Scott Peterson's appeal

[Lavindar]

And that is exactly what Radio Flyer was saying.. I agree that Judge Deluchi warned the jurors - but NG's don't feel that those rules apply to them? NOWHERE does Geragos say the sheet he is showing Grogan is a "call sheet" Nowhere does he enter it into evidence. Nowhere does Grogan admit it's a "call sheet" either.

[Lavindar]

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
OK, here's an answer Hatrshman calling in on the 28th and resporting a pregnant woman 3-4 days earlier is a compound question. Which part do YOU think Grogan was answering?

[Radio Flyer]

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:


Oh I'm not new here and I most definately know this case.

Interesting that you chose to attack me instead of answering the challenge I presented to you to "name one".

[Mysteri]

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

Quite so, as though it was Evidence when in fact it's stricly wishful thinking.
Stone cold but NOT innocent.

imo

[TopGunner]

Thank you for proving the point I made.

And for being so testy about it in the process.


RF - you have supposedly begun posting on this board YESTERDAY, no?

Although I know who you are, let's pretend you're new. Why are you baiting all the posters here? You are obviously here for one reason only, and that's to bait and cause trouble. Gee.....there's another poster that USED to be here that had the same finess. Think about THAT, I mean it.

[frydaddy]

I agree that Judge Deluchi warned the jurors - but NG's don't feel that those rules apply to them? NOWHERE does Geragos say the sheet he is showing Grogan is a "call sheet" Nowhere does he enter it into evidence. Nowhere does Grogan admit it's a "call sheet" either.

Aw, throw 'em a bone Lav, let them think the safe BS is gonna matter. Everything involving Diane Jackson, the safe, the burglary, and Aponte is M-O-O-T, was then, is now, will always be. It's a ruse, a red herring, and some bought it, which was MG's aim. But it had no effect on the trial and it will not have an affect on the appeal. It's that simple!

[Radio Flyer]

I agree that Judge Deluchi warned the jurors - but NG's don't feel that those rules apply to them? NOWHERE does Geragos say the sheet he is showing Grogan is a "call sheet" Nowhere does he enter it into evidence. Nowhere does Grogan admit it's a "call sheet" either.

You think Geragos just made it up and Grogan went along with him?

What exactly do you think Geragos is referring to here:

GERAGOS: And he, when you contacted him, he told you that the same day he called into the police department. You put it down at 12:28, right?

GROGAN: Yes, based on that tip.

GERAGOS: I don't think you ever saw this. I'm just going to show this to you. When I went through the tip lines, at 14789, it looks like somebody called in, but the name that was written down was Thomas Harsh. Do you see that?

GROGAN: I see it.


and here, what is Geragos referring to


GERAGOS: Okay. And he said that he, specifically, on the same day that he had called in, he had seen a van parked on the south side of Scenic, west of Claus, which he described as a 70s, American-made model, beige in color, correct?

GROGAN: Is that the tip that you are reading from top?

GERAGOS: No. I'm at 4527.


and what about here?

GROGAN: Yes. Based on the tip that you just showed me, if the phone numbers match.

GERAGOS: That says given to Detective Holmes. That's specifically who the tip was given to, correct? To Detective Holmes?

GROGAN: Yes. That's his report from December 28th. And the tip, I think the Harshman tip is, or the Harsh tip –

GERAGOS: The Harsh tip.

[TopGunner]

Aw, throw 'em a bone Lav, let them think the safe BS is gonna matter. Everything involving Diane Jackson, the safe, the burglary, and Aponte is M-O-O-T, was then, is now, will always be. It's a ruse, a red herring, and some bought it, which was MG's aim. But it had no effect on the trial and it will not have an affect on the appeal. It's that simple!

ITA FD ! Great point ! :beer:

[Radio Flyer]

RF - you have supposedly begun posting on this board YESTERDAY, no?

Although I know who you are, let's pretend you're new. Why are you baiting all the posters here? You are obviously here for one reason only, and that's to bait and cause trouble. Gee.....there's another poster that USED to be here that had the same finess. Think about THAT, I mean it.

Uh, no, I didn't just start posting here yesterday.

And sorry, I don't play 'let's pretend games'.

