saw Laci on Dec 24th...


Mark Geragos: So, at this point, Mr. Harshman has called on the 28th at ]6:50 said he saw a woman being forced into a van, gave a description of the van. Then approximately two months later a New York City police detective says, I have talked to, presumably, Harshman's wife who may have witnessed the incident, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes. He got the information from a friend of Miss Harshman's, Mr. Harshman's wife, I believe.

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

Mark Geragos: And he had said, and as I indicated, when he first called in, you were unaware of this. His name was captured as Harsh, as opposed to Harshman, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes. Based on the tip that you just showed me, if the phone numbers match.
Mark Geragos: That says given to Detective Holmes. That's specifically who the tip was given to, correct? To Detective Holmes?
Craig Grogan: Yes. That's his report from December 28th. And the tip, I think the Harshman tip is, or the Harsh tip –
Mark Geragos: The Harsh tip.
Craig Grogan: Is from the 28th also.
Mark Geragos: It says three or four days ago is when he saw this, correct?
Craig Grogan: Right.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, specifically he describes this female as having a, he describes the van as being extended higher than normal, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes. The top of the van had a fiberglass top that raises it up over the standard height.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And he describes one of the people as being thirties, tall, thin with a ponytail, three-to-four-day growth of beard, dirty blonde to gray hair, scrubby looking?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Says the female was squatting with her back against the chainlink fence, correct? And described her as might have been urinating?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And said that she had a scared look on her face when he looked in her direction?
Craig Grogan: That’s correct.
Mark Geragos: Saw the female walk to the driver's side of the van with the male subject, right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And a second male reached out the open driver's door with his hand and held the female's hand, pulling her into the van at the driver's door, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: He said he was traveling at about twenty miles an hour when he drove past them, right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And it looked to him like the female may have needed assistance, line and he thought the male was trying to stay close by her, trying to control her, right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: He said that she was pregnant. She was wearing a red shirt and black pants, correct? Top of 4528.
Craig Grogan: Pregnant, wearing a red shirt and black pants, yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And he had described himself as a reserve police officer for the Martinez Police Department back in the early 70s, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.


You are forgetting this:

533) Birgit Fladager: Next, Detective Grogan, I'm going to, we're going to go back and talk about Mr. Harshman that we started out this morning talking about?
534) Craig Grogan: Yes, ma'am.
535) Birgit Fladager: Okay. Now this is the individual that Mr. Geragos asked you about a taped conversation that you had during, I guess in May of this year, is that correct?
536) Craig Grogan: Yes.
537) Birgit Fladager: And during the course of your followup investigation into Mr. Harshman's reported sighting, of seeing a man basically braced over a woman against a fence off of Scenic down by Claus, and then walking with her, or escorting her to the van, that whole series of events. Were you able to determine the day or the timeframe where he would have seen that?
538) Craig Grogan: It appears the date is December 28th, and some time between 2:00 and 4:00 p.m.
539) Birgit Fladager: And why is it you come to that conclusion?
540) Craig Grogan: Well, he said that his initial call into the Police Department was the same day that he made those observations. His call into the Police Department is on the 28th.

Laci was long gone by then. She was in the Bay

[Lavindar]

Thanks for the links. I have them saved and really do want to read them. I am still struggling with my pc. We're going with Hughes Net and are waiting for the installer. If I link now, I lose my login to this board.


Longview police had seen the tape and determined it was NOT LACI. Guess you think they are in the coverup too?

[enlightenme]

Ah-h-h yes, the 12 jurors. Now there definitely is a possible appeal issue.

The ones described as mulling the "popular verdict, the community verdict, or the verdict that will write the best book." I think they went with the "book verdict" but did it sell very well? Or was it ever written?

Dismissed juror Jackson said that about himself, not the other jurors. In fact, he said the new jury with the new foreman was doing a good job.

[Lavindar]

I disagree flyer. Think about it. Diane Jackson "thought" she saw three men near a van. She described those three men as looking the complete opposite as the burglars with bikes. MG is the one who ended up with THE VAN in his possession.

Nothing came of Jackson, NOT because she was hypnotized using incorrect procedure (after all, she was hypnotized in an attempt to identify suspects, not to nail ISP, big difference). MG would have changed his diaper if this witness had ANYTHING of substance to say and was not allowed to do so.:tongue:

If you read the early reports of the Jackson siting there is NO mention of burglary or a safe. Even the defense investigator's report does not mention burglary or safe. The word "safe" comes out of Geragos's mouth pure and simple. I did a lot of research on this back at teh time of the trial and Diane Jackson's original report was of three "suspicious looking men by a white van parked across the street from the Petersons. Two were standing by the back door of the van and one in the yard. Coming from the direction she was going, she could see into the open door and there was no landscaping equipment in it. Surely she would have seen a body if there was one. Nothing about a safe or a burglary was mentioned by her.

BTW, the rumor was that she had nothing else to add under hypnosis.

[Lavindar]

I disagree flyer. Think about it. Diane Jackson "thought" she saw three men near a van. She described those three men as looking the complete opposite as the burglars with bikes. MG is the one who ended up with THE VAN in his possession.

Nothing came of Jackson, NOT because she was hypnotized using incorrect procedure (after all, she was hypnotized in an attempt to identify suspects, not to nail ISP, big difference). MG would have changed his diaper if this witness had ANYTHING of substance to say and was not allowed to do so.:tongue:

There was no safe mentioned as of September 12,2003.

Peterson witness reportedly tells of van
By John Coté
The Modesto Bee
Published Friday, September 12, 2003

A woman who underwent hypnosis told police she saw a suspicious tan van parked across
the street from Scott and Laci Peterson's home the day Laci Peterson was reported
missing, according to a report of the witness's account obtained Thursday.
The witness is the second person to undergo hypnosis in the investigation.

A doctor hypnotized Diane Jackson at the Modesto Police Department in an attempt
to draw out more details. In a statement to police, Jackson also provided information
that conflicts with authorities' version of a burglary that happened around
the time Laci Peterson disappeared.

Jackson said Thursday she could not comment publicly about the sighting because members
of Scott Peterson's defense team have informed her she will be subpoenaed as a witness,
bringing her under a sweeping gag order imposed in the double-murder case.

But according to the report, Jackson told police she was driving to her home in
Modesto's La Loma neighborhood at 11:40 a.m. on Dec. 24 when she saw three men
standing near a tan van parked in front of 516 Covena Ave., directly across the street
from the Peterson home. One rear van door was open, the other ajar.

That house was burglarized while residents Rudy and Susan Medina were out of town.

Authorities said the home was burglarized on Dec. 26 at 6:30 a.m., according to
police reports. The thieves made off with two firearms, tools and a safe
containing jewelry, according to the reports.

On Jan. 2, authorities arrested two men, Steven Wayne Todd, 36, and Donald Glenn
Pearce, 44, in connection with the burglary and said neither was connected to
Laci Peterson's disappearance. Todd led police to some of the stolen property,
including the safe, jewelry and a weed-eater, according to a police report.

"We're confident in our minds that we have resolved one crime," Modesto police
detective Doug Ridenour said shortly after Todd and Pearce's arrest, "and now we
can get back to focusing on Laci's disappearance." That search came to an end in
April when Laci Peterson's body and that of her unborn son were found.

Scott Peterson told police he last saw his wife at about 9:30 a.m. that day as he left
for the bay and she prepared to walk their couple's golden retriever. Peterson, 30, was
arrested charged with two counts of murder. Police discounted reports of a
suspicious van in the neighborhood, saying it belonged to landscapers.

Jackson's account to police indicates that she saw no landscaping equipment with the
three men, whom she described as Hispanic or Asian. Todd and Pearce are white.

In interviewing Jackson, police displayed pictures of three men suspected of being
the trio she spotted in front of the Medina home. The pictures were of men who
previously performed yardwork for Jackson, and clearly different from the men
Jackson saw in front of the Medina home, according to the account. That
trio reportedly turned toward Jackson with malevolent looks as she drove by.

A doctor hypnotized Jackson at the Police Department in an attempt to draw
out more details. She reportedly recalled little else beyond perceiving a threat
from the three men. But authorities believe a link between the men and Peterson's
disappearance is tenuous. Petersons' dog, which her husband said Laci had taken for
a walk, was found running loose more than an hour before Jackson saw the van.

A neighbor said she spotted the golden retriever, McKenzie, between 10:10 and
10:17 a.m., his leash attached and muddy. The woman said she returned the dog to
its yard, not realizing there might be something amiss.

Peterson's defense team repeatedly has said they were searching for a tan or brown
van after at least one other witness reported seeing one in the area around the time
Peterson said his wife was going to walk their dog.

In June, law enforcement located a brown van that Peterson's defense claimed may
have been involved in the case. The van's occupants agreed to let investigators examine
the vehicle, and it was towed to the state crime lab in Ripon, according to the
Stanislaus County district attorney's office.

Authorities investigated several people associated with the van and determined
that they had no involvement in Peterson's disappearance, according to prosecutors.

Kristen Dempewolf, 33, is the other person known to have been hypnotized in the
investigation.Dempewolf was at about the same stage of pregnancy as Peterson at the
time Peterson disappeared and also lives in the neighborhood. Prosecutors have
indicated that they intend to introduce testimony from Dempewolf.




So when did Geragos dream up his scenario.

[Lavindar]

The judge made the ruling disallowing the testimony. See, the prosecutor failed to follow the law when hypnotizing a witness. Had the judge allowed anything more than he did, it would have been reversible error.

Now, you wouldn't the judge to commit that type of error would you? I would think not, but you blame Geragos for the error committed by the Prosecutor claiming Geragos is trying to keep something hidden. Why would the Pros go against the law if he wasn't try to hide something?

I do blame Geragos for playing games and playing Hollywood the whole way. I blame him for leaking information to the press while under a gag order. And I blame him for "testifying" all through the trial. Those who aren't well versed in the law seem to think what Geragos said was testimony......it was not.

Too bad he can't get double the death penalty for all the hearsay that Gergagos got into the trial. Scott didn't have to testify; Geragos did it for him

[enlightenme]

If you read the early reports of the Jackson siting there is NO mention of burglary or a safe. Even the defense investigator's report does not mention burglary or safe. The word "safe" comes out of Geragos's mouth pure and simple. I did a lot of research on this back at teh time of the trial and Diane Jackson's original report was of three "suspicious looking men by a white van parked across the street from the Petersons. Two were standing by the back door of the van and one in the yard. Coming from the direction she was going, she could see into the open door and there was no landscaping equipment in it. Surely she would have seen a body if there was one. Nothing about a safe or a burglary was mentioned by her.

BTW, the rumor was that she had nothing else to add under hypnosis.


Exactly Lavindar!

The SII's keep talking like LE deliberately sabotaged the hypnosis of these two witnesses so they would not be able to testify if needed. As I recall, the hypnotist did not have the correct licensing but there's no proof that LE knew that before they used him.

Since they did not know before hand what info. would come out of this (it could have been something very helpful to the investigation), I doubt they would do something on purpose that would make the evidence inadmissable in court.

Of course, if anything disparaging can be said about LE (and anyone else remotely connected to this case EXCEPT Scott), it will be said over and over again by some NGs.

JMO

[attorneywan2be]

Sure he did AW2B, so much so that he murderer her, and his son.

After lying and cheating on her.

After spending family money for fake diploma's, roses, champane and strawberries.

He cared about her SO MUCH, he choose NOT to attend a Christmas party with her, but to let her drive herself to their friends house in bad weather, while he went out with his lady friend.

He adorded her so silly, he tried selling her HOME, and everything she OWNED while she hadn't even been gone a full week.

Yuppers............a real caring SOB, any which way you look at it.


There is no question that he made a huge mistake by having an affair..but IMO, he still loved Laci very much..I know you mentioned that he spent money on champagne and roses..didn't attend the party with her... etc..but we need to look at the entire picture...

-He attended all the lamaze classes with her.

-He attended her doctor appointment

-They spent money for Laci to have a maid to help her out..

-They also spent money for Laci to go to Sweet Serenity Spa...

-They also spent money for Laci to go to a Yoga class..

-They also spent money for Laci to repair/make new jewelry

-He treated her very well according to friends

-It was Scott who rented a wheelchair for Laci and pushed her around in Disneyland....he didn't want her to walk for hours...why? IMO, he wanted to make sure she was comfortable and the baby was safe..

[frydaddy]

The judge made the ruling disallowing the testimony. See, the prosecutor failed to follow the law when hypnotizing a witness. Had the judge allowed anything more than he did, it would have been reversible error.

Now, you wouldn't the judge to commit that type of error would you? I would think not, but you blame Geragos for the error committed by the Prosecutor claiming Geragos is trying to keep something hidden. Why would the Pros go against the law if he wasn't try to hide something?

I have no problem with the judge's ruling. he's a judge, I am not. As for the rest, when were Diane Jackson and Dempewolf hypnotized and what did the prosecutors office have to do with procuring the hypnotist?

[Lavindar]

Exactly Lavindar!

The SII's keep talking like LE deliberately sabotaged the hypnosis of these two witnesses so they would not be able to testify if needed. As I recall, the hypnotist did not have the correct licensing but there's no proof that LE knew that before they used him.

Since they did not know before hand what info. would come out of this (it could have been something very helpful to the investigation), I doubt they would do something on purpose that would make the evidence inadmissable in court.

Of course, if anything disparaging can be said about LE (and anyone else remotely connected to this case EXCEPT Scott), it will be said over and over again by some NGs.

JMO

IIRC, Dempewolfe walked on Covena and actually talked to Scott while he was loading his truck. She was hypnotised to get more information. Given her appearance, she could easily have been mistaken for Laci and she DID walk in the areas where sightings occured

[Lavindar]

There is no question that he made a huge mistake by having an affair..but IMO, he still loved Laci very much..I know you mentioned that he spent money on champagne and roses..didn't attend the party with her... etc..but we need to look at the entire picture...

-He attended all the lamaze classes with her.-He attended her doctor appointment

-They spent money for Laci to have a maid to help her out..

-They also spent money for Laci to go to Sweet Serenity Spa...

-They also spent money for Laci to go to a Yoga class..

-They also spent money for Laci to repair/make new jewelry-He treated her very well according to friends

-It was Scott who rented a wheelchair for Laci and pushed her around in Disneyland....he didn't want her to walk for hours...why? IMO, he wanted to make sure she was comfortable and the baby was safe..

1. It's a requirement for the coach to attend the La Maz classes. Attendance would be pointless without the coach attending

2. Scott did not spend a dime for the maid. Sharon gave those services to laci as a gift.

You seem to forget that Laci was also working up until the end of November. Maybe HER money paid for the Yoga, jewelry repairs, and her Sweet Serenity visit. If she subbed in November, her final paycheck would have come inDecember.

[woohoo]

But YOU are forgetting this:

[QUOTE BY LAVINDAR]
Grogan answers why the witnesses were not considered reliable. The Harshman tip did NOT come in the 28th - the siting was on the 28th.

All that bandwidth to make a false statement!

[TopGunner]

There is no question that he made a huge mistake by having an affair..but IMO, he still loved Laci very much..I know you mentioned that he spent money on champagne and roses..didn't attend the party with her... etc..but we need to look at the entire picture...

-He attended all the lamaze classes with her.

Of course he did, how could he not?-He attended her doctor appointment
One appt. doesn't add up to love, it adds up to appearances.-They spent money for Laci to have a maid to help her out..

Laci's mother hired the maid.-They also spent money for Laci to go to Sweet Serenity Spa...

Right, Laci went to the spa, she didn't pay for her lover to go.
-They also spent money for Laci to go to a Yoga class..

Again, Laci attended a yoga class, she did not pay for her lover to go.
-They also spent money for Laci to repair/make new jewelry

Laci took her grandmother's jewelry to the jewlers to have the diamonds added to her wedding ring and to have a ring made for her sister. Not for her lover.-He treated her very well according to friends

-It was Scott who rented a wheelchair for Laci and pushed her around in Disneyland....he didn't want her to walk for hours...why? IMO, he wanted to make sure she was comfortable and the baby was safe..