I'm not baiting anyone, I'm responding to posts. Perhaps it is YOU that is doing the baiting with posts like this of yours.

[TopGunner]

Uh, no, I didn't just start posting here yesterday.

And sorry, I don't play 'let's pretend games'.

I'm not baiting anyone, I'm responding to posts. Perhaps it is YOU that is doing the baiting with posts like this of yours.

Oh whatEVER. On ignore you go, bye-bye!!!!:lol:

[Radio Flyer]

Aw, throw 'em a bone Lav, let them think the safe BS is gonna matter. Everything involving Diane Jackson, the safe, the burglary, and Aponte is M-O-O-T, was then, is now, will always be. It's a ruse, a red herring, and some bought it, which was MG's aim. But it had no effect on the trial and it will not have an affect on the appeal. It's that simple!

If the safe sighting was such a red herring, why did the DA try to bury that info along with trying to change the date of the robbery?

[Radio Flyer]

Oh whatEVER. On ignore you go, bye-bye!!!!:lol:


Thank you.

[Rachel Cory]

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?
Please forgive my mistake re: the Covena and Highland intersection. If YOU will look at the map, you will see a large area east and north of Encina. That is the Gallo property. I'm sorry I do not have a link to the plat maps for the city of Modesto.

[frydaddy]

If the safe sighting was such a red herring, why did the DA try to bury that info along with trying to change the date of the robbery?

While you may think they did both, fact is they did neither.

[Radio Flyer]

While you may think they did both, fact is they did neither.

Sure they did. If they didn't then the defense would not have had to correct the record.

[frydaddy]

Sure they did. If they didn't then the defense would not have had to correct the record.

They didn't.

[Radio Flyer]

They didn't.

Yeah, they did.

[Rachel Cory]

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

If you study the testimony very carefully you will see that the first call from Harshman came into the department on December 28th. However, Mr. Harshman was reporting what he and his wife had observed earlier in that week, near the intersection of Scenic and Claus. When nothing was done at that time, Mrs. Harshman contacted a friend in the New York City Police Department who then contacted the Modesto Police Department, and Tom when down in person. This happened early in January. This happened, but let me just say it's my own opinion.

[frydaddy]

Yeah, they did.

Nah, they didn't.

[TopGunner]

If you study the testimony very carefully you will see that the first call from Harshman came into the department on December 28th. However, Mr. Harshman was reporting what he and his wife had observed earlier in that week, near the intersection of Scenic and Claus. When nothing was done at that time, Mrs. Harshman contacted a friend in the New York City Police Department who then contacted the Modesto Police Department, and Tom when down in person. This happened early in January. This happened, but let me just say it's my own opinion.


Hi Rachel, here's what happened:

But Geragos listed three other eyewitnesses he said Grogan ignored, including one man -- a former reserve police officer -- who said he saw a woman matching Laci's description being pulled into a beige van in the Petersons' area. The man, who reported his sighting to police Dec. 28, 2002, could not be certain about the date he witnessed the event.

[Rachel Cory]

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.

Thank you, AW2B. You did what I refused to do by posting this testimony.

[Rachel Cory]

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:
Margarita Nava testified that "a friend of Laci's recommended me." Perhaps I will gather my notes together later and post this testimony...or, maybe Scott will remember just who it was that suggested Nava.

[attorneywan2be]

AW2B you are wrong. I have answered you twice now. If you are confused, go back and read it again.

LOL...you didn't address the question..and by your own admission:

I never said anything EITHER way about the 28th, did I ? Yes or no ?

And you still didn't answer the question regarding Harshman's statement to the police on Dec 28th..

I already said YES, Grogan said THE CALL CAME IN. He did NOT say that it ACTUALLY happened, correct ? Yes or no ?

I didn't not ask you if Grogan said that it happened..that was not my question..!!! LOL

[TopGunner]

LOL...you didn't address the question..and by your own admission:



And you still didn't answer the question regarding Harshman's statement to the police on Dec 28th..



I didn't not ask you if Grogan said that it happened..that was not my question..!!! LOL


Scroll back AW2B ! :D

[adnoid]

Scroll back AW2B ! :D

LOL! You forgot to start with LOL!

[TopGunner]

LOL! You forgot to start with LOL!


And you forgot to put ! way out --------------------> !