Renting a wheelchair equals caring or appearances? The entire time they were on that trip he was on the phone with Amber.



Sorry AW2B, nothing you've said here shows me he cared about her in the least.

[TopGunner]

I do blame Geragos for playing games and playing Hollywood the whole way. I blame him for leaking information to the press while under a gag order. And I blame him for "testifying" all through the trial. Those who aren't well versed in the law seem to think what Geragos said was testimony......it was not.

Too bad he can't get double the death penalty for all the hearsay that Gergagos got into the trial. Scott didn't have to testify; Geragos did it for him

ITA Lavindar, and back to Jackson being hypnotized unethically by the pros - it occured to me that if that was their motive, they were really taking a chance because she COULD have said something that would have incriminated ISP and they would have intentionally destroyed the chance to use that, which doesn't make any sense at all.

[frydaddy]

I was going to go thru and reply/quote everything again. But I think we both made our points clear and understandable and all the next replies will do is circle around our original answers, but not change anything..

but if you would like another point/counter point or more clarification.. I really have no life right now b/c it just too damn hot so I will be glad to give it to you.....LOL..:lol:

But I did want to reply to this last part... When I said you wouldn't find any of it believable, I used the wrong words.. I meant what you said-lol, it's the information you don't necessarily believe.. and I don't think any less of you for not believing it either.

I get the whole K.I.S.S theory... and in that theory Scott is the man who did it..... and I have my days when I say... Yep, he did it.... but it's the nagging "there's something not right" feeling in the back of brain that compels me to look again and again to find what it is I'm missing..and it's during the looking that I find all these other ppl or circumstances that just don't add up to it being him.. IMO I could believe it was him so much easier if there wasn't an Amber. Or if he hadn't been 'composed' (for lack of a better word), or if he had begged for her return...I can find more 'guilt' in trying to act not-guilty than actually acting like you just don't care..:shrug:

I don't know if I just look for bad LE.. or if there really are alot of them around... just going by the last few high profile cases over the years...IMO there seems to be alot of them around... so I ask myself, why not in this case?

going by personal experience I've dealt with both good cops and bad cops...some have jumped to an erroneous conclusion b/c the road I live on rhymes with Compton. Yes, I'm serious.. the comment was "Well you know what <insert my street name> rhymes with don't you? Compton. That must mean something"... of course it was my reply that probably got me in the most trouble (which was "yeah, it means you're an idiot. what the hell does that have to do with anything?"--HA!)

It's the questions I have that lead me to these other suspects...and hopefully I've given you enough insight into why I can't assimilate into the Guilty camp until those suspects and answers are finally put to rest.

Thanks for the conversation.... I think we can both(all) learn alot from this kind of exchange..... It when it turns ugly,demanding and insulting that defenses go up and nothing is learned..sometimes there just isn't a link to explain why.....

and hell, just b/c aingael was so respectful and kindly illustrated her point of the fetus/uterus measurement I can almost put that issue to bed........not totally to bed, LOL.. but a little closer than it was before she entered the conversation..

so I'm glad we did this......... you're a cool guy Fry! :beer:


hey, I'm a poet and don't know it...:read:
:lol:

Thanks for the kind words E, I appreciate it. I agree we can all learn...about each other if nothing else...but also on case opinion. You are a good sport about stuff and you are more objective than many SNG's and SII's, guess that's why I'm interested in your thoughts, more so than the advocates'! (You've been promoted! LOL)

I'm willing to nominate you bard of the board, by the way!

No problem on the link to the presser release, I found it by accident! :o

[woohoo]

ITA Lavindar, and back to Jackson being hypnotized unethically by the pros - it occured to me that if that was their motive, they were really taking a chance because she COULD have said something that would have incriminated ISP and they would have intentionally destroyed the chance to use that, which doesn't make any sense at all.

The prosecutors already had the complete full statement of both women. There was never any specific reason given for wanting to hypnotize them except to "gain more information." They procured the hypnotist. Yet there was nothing specific they would say they were going for. I think it was ridiculous to want to hypnotize a witness! And I doubt that it is ever done in a trial unless there is something they are trying to remember and cannot. This was not the case with either. IMO

[frydaddy]

The prosecutors already had the complete full statement of both women. There was never any specific reason given for wanting to hypnotize them except to "gain more information." They procured the hypnotist. Yet there was nothing specific they would say they were going for. I think it was ridiculous to want to hypnotize a witness! And I doubt that it is ever done in a trial unless there is something they are trying to remember and cannot. This was not the case with either. IMO

When were the witnesses hypnotized and who procured the hypnotist?

[woohoo]

ITA Lavindar, and back to Jackson being hypnotized unethically by the pros - it occured to me that if that was their motive, they were really taking a chance because she COULD have said something that would have incriminated ISP and they would have intentionally destroyed the chance to use that, which doesn't make any sense at all.

Furthermore it really made no sense to hypnotize the women because the rules governing hypnosis of witnesses is strict:

Testimony must be limited to matters the witness recalled and related before the hypnosis,and the substance of the pre-hypnotic memory must be preserved in written, audiotape or
videotape form before the hypnosis.The law also requires that the hypnosis be performed by
a licensed professional experienced in hypnosis,such as a medical doctor or psychologist,
and not done in the presence of lawenforcement, the prosecution or the defense.

I don't see how Distaso could claim he didnt know the law.

[TopGunner]

Furthermore it really made no sense to hypnotize the women because the rules governing hypnosis of witnesses is strict:

Testimony must be limited to matters the witness recalled and related before the hypnosis,and the substance of the pre-hypnotic memory must be preserved in written, audiotape or
videotape form before the hypnosis.The law also requires that the hypnosis be performed by
a licensed professional experienced in hypnosis,such as a medical doctor or psychologist,
and not done in the presence of lawenforcement, the prosecution or the defense.

I don't see how Distaso could claim he didnt know the law.



Maybe we should ask him! :biggrin:

[attorneywan2be]

1. It's a requirement for the coach to attend the La Maz classes. Attendance would be pointless without the coach attending

2. Scott did not spend a dime for the maid. Sharon gave those services to laci as a gift.

You seem to forget that Laci was also working up until the end of November. Maybe HER money paid for the Yoga, jewelry repairs, and her Sweet Serenity visit. If she subbed in November, her final paycheck would have come December.

Scott could have made excuses so he would not attend the classes...but he didn't ..according to a friend testimony Scott was excited and happy and treated Laci very well...

Link/TS that Sharon gave the maid services to Laci as a gift...

Thanks!

[attorneywan2be]

I'm not entirely sure :biggrin:


Hiya AW2B :seeya:


LOL...

Good to see you...:seeya:

[TopGunner]

Scott could have made excuses so he would not attend the classes...but he didn't ..according to a friend testimony Scott was excited and happy and treated Laci very well...

Link/TS that Sharon gave the maid services to Laci as a gift...

Thanks!

Sharon wrote about it in her book, no link.

We have already established that friends who testified in ISP behalf were not aware of WHO he really was, or what he was really up to. How many took the stand for his sentencing hearing? Zip ~ zero ~ NADA!:seeya:

[TopGunner]

The prosecutors already had the complete full statement of both women. There was never any specific reason given for wanting to hypnotize them except to "gain more information." They procured the hypnotist. Yet there was nothing specific they would say they were going for. I think it was ridiculous to want to hypnotize a witness! And I doubt that it is ever done in a trial unless there is something they are trying to remember and cannot. This was not the case with either. IMO


I would guess that the purpose of hypnotizing someone would be to see if they remember anything that they consciously forgot. If they already specifically knew the information they were looking for then they wouldn't have to look for it, now would they? :biggrin:

[TopGunner]

Furthermore it really made no sense to hypnotize the women because the rules governing hypnosis of witnesses is strict:

Testimony must be limited to matters the witness recalled and related before the hypnosis,and the substance of the pre-hypnotic memory must be preserved in written, audiotape or
videotape form before the hypnosis.The law also requires that the hypnosis be performed by
a licensed professional experienced in hypnosis,such as a medical doctor or psychologist,
and not done in the presence of lawenforcement, the prosecution or the defense.

I don't see how Distaso could claim he didnt know the law.



Since the 1984 law, hypnotism largely has been shelved in criminal investigations,
but it's sometimes used when police run out of leads, observers said.
"If you hit a dead end, you might come up with some facts that would help you,"
said Roger C. Park, an evidence law specialist at the University of California's
Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco.

An example would be a kidnap victim who under hypnosis remembers details such
as riding in a car driven on a gravel road and then over a bridge, Park said.
"You go there and find some evidence, and then you don't need that testimony,"
Park said. "That's what you're hoping during the investigation."

But prosecutors handling Peterson's case indicated in court last week that they
intend to introduce testimony from a Modesto woman who appears to have been
hypnotized. Kristen Dempewolf, who lives in Peterson's La Loma neighborhood,
was questioned in a "cognitive interview where hypnosis techniques were used,"
according to documents prosecutors filed in Stanislaus County Superior Court.

Dempewolf was questioned as police probed the disappearance and death of Peterson's
pregnant wife, Laci. .Dempewolf, 33, owns a dog and was in roughly the same stage of
pregnancy as Laci Peterson when Peterson was reported missing Christmas Eve.

Two witnesses have said they saw Laci Peterson walking her dog after 9:30 a.m.
Dec. 24 -- the time her husband told police he left for a solo fishing trip.

Scott Peterson told police Laci was preparing to walk the couple's golden retriever,
McKenzie, when he left for San Francisco Bay, and he returned from the trip to
find his wife missing. Prosecutors contend that he killed his wife and unborn son,
Conner, on Dec. 23 or Dec. 24. Their bodies were found in April along the eastern
shore of the bay, within four miles of where Scott Peterson said he launched his
boat Christmas Eve. The 30-year-old fertilizer salesman faces the death penalty
if convicted of two counts of murder. Testimony could be key for prosecution.

Dempewolf could be key to the prosecutors' case if she offers an alternative
explanation for witnesses who say they saw Laci Peterson walking her dog Dec. 24.

But if Stanislaus County Superior Court Judge Al Girolami determines that the
hypnosis techniques amount to hypnotism, strict conditions will have to be met for her testimony to be admissable in court.

Testimony must be limited to matters the witness recalled and related before the hypnosis,
and the substance of the pre-hypnotic memory must be preserved in written, audiotape or
videotape form before the hypnosis.

[attorneywan2be]

But YOU are forgetting this:

[QUOTE BY LAVINDAR]
Grogan answers why the witnesses were not considered reliable. The Harshman tip did NOT come in the 28th - the siting was on the 28th.

All that bandwidth to make a false statement!

Woo...IMO, the Harshman call was made on the 28th..and he saw Laci 3 or 4 days earlier...
.
Mark Geragos: Okay. When you went back, and yesterday I had asked you about this Thomas Harsh, and you said that you didn't think you had seen that before yesterday. Now, upon reflection, you think you might have?
Craig Grogan: Yes, I think so. I didn't realize his name was spelled different. I didn't, I didn't realize there was two tips, I guess.
Mark Geragos: Okay. I'll just lead it through what the discovery shows, and we can try and reconstruct it. Basically, when you go back to plot this map, you take a look at the call sheet, and on the call sheet for 12/28 there's this entry for a Thomas Harsh, and that it says, reporting that three or four days ago he saw a pregnant lady being pushed into a van. The caller given to Detective Holmes; right?
Craig Grogan: Correct.

[TopGunner]

Woo...IMO, the Harshman call was made on the 28th..and he saw Laci 3 or 4 days earlier...
.
Mark Geragos: Okay. When you went back, and yesterday I had asked you about this Thomas Harsh, and you said that you didn't think you had seen that before yesterday. Now, upon reflection, you think you might have?
Craig Grogan: Yes, I think so. I didn't realize his name was spelled different. I didn't, I didn't realize there was two tips, I guess.
Mark Geragos: Okay. I'll just lead it through what the discovery shows, and we can try and reconstruct it. Basically, when you go back to plot this map, you take a look at the call sheet, and on the call sheet for 12/28 there's this entry for a Thomas Harsh, and that it says, reporting that three or four days ago he saw a pregnant lady being pushed into a van. The caller given to Detective Holmes; right?
Craig Grogan: Correct.


Where's the rest of the testimony where they say they followed up on this lead and it led to nothing?

[woohoo]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lavindar
If you read the early reports of the Jackson siting there is NO mention of burglary or a safe. Even the defense investigator's report does not mention burglary or safe. The word "safe" comes out of Geragos's mouth pure and simple. I did a lot of research on this back at teh time of the trial and Diane Jackson's original report was of three "suspicious looking men by a white van parked across the street from the Petersons. Two were standing by the back door of the van and one in the yard. Coming from the direction she was going, she could see into the open door and there was no landscaping equipment in it. Surely she would have seen a body if there was one. Nothing about a safe or a burglary was mentioned by her.

BTW, the rumor was that she had nothing else to add under hypnosis.
**************************************************

There were a lot of early media reports that were indeed wrong.......and what you are using as a source is one of them!

From the trial transcripts: The very FIRST call sheet. These were the officer's words NOT GERAGOS'S

GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically it's a sheet that was phoned in at, looks like 4:10, looks like from Sergeant Ed Steele; is that right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And who is he?

GROGAN: He's a sergeant with the Modesto Police Department. He was assigned to go –

JUDGE: Detective Grogan, you're talking away from the microphone. I'm not sure they can hear you.

GROGAN: Assigned to go to the volunteer center after it was opened at the hotel.

GERAGOS: Okay. And he talked to Diane Jackson, who, the woman that we had pointed out, lived on this Edgebrook Street in that La Loma neighborhood; is that correct?

GROGAN: I'm not sure if he talked to her directly when, when she called in, or if he received that information and then just passed it on.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then he said that, what was on the call sheet was that she witnessed a burglary on Covena, correct? 459 is a Penal Code Section for burglary?

GROGAN: Yes.
GERAGOS: On 12:24 at 11:40 a.m.?

GROGAN: That's what it says.

GERAGOS: Okay. And she said she saw the van and the safe being removed from the house, correct?

GROGAN: That's what it says.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then apparently they called Sergeant Zahr. Who is Sergeant Zahr?

GROGAN: Sergeant Zahr was my supervisor in this investigation.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then Sebron Banks?

GROGAN: Is a detective assigned to burglary.

GERAGOS: Okay. And to call Diane Jackson to tell them that they would contact her on Monday, correct?

GROGAN: Correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. Then apparently at about 6:30 to talk, detective, is it "Stow"?

GROGAN: Stough.

GERAGOS: Stough took follow-up information, said he would work the case?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Now, that provided, this witness statement by Diane Jackson provided the, some of the information that led to the flyer for the information leading to, a $1,000 reward leading to the burglary that took place at the Medinas'; is that correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

[Lavindar]

Where's the rest of the testimony where they say they followed up on this lead and it led to nothing?
Odd, on cross he says something totally different:

538) Craig Grogan: It appears the date is December 28th, and some time between 2:00 and 4:00 p.m.
539) Birgit Fladager: And why is it you come to that conclusion?
540) Craig Grogan: Well, he said that his initial call into the Police Department was the same day that he mad535) Birgit Fladager: Okay. Now this is the individual that Mr. Geragos asked you about a taped conversation that you had during, I guess in May of this year, is that correct?
536) Craig Grogan: Yes.
537) Birgit Fladager: And during the course of your followup investigation into Mr. Harshman's reported sighting, of seeing a man basically braced over a woman against a fence off of Scenic down by Claus, and then walking with her, or escorting her to the van, that whole series of events. Were you able to determine the day or the timeframe where he would have seen that?
538) Craig Grogan: It appears the date is December 28th, and some time between 2:00 and 4:00 p.m.
539) Birgit Fladager: And why is it you come to that conclusion?
540) Craig Grogan: Well, he said that his initial call into the Police Department was the same day that he made those observations. His call into the Police Department is on the 28th. Also, he said something initially. He estimated it was probably a week after she that she, being Laci Peterson, disappeared that he made these observations. And he said something about already seeing her in the media and there were flyers up. So clearly it wasn't the 24th.e those observations

NOTE: Garegos does NOT challenge this on recross

[TopGunner]

Odd, on cross he says something totally different:

538) Craig Grogan: It appears the date is December 28th, and some time between 2:00 and 4:00 p.m.
539) Birgit Fladager: And why is it you come to that conclusion?
540) Craig Grogan: Well, he said that his initial call into the Police Department was the same day that he made those observations


:beer:

Thank you Lavindar, I am learning myself to double check everything and not take it at face value.:mad:

[woohoo]

Woo...IMO, the Harshman call was made on the 28th..and he saw Laci 3 or 4 days earlier...
.
[/B].

hI aw2b! I know when the call came in. I was pointing out that once again, Lavindar was posting incorrect information, saying "the siteing was the 28th" and "the call did not come in on the 28th"

Then all the TS she posted clearly had Grogan saying it DID come in the 28th.