LOL!!!!

PS - AW2B, I'm just having fun. As much as your posts and theories drive me BANANNA'S, you are sincere, and I do appreciate that. :patriot:

[attorneywan2be]

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.

Exactly..I think the fact that Diane reported seeing the safe on the lawn corrobortates her story..since the safe was indeed found in Todd's possession..that's why IMO, it is being disputed here despite the fact Grogan clearly testified that according to Bates 14765 Diane did say that she saw a safe when she reported the burglary incident to the police..

[TopGunner]

Exactly..I think the fact that Diane reported seeing the safe on the lawn corrobortates her story..since the safe was indeed found in Todd's possession..that's why IMO, it is being disputed here despite the fact Grogan clearly testified that according to Bates 14765 Diane did say that she saw a safe when she reported the burglary incident to the police..


How is this going to be an appeal issue either way?

[Radio Flyer]

Exactly..I think the fact that Diane reported seeing the safe on the lawn corrobortates her story..since the safe was indeed found in Todd's possession..that's why IMO, it is being disputed here despite the fact Grogan clearly testified that according to Bates 14765 Diane did say that she saw a safe when she reported the burglary incident to the police..

she sure did. wonder why the DA wanted that info buried. :read:

[attorneywan2be]

How is this going to be an appeal issue either way?

I have no idea..anyhow, we start off talking about appeal issues.. then the discussion branches out into different issues..

[I'mSun]

Exactly..I think the fact that Diane reported seeing the safe on the lawn corrobortates her story..since the safe was indeed found in Todd's possession..that's why IMO, it is being disputed here despite the fact Grogan clearly testified that according to Bates 14765 Diane did say that she saw a safe when she reported the burglary incident to the police..Sounds to me like this was taken from one of Wudge's posts. JMO, of course. :lol:

[adnoid]

Sounds to me like this was taken from one of Wudge's posts. JMO, of course. :lol:

(mounds)..

[attorneywan2be]

Sounds to me like this was taken from one of Wudge's posts. JMO, of course. :lol:


Not even close..it was taken from the TS of the trial ..

[JustMyOpinion]

despite the fact Grogan clearly testified that according to Bates 14765 Diane did say that she saw a safe when she reported the burglary incident to the police..

That is not my recollection of Grogan's testimony. Could you please post the relevant testimony from Det Grogan where he cites Bates 14765? TIA.
( IIRC, it was described by Geragos when questioning Grogan as "a sheet")....

[woohoo]

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.

I recently undertook the task of "putting down" a floor in my kitchen. I will NEVER undertake such a job again unless I am reincarnated as a teenager!

I saved a lot of money but didn't save my back & knees.:biggrin:

[TopGunner]

I recently undertook the task of "putting down" a floor in my kitchen. I will NEVER undertake such a job again unless I am reincarnated as a teenager!

I saved a lot of money but didn't save my back & knees.:biggrin:

LOL ~ I can relate!

Actually, it's half done.....now I have to figure out how to shove everything in the room to the other side. This computer. 2 couches, 4 snoring dogs, and a partridge in a pear tree (cockatail actually). :seeya:

[frydaddy]

Shoot, I've waited all day and still, no dates of the hypnoses, no info on the prosecution procuring the hypnotist. Very disappointing!

[woohoo]

I don't know how and even IF the Diane Jackson testimony will effect the appeal. But it does have an importance that goes several layers deep. If she had testified, based on her tip called into MPD, her testimony would bring up the question of the date of the Medina robbery. And the MPD and the DA had to distance themselves from anything that would put the date of that robbery in question.

Seeing the 3 men on the 24th, in a van in front of the Medinas, with a safe, ties into the Harshman report of seeing the men in a van with a pregnant woman fitting Laci's description on the same day.

It further is tied to the Aponte tip saying Tenbrink was overheard saying Todd encountered Laci while he was robbing a house. And of course this would have to be on the 24th, since that's the day she vanished.

I'm not sure but perhaps both the Harshman information and the Aponte tip may be in question on appeal involving discovery.

[attorneywan2be]

I don't know how and even IF the Diane Jackson testimony will effect the appeal. But it does have an importance that goes several layers deep. If she had testified, based on her tip called into MPD, her testimony would bring up the question of the date of the Medina robbery. And the MPD and the DA had to distance themselves from anything that would put the date of that robbery in question.