Again, like she is trying to say Geragos is playing fast and loose with the word "safe" - when, in truth, he is reading off the very FIRST report taken by an officer on duty!

She says her study of this at great length proves that the word "safe" was never uttered by Diane Jackson, when the TS clearly prove differently.

[adnoid]

You seem to forget that Laci was also working up until the end of November. Maybe HER money paid for the Yoga, jewelry repairs, and her Sweet Serenity visit...

Maybe HER money also helped pay for strawberries, champagne, roses, cork engraving, etc. that Scott lavished on Amber.

Such a loving, considerate husband. :flamemad: I'll ask Mrs. Adnoid if she would prefer I love her the way Scott loved Laci. I think I know what her answer will be.

[attorneywan2be]

:beer:

Thank you Lavindar, I am learning myself to double check everything and not take it at face value.:mad:


So do you think Grogan was lying when he testified that Thomas Harsh called on Dec 28th and stated that 3 or 4 days ago he saw a pregnant woman being pushed into a van???


Mark Geragos: Okay. When you went back, and yesterday I had asked you about this Thomas Harsh, and you said that you didn't think you had seen that before yesterday. Now, upon reflection, you think you might have?

Craig Grogan: Yes, I think so. I didn't realize his name was spelled different. I didn't, I didn't realize there was two tips, I guess.

Mark Geragos: Okay. I'll just lead it through what the discovery shows, and we can try and reconstruct it. Basically, when you go back to plot this map, you take a look at the call sheet, and on the call sheet for 12/28 there's this entry for a Thomas Harsh, and that it says, reporting that three or four days ago he saw a pregnant lady being pushed into a van. The caller given to Detective Holmes; right?

Craig Grogan: Correct.

[attorneywan2be]

hI aw2b! I know when the call came in. I was pointing out that once again, Lavindar was posting incorrect information, saying "the siteing was the 28th" and "the call did not come in on the 28th"

Then all the TS she posted clearly had Grogan saying it DID come in the 28th.

Again, like she is trying to say Geragos is playing fast and loose with the word "safe" - when, in truth, he is reading off the very FIRST report taken by an officer on duty!

She says her study of this at great length proves that the word "safe" was never uttered by Diane Jackson, when the TS clearly prove differently.


Hi Woo..:seeya:


I totally agree..I have discussed this with Lavindar many times..and it's clear that Jackson saw the safe according to Bates 14765..

I just posted the TS that prove your point...!

[Lavindar]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lavindar
If you read the early reports of the Jackson siting there is NO mention of burglary or a safe. Even the defense investigator's report does not mention burglary or safe. The word "safe" comes out of Geragos's mouth pure and simple. I did a lot of research on this back at teh time of the trial and Diane Jackson's original report was of three "suspicious looking men by a white van parked across the street from the Petersons. Two were standing by the back door of the van and one in the yard. Coming from the direction she was going, she could see into the open door and there was no landscaping equipment in it. Surely she would have seen a body if there was one. Nothing about a safe or a burglary was mentioned by her.

BTW, the rumor was that she had nothing else to add under hypnosis.
**************************************************

There were a lot of early media reports that were indeed wrong.......and what you are using as a source is one of them!

From the trial transcripts: The very FIRST call sheet. These were the officer's words NOT GERAGOS'S

GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically it's a sheet that was phoned in at, looks like 4:10, looks like from Sergeant Ed Steele; is that right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And who is he?

GROGAN: He's a sergeant with the Modesto Police Department. He was assigned to go –

JUDGE: Detective Grogan, you're talking away from the microphone. I'm not sure they can hear you.

GROGAN: Assigned to go to the volunteer center after it was opened at the hotel.

GERAGOS: Okay. And he talked to Diane Jackson, who, the woman that we had pointed out, lived on this Edgebrook Street in that La Loma neighborhood; is that correct?

GROGAN: I'm not sure if he talked to her directly when, when she called in, or if he received that information and then just passed it on.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then he said that, what was on the call sheet was that she witnessed a burglary on Covena, correct? 459 is a Penal Code Section for burglary?GROGAN: Yes. Geragos asked two questions - never giving a chance to respond to both. OLD LAWYER TRICK
GERAGOS: On 12:24 at 11:40 a.m.?

GROGAN: That's what it says.[/QQUOTE] Grogan doesn't call it a call sheet

GERAGOS: Okay. And she said she saw the van and the safe being removed from the house, correct?[quote]

GROGAN: That's what it says.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then apparently they called Sergeant Zahr. Who is Sergeant Zahr?

GROGAN: Sergeant Zahr was my supervisor in this investigation.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then Sebron Banks?

GROGAN: Is a detective assigned to burglary.

GERAGOS: Okay. And to call Diane Jackson to tell them that they would contact her on Monday, correct?

GROGAN: Correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. Then apparently at about 6:30 to talk, detective, is it "Stow"?

GROGAN: Stough.

GERAGOS: Stough took follow-up information, said he would work the case?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Now, that provided, this witness statement by Diane Jackson provided the, some of the information that led to the flyer for the information leading to, a $1,000 reward leading to the burglary that took place at the Medinas'; is that correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

WHERE does Garegos say it's a "call sheet" Where does he enter it into evidence?

The newspaper reports were written BEFORE teh gag order so I have to assume that someone talked to DJ.

She also called it in on the 26th BEFORE the medinas were home so NO ONE KNEW it was a burglary yet.

And why did Diane wait 2 full days before calling it in if she thought it was a burglary in progress

Common sense.

[TopGunner]

So do you think Grogan was lying when he testified that Thomas Harsh called on Dec 28th and stated that 3 or 4 days ago he saw a pregnant woman being pushed into a van???


Mark Geragos: Okay. When you went back, and yesterday I had asked you about this Thomas Harsh, and you said that you didn't think you had seen that before yesterday. Now, upon reflection, you think you might have?

Craig Grogan: Yes, I think so. I didn't realize his name was spelled different. I didn't, I didn't realize there was two tips, I guess.

Mark Geragos: Okay. I'll just lead it through what the discovery shows, and we can try and reconstruct it. Basically, when you go back to plot this map, you take a look at the call sheet, and on the call sheet for 12/28 there's this entry for a Thomas Harsh, and that it says, reporting that three or four days ago he saw a pregnant lady being pushed into a van. The caller given to Detective Holmes; right?

Craig Grogan: Correct.


No, of course I don't think Grogan was lying - I don't believe he lied about anything. He is saying that the calls came in. He is NOT saying that the event was actually found to be true.

[Lavindar]

No, of course I don't think Grogan was lying - I don't believe he lied about anything. He is saying that the calls came in. He is NOT saying that the event was actually found to be true.

IIRC, a call sheet is not detail about anything. It's a sheet with one or a couple of lines stating what the call was about. The details are in the report

[TopGunner]

OK, so I'm searching Diane Jackson because I don't recall reading anywhere that she saw a safe. That's not to say it didn't happen, I just don't recall it.

My search brought up this - no mention of the safe:

Jackson's account to police indicates that she saw no landscaping equipment with the
three men, whom she described as Hispanic or Asian. Todd and Pearce are white.

In interviewing Jackson, police displayed pictures of three men suspected of being
the trio she spotted in front of the Medina home. The pictures were of men who
previously performed yardwork for Jackson, and clearly different from the men
Jackson saw in front of the Medina home, according to the account. That
trio reportedly turned toward Jackson with malevolent looks as she drove by.

A doctor hypnotized Jackson at the Police Department in an attempt to draw
out more details. She reportedly recalled little else beyond perceiving a threat
from the three men. But authorities believe a link between the men and Peterson's
disappearance is tenuous. Petersons' dog, which her husband said Laci had taken for
a walk, was found running loose more than an hour before Jackson saw the van.

[woohoo]

Hi Woo..:seeya:


I totally agree..I have discussed this with Lavindar many times..and it's clear that Jackson saw the safe according to Bates 14765..

I just posted the TS that prove your point...!

The first mention of the safe came from the officer taking her report.

Lavindar continues to blame this on Geragos "testilying."
Also that even the early investigators didnt have it in their reports.
THAT'S TRUE - THE DEFENSE investigators in a report dated January 16th - NOT the prosecutor's investigators- did not include it in a report for whatever reason.

Geragos is always being blamed for slick deceit, when I think that's exactly what Fladagar was trying to do later in the testimony when she was trying to impeach LE's OWN report by bringing up a January defense report which did not have those words in it.

[TopGunner]

The first mention of the safe came from the officer taking her report.

Lavindar continues to blame this on Geragos "testilying."
Also that even the early investigators didnt have it in their reports.
THAT'S TRUE - THE DEFENSE investigators in a report dated January 16th - NOT the prosecutor's investigators- did not include it in a report for whatever reason.

Geragos is always being blamed for slick deceit, when I think that's exactly what Fladagar was trying to do later in the testimony when she was trying to impeach LE's OWN report by bringing up a January defense report which did not have those words in it.


The problem here Woo is Geregos blatenly blew smoke all over that court room and was caught lying and manipulating time and time again.

Sharon states in her book that she couldn't believe how the defense was ALLOWED to say whatever they wanted, whereas the pros had to stick to the facts only.

Do you remember Geregos saying it would be a "trial of witnesses" and he didn't produce ONE. A million bucks and his witness trial had no witnesses! LOL!

[attorneywan2be]

The first mention of the safe came from the officer taking her report.

Lavindar continues to blame this on Geragos "testilying."
Also that even the early investigators didnt have it in their reports.
THAT'S TRUE - THE DEFENSE investigators in a report dated January 16th - NOT the prosecutor's investigators- did not include it in a report for whatever reason.

Geragos is always being blamed for slick deceit, when I think that's exactly what Fladagar was trying to do later in the testimony when she was trying to impeach LE's OWN report by bringing up a January defense report which did not have those words in it.


Exactly..I totally agree..:beer:

It really depends on what the investigator was asking about...so if the focus of his investigation was about the description of the men and the van she saw.. there would have been no reason to bring up the safe issue..!!

[woohoo]

OK, so I'm searching Diane Jackson because I don't recall reading anywhere that she saw a safe. That's not to say it didn't happen, I just don't recall it.

My search brought up this - no mention of the safe:

Jackson's account to police indicates that she saw no landscaping equipment with the
three men, whom she described as Hispanic or Asian. Todd and Pearce are white.

In interviewing Jackson, police displayed pictures of three men suspected of being
the trio she spotted in front of the Medina home. The pictures were of men who
previously performed yardwork for Jackson, and clearly different from the men
Jackson saw in front of the Medina home, according to the account. That
trio reportedly turned toward Jackson with malevolent looks as she drove by.

A doctor hypnotized Jackson at the Police Department in an attempt to draw
out more details. She reportedly recalled little else beyond perceiving a threat
from the three men. But authorities believe a link between the men and Peterson's
disappearance is tenuous. Petersons' dog, which her husband said Laci had taken for
a walk, was found running loose more than an hour before Jackson saw the van.

But the trial transcripts of Geragos & Grogan covers the real truth. The MEDIA reports seldom if ever printed anything favorable to Peterson.
I posted the transcript of the testimony showing the very FIRST report taken from Diane J. by Sergeant Ed Steele reported using the words burglary AND safe.

Fladagar followed up with ANOTHER report which does not have those words in it. A report taken MUCH LATER - January 16th by the defense.

My point was to make it clear that Geragos is not to be blamed for the introduction of the word "safe" as some keep saying. It came from a police report.

[Lavindar]

Maybe HER money also helped pay for strawberries, champagne, roses, cork engraving, etc. that Scott lavished on Amber.

Such a loving, considerate husband. :flamemad: I'll ask Mrs. Adnoid if she would prefer I love her the way Scott loved Laci. I think I know what her answer will be.

Duck when you ask her

[attorneywan2be]

No, of course I don't think Grogan was lying - I don't believe he lied about anything. He is saying that the calls came in. He is NOT saying that the event was actually found to be true.


That was not the point..did he agree that the call from Harshman came in on Dec 28th? yes or no? AND did he further agree that when Harshman called on Dec 28th he stated that he saw a pregnant woman being pushed into a van 3 or 4 days earlier? yes or no?

[Lavindar]

Exactly..I totally agree..:beer:

It really depends on what the investigator was asking about...so if the focus of his investigation was about the description of the men and the van she saw.. there would have been no reason to bring up the safe issue..!!


But I would think that the mention of a safe would have HELPED the defense investigator. Odd that it didn't come up, isn't it - yet Geragos shows a sheet of paper, doesn't enter it into evidence and claims the word safe is on it.


You keep forgetting that no one knew there had been a burglary when DJ called in her tip. You'd think they would investigate if she said it was a burglary - you know drive out to the house, walk around it, and they would clearly see the broken-in french door. I know when we were out of town and notified the police that we would be gone and came home early, the police were pounding on our door. Funniest thing, now that I think about it - it was Christmas Eve, too

[woohoo]

The problem here Woo is Geregos blatenly blew smoke all over that court room and was caught lying and manipulating time and time again.

Sharon states in her book that she couldn't believe how the defense was ALLOWED to say whatever they wanted, whereas the pros had to stick to the facts only.

Do you remember Geregos saying it would be a "trial of witnesses" and he didn't produce ONE. A million bucks and his witness trial had no witnesses! LOL!

Can you give any examples of Geragos caught lying and manipulating?
I'm really interested to know of any in court or at trial.

Or even being allowed to "say what they wanted to" about "facts" of the case.
Things said in opening statements I realize are not evidence. Both Geragos and Distaso made some mistakes. But as I said, I didnt read any of the books, so maybe there is something in there - I don't know. All I know is the trial transcripts. That's what I have to go by.

[Lavindar]

The problem here Woo is Geregos blatenly blew smoke all over that court room and was caught lying and manipulating time and time again.

Sharon states in her book that she couldn't believe how the defense was ALLOWED to say whatever they wanted, whereas the pros had to stick to the facts only.

Do you remember Geregos saying it would be a "trial of witnesses" and he didn't produce ONE. A million bucks and his witness trial had no witnesses! LOL!


I think we need a thread of LIES That Gergos told in court. It'd be HUGE....lol

[attorneywan2be]

Can you give any examples of Geragos caught lying and manipulating?
I'm really interested to know of any in court or at trial.




I would like to know that too...!!!

[Lavindar]

That was not the point..did he agree that the call from Harshman came in on Dec 28th? yes or no? AND did he further agree that when Harshman called on Dec 28th he stated that he saw a pregnant woman being pushed into a van 3 or 4 days earlier? yes or no?


That is what was on the call sheet. The caller told him that he saw her the same day he called in the tip. That was from the REPORT - much more detail in a report than on a sheet that just a nugget can be written

[woohoo]

Since the 1984 law, hypnotism largely has been shelved in criminal investigations,
but it's sometimes used when police run out of leads, observers said.
"If you hit a dead end, you might come up with some facts that would help you,"
said Roger C. Park, an evidence law specialist at the University of California's
Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco.

An example would be a kidnap victim who under hypnosis remembers details such
as riding in a car driven on a gravel road and then over a bridge, Park said.
"You go there and find some evidence, and then you don't need that testimony,"
Park said. "That's what you're hoping during the investigation."

But prosecutors handling Peterson's case indicated in court last week that they
intend to introduce testimony from a Modesto woman who appears to have been
hypnotized. Kristen Dempewolf, who lives in Peterson's La Loma neighborhood,
was questioned in a "cognitive interview where hypnosis techniques were used,"
according to documents prosecutors filed in Stanislaus County Superior Court.

Dempewolf was questioned as police probed the disappearance and death of Peterson's
pregnant wife, Laci. .Dempewolf, 33, owns a dog and was in roughly the same stage of
pregnancy as Laci Peterson when Peterson was reported missing Christmas Eve.

Two witnesses have said they saw Laci Peterson walking her dog after 9:30 a.m.
Dec. 24 -- the time her husband told police he left for a solo fishing trip.

Scott Peterson told police Laci was preparing to walk the couple's golden retriever,
McKenzie, when he left for San Francisco Bay, and he returned from the trip to
find his wife missing. Prosecutors contend that he killed his wife and unborn son,
Conner, on Dec. 23 or Dec. 24. Their bodies were found in April along the eastern
shore of the bay, within four miles of where Scott Peterson said he launched his
boat Christmas Eve. The 30-year-old fertilizer salesman faces the death penalty
if convicted of two counts of murder. Testimony could be key for prosecution.

Dempewolf could be key to the prosecutors' case if she offers an alternative
explanation for witnesses who say they saw Laci Peterson walking her dog Dec. 24.

But if Stanislaus County Superior Court Judge Al Girolami determines that the
hypnosis techniques amount to hypnotism, strict conditions will have to be met for her testimony to be admissable in court.

Testimony must be limited to matters the witness recalled and related before the hypnosis,
and the substance of the pre-hypnotic memory must be preserved in written, audiotape or
videotape form before the hypnosis.

I think that's very similar to what I posted. So using the above data what criteria do you think Diane J.'s testimony met?

I really don't understand the prosecution saying they planned to use Kristin D. to discredit some of the "Laci sightings." How would hypnotizing her advance that?

[woohoo]

It's 12:25 in my town. Going to bed. But to quote California's governater "I'll be back!"

BTW OT>>>>>>I heard on the news that the Federal government raided the medical marijuana clinics in California today and arrested 5 people. It seems it is legal in the state but federal law supercedes.

This sounds very familiar to the States Rights issues that we Southerners feel started the "War of Northern Oppression!" LOL
G'night

[Lavindar]

I think that's very similar to what I posted. So using the above data what criteria do you think Diane J.'s testimony met?

I really don't understand the prosecution saying they planned to use Kristin D. to discredit some of the "Laci sightings." How would hypnotizing her advance that?



Kristen looked very much like Laci and was walking in the area where the sitings occurred. Laci did not walk in that area per Scott and per Sharon

[Lavindar]

I would like to know that too...!!!

I think we need a thread for all of that. The "witnesses" he said would show his point of view that he never called one.

[Radio Flyer]

I do blame Geragos for playing games and playing Hollywood the whole way. I blame him for leaking information to the press while under a gag order. And I blame him for "testifying" all through the trial. Those who aren't well versed in the law seem to think what Geragos said was testimony......it was not.

Too bad he can't get double the death penalty for all the hearsay that Gergagos got into the trial. Scott didn't have to testify; Geragos did it for him

Wow, what case were you following?

The whole trial was based on hearsay that was admissible under the hearsay exception rules and was offered to show state of mind and the state of the investigation.

Geragos did not testify. If you really think the DA or the ADA sat there and allowed it, or that the judge just let it slip in, then you don't have much confidence in LE. But then again, your statement seems to contradict itself in re: Geragos testifying :shrug:

[Radio Flyer]

I think we need a thread of LIES That Gergos told in court. It'd be HUGE....lol

Name one.....

[Radio Flyer]

I have no problem with the judge's ruling. he's a judge, I am not. As for the rest, when were Diane Jackson and Dempewolf hypnotized and what did the prosecutors office have to do with procuring the hypnotist?
The DA had them hypnotized, I don't recall the dates, but it was in the early stages of the investigation.

[Radio Flyer]

OK, so I'm searching Diane Jackson because I don't recall reading anywhere that she saw a safe. That's not to say it didn't happen, I just don't recall it.

My search brought up this - no mention of the safe:

Jackson's account to police indicates that she saw no landscaping equipment with the
three men, whom she described as Hispanic or Asian. Todd and Pearce are white.

In interviewing Jackson, police displayed pictures of three men suspected of being
the trio she spotted in front of the Medina home. The pictures were of men who
previously performed yardwork for Jackson, and clearly different from the men
Jackson saw in front of the Medina home, according to the account. That
trio reportedly turned toward Jackson with malevolent looks as she drove by.

A doctor hypnotized Jackson at the Police Department in an attempt to draw
out more details. She reportedly recalled little else beyond perceiving a threat
from the three men. But authorities believe a link between the men and Peterson's
disappearance is tenuous. Petersons' dog, which her husband said Laci had taken for
a walk, was found running loose more than an hour before Jackson saw the van.
Grogan testimony:

GERAGOS: Okay. And then he said that, what was on the call sheet was that she witnessed a burglary on Covena, correct? 459 is a Penal Code Section for burglary?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: On 12:24 at 11:40 a.m.?

GROGAN: That's what it says.

GERAGOS: Okay. And she said she saw the van and the safe being removed from the house, correct?

GROGAN: That's what it says.




People's Opposition to motion for a new trial:


Step 2 - The evidence is cumulative. The defense claims that there is nothing in the trial related to this evidence. This is not completely accurate. The jury heard that Steven Todd committed the Medina burglary. (RT 10177, 10335, 20015, 20049-20061) They heard the accusation that Diane Jackson had seen the house burglarized on December 24th (RT 20060) and that a safe was in the yard on the 24th. The jury heard that Todd denied having anything “to do with that woman.” They were immediately told by the court:
THE COURT: I want to admonish the jury now. Because here’s a guy who’s sitting in the back seat of a police car talking to a police officer. So there’s a real issue about the trustworthiness of what he’s talking to this police officer, telling this police officer, right. This is not coming in for the truth, you know, this

7


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

is coming in with respect to information that this police officer received and the reasonableness of his conduct about what did he do about it. But it’s certainly not coming in for the truth because there’s a real issue about the trustworthiness. You think someone who is talking to a police officer is –

Go ahead.

MR. GERAGOS: Is going to give you a straight story.

THE COURT: Right.

(RT 20015-20016)

[TopGunner]

Grogan testimony:

GERAGOS: Okay. And then he said that, what was on the call sheet was that she witnessed a burglary on Covena, correct? 459 is a Penal Code Section for burglary?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: On 12:24 at 11:40 a.m.?

GROGAN: That's what it says.

GERAGOS: Okay. And she said she saw the van and the safe being removed from the house, correct?

GROGAN: That's what it says.




People's Opposition to motion for a new trial:


Step 2 - The evidence is cumulative. The defense claims that there is nothing in the trial related to this evidence. This is not completely accurate. The jury heard that Steven Todd committed the Medina burglary. (RT 10177, 10335, 20015, 20049-20061) They heard the accusation that Diane Jackson had seen the house burglarized on December 24th (RT 20060) and that a safe was in the yard on the 24th. The jury heard that Todd denied having anything “to do with that woman.” They were immediately told by the court:
THE COURT: I want to admonish the jury now. Because here’s a guy who’s sitting in the back seat of a police car talking to a police officer. So there’s a real issue about the trustworthiness of what he’s talking to this police officer, telling this police officer, right. This is not coming in for the truth, you know, this

7


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

is coming in with respect to information that this police officer received and the reasonableness of his conduct about what did he do about it. But it’s certainly not coming in for the truth because there’s a real issue about the trustworthiness. You think someone who is talking to a police officer is –

Go ahead.

MR. GERAGOS: Is going to give you a straight story.

THE COURT: Right.

(RT 20015-20016)

This still doesn't say that Diane Jackson SAID she saw a safe.

[frydaddy]

The DA had them hypnotized, I don't recall the dates, but it was in the early stages of the investigation.

Love to see proof that the DA had them hypnotized. Early stages? That's pretty vague, please provide dates.

[TopGunner]

Wow, what case were you following?

The whole trial was based on hearsay that was admissible under the hearsay exception rules and was offered to show state of mind and the state of the investigation.

Geragos did not testify. If you really think the DA or the ADA sat there and allowed it, or that the judge just let it slip in, then you don't have much confidence in LE. But then again, your statement seems to contradict itself in re: Geragos testifying :shrug:



In your opinion, of course. :biggrin:

[woohoo]

Kristen looked very much like Laci and was walking in the area where the sitings occurred. Laci did not walk in that area per Scott and per Sharon

What is this statement about??? I'm very well aware of your nugget of information. Why do you feel compelled to write a tutorial when someone asks a question-when you don't even read the question?

My question was:
How would HYPNOSIS advance their case?

She could sit on the witness stand "looking like Laci" stating where she walked "UN_HYPNOTIZED"

[TopGunner]

That was not the point..did he agree that the call from Harshman came in on Dec 28th? yes or no? AND did he further agree that when Harshman called on Dec 28th he stated that he saw a pregnant woman being pushed into a van 3 or 4 days earlier? yes or no?



I never said anything EITHER way about the 28th, did I ? Yes or no ?

I already said YES, Grogan said THE CALL CAME IN. He did NOT say that it ACTUALLY happened, correct ? Yes or no ?

[enlightenme]

Name one.....

In his opening statement, Geragos said that the jury would hear from 2 witnesses who saw Scott put his boat IN THE WATER at Berkeley. They laughed at him because he had trouble backing down to the water to launch the boat.

He also said that the evidence would show that one of Scott's friends knew about the boat. That Laci sat IN the boat.

I know opening statements are not part of testimony but those were still lies.

There's plenty more! I'm making breakfast soon and just thought of those 2 at the moment.

:D

[woohoo]

Love to see proof that the DA had them hypnotized. Early stages? That's pretty vague, please provide dates.

It's all there. Easy to google. The media is full of the stories. And they are very much pre-trial stories. The DA procured a hypnotist and hynotized both witnesses. For various and asundry reasons. By using Pennington, it disqualified both- technically.

If you read the Grogan TS of testimony you will see how Diane Jackson's statements were allowed in.

IMO If you believe the DA did it maliciously to block Jackson's testimony it would be because she was a cog in the wheel. That burglary had to remain on the 26th. And she was putting it back on the 24th by seeing the men, the van, and a safe in the Medinas yard on the 24th.

[TopGunner]

Name one.....

Where have YOU been? Talk about somebody who doesn't know the case ! Since you're brand new here, ahem, maybe you should go back and read a bit before posting.:cuss:

[woohoo]

off to a meeting! BBL

[enlightenme]

Wow, what case were you following?

The whole trial was based on hearsay that was admissible under the hearsay exception rules and was offered to show state of mind and the state of the investigation.

Geragos did not testify. If you really think the DA or the ADA sat there and allowed it, or that the judge just let it slip in, then you don't have much confidence in LE. But then again, your statement seems to contradict itself in re: Geragos testifying :shrug:

Must you be so "testy"? That's why Lavindar had "testifying" in quotes. Geragos tried a lot of tricks to get in evidence without calling witnesses to the stand. Judge D. gave instructions to the jury that most of the hearsay testimony (with the exception of Diane Jackson) is offered not "for the truth of the matter," but only so the jury can decide whether the police conducted a reasonable investigation.

[TopGunner]

Can you give any examples of Geragos caught lying and manipulating?
I'm really interested to know of any in court or at trial.

Or even being allowed to "say what they wanted to" about "facts" of the case.
Things said in opening statements I realize are not evidence. Both Geragos and Distaso made some mistakes. But as I said, I didnt read any of the books, so maybe there is something in there - I don't know. All I know is the trial transcripts. That's what I have to go by.


Hi Woo ~ anything for you. :D (I'm a poet 2!) LOL.......

I will have a list of his lies for you soon. I am under the gun to finish the floor I'm putting down in one of the rooms in my house, so I'm only taking short breaks here today.

[frydaddy]

It's all there. Easy to google. The media is full of the stories. And they are very much pre-trial stories. The DA procured a hypnotist and hynotized both witnesses. For various and asundry reasons. By using Pennington, it disqualified both- technically.

If you read the Grogan TS of testimony you will see how Diane Jackson's statements were allowed in.

IMO If you believe the DA did it maliciously to block Jackson's testimony it would be because she was a cog in the wheel. That burglary had to remain on the 26th. And she was putting it back on the 24th by seeing the men, the van, and a safe in the Medinas yard on the 24th.


Unfortunately, Google doesn't provide the facts, as this post proves! IMO

[attorneywan2be]

I never said anything EITHER way about the 28th, did I ? Yes or no ?



Didn't you reply in agreement to Lavindar's post about her argument that Harshman saw the pregnant woman on the same day he called the police which was on Dec 28th...I then asked you if Grogan lied when he testified that Harshman called on Dec 28th and reported that he saw a pregnant woman being pushed into a van 3 or 4 days earlier..you then stated that Grogan didn't lie..do you agree then that he did testify to that?

I'm not asking you about the result of Grogan's investigation..I'm simply asking you about Grogan's testimony regarding Harshman's statement to the police on Dec 28th that he saw that incident 3 or 4 days prior to that call...

I have yet to get an answer for this...:D

[Lavindar]

In your opinion, of course. :biggrin:


The most glaring hearsay was Geragos allowing to get Scott's words in via
Grogan - what SCOTT told Anne Bird who told Grogan. That's triple hearsay

[attorneywan2be]

Judge D. gave instructions to the jury that most of the hearsay testimony (with the exception of Diane Jackson) is offered not "for the truth of the matter," but only so the jury can decide whether the police conducted a reasonable investigation.

And that is exactly what Radio Flyer was saying..

[Radio Flyer]

This still doesn't say that Diane Jackson SAID she saw a safe.

uh......that's from her prehypnotized statement

[Lavindar]

Wow, what case were you following?

The whole trial was based on hearsay that was admissible under the hearsay exception rules and was offered to show state of mind and the state of the investigation.

Geragos did not testify. If you really think the DA or the ADA sat there and allowed it, or that the judge just let it slip in, then you don't have much confidence in LE. But then again, your statement s

eems to contradict itself in re: Geragos testifying :shrug:

I do not believe you are correct, NG's ON THIS BOARD quote Geragos's words ad nausem imo - they use words from his opening statement for examaple

[Radio Flyer]

The most glaring hearsay was Geragos allowing to get Scott's words in via
Grogan - what SCOTT told Anne Bird who told Grogan. That's triple hearsay
Can you show the court ruling on that?

[TopGunner]

Didn't you reply in agreement to Lavindar's post about her argument that Harshman saw the pregnant woman on the same day he called the police which was on Dec 28th...I then asked you if Grogan lied when he testified that Harshman called on Dec 28th and reported that he saw a pregnant woman being pushed into a van 3 or 4 days earlier..you then stated that Grogan didn't lie..do you agree then that he did testify to that?

I'm not asking you about the result of Grogan's investigation..I'm simply asking you about Grogan's testimony regarding Harshman's statement to the police on Dec 28th that he saw that incident 3 or 4 days prior to that call...

I have yet to get an answer for this...:D

AW2B you are wrong. I have answered you twice now. If you are confused, go back and read it again.

[Radio Flyer]

I do not believe you are correct, NG's ON THIS BOARD quote Geragos's words ad nausem imo - they use words from his opening statement for examaple
..........

:shrug:

[Radio Flyer]

Must you be so "testy"? That's why Lavindar had "testifying" in quotes. Geragos tried a lot of tricks to get in evidence without calling witnesses to the stand. Judge D. gave instructions to the jury that most of the hearsay testimony (with the exception of Diane Jackson) is offered not "for the truth of the matter," but only so the jury can decide whether the police conducted a reasonable investigation.


Thank you for proving the point I made.

And for being so testy about it in the process.