Seeing the 3 men on the 24th, in a van in front of the Medinas, with a safe, ties into the Harshman report of seeing the men in a van with a pregnant woman fitting Laci's description on the same day.

It further is tied to the Aponte tip saying Tenbrink was overheard saying Todd encountered Laci while he was robbing a house. And of course this would have to be on the 24th, since that's the day she vanished.

I'm not sure but perhaps both the Harshman information and the Aponte tip may be in question on appeal involving discovery.


Good point woo..

[woohoo]

If you consider the Diane Jackson testimony (or lack of) with an open mind, it seems to me Geragos was NOT trying to hide anything. IMO she was a reluctant defense witness.

Through no fault of her own, she had called into question the date the MPD was touting as the date of the robbery. While she thought she was being a good citizen, phoning in what she saw, she was in fact contradicting the theory of the MPD.

So if you put yourself in her shoes, she surely wouldn't be anxious to go against the belief of law enforcement of her city. And having to deal with members of the community who were definitely anti-Peterson and wouldn't want it to appear she was helping him.

So IMO she was definitely reluctant, yet for Geragos to represent his client to the best of his ability, I think he tried to get her testimony in any way he could. Just IMO.

[woohoo]

Hi AW2B

BBLater

[attorneywan2be]

That is not my recollection of Grogan's testimony. Could you please post the relevant testimony from Det Grogan where he cites Bates 14765? TIA.
( IIRC, it was described by Geragos when questioning Grogan as "a sheet")....


Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, the, specifically she had phoned in a call to the command center as well. And pointing you to 14765. And she said that on 12/24 at 11:40 she saw the van and a safe being removed from the house, correct?
Birgit Fladager: Your Honor, at this point, I hate to do this, but I'd ask to go side bar.
Judge Delucchi: We can't have it side bar because we have to have it on the record. We have to go into chambers. If you want to come into chambers, we'll get this sorted out and do that now. I'm going to ask the jury to remain seated. You don't have to get up. This won't take very long. I think I've already ruled on this, in my recollection, back in the cobwebs of my mind. I think I already ruled on this, but I'll be glad to revisit it again so everybody's on the same page. So why don't we just go into chambers, and I'll entertain everything you've got to say; and (to the reporter) you bring in your, okay.

<hearing in chambers>

Judge Delucchi’s instructions to the Jury on the Diane Jackson evidence
Judge Delucchi: All right. Let the record show these proceedings are taking place in the courtroom. The defendant is present with counsel, and the jury is in the jury box, along with the alternates. Ladies and gentlemen, the court has made a ruling about the introduction of this evidence. The district attorney's requested me to remind you again that this evidence is being offered to explain the reasonableness of,
Mark Geragos: Actually, this is not. Diane Jackson is for the truth, is what the court did indicate.
Judge Delucchi: I don't think so.
Mark Geragos: I think so. Diane Jackson
Judge Delucchi: No, no. We'll have to go back in there, because,
Mark Geragos: Okay. Diane Jackson is for the truth.
Judge Delucchi: No, I don't think so.
Mark Geragos: Okay. We'll go back in?
Judge Delucchi: Then we'll go back in because if it's for the truth, there's a real issue whether it's going to come in.
Mark Geragos: Okay.
Judge Delucchi: All right. We'll have to go back. We didn't decide that issue, okay

<hearing in Chambers>

Judge Delucchi’s instructions to the Jury on the Diane Jackson evidence
Judge Delucchi: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I have to sort of, in order to put all this evidence we've been receiving the last couple days back into context. A lot of this information that the, Detective Grogan got on the tip line is not being offered for the truth, okay? It's being offered to explain the reasonableness of Detective Grogan's conduct; what did he do as a result of this information that he received, okay? With respect to the testimony, and it's going to come in now as it relates to Ms. Jackson, that is being offered for the truth, okay? A little different from the other, other stuff. You can give this evidence whatever weight you think it's entitled to. That's for you to decide. Whatever you want, but it's being offered for the truth; all right? That's the distinction between this tip line stuff, this is also tip line stuff, but this is a little different, okay? All right. Hope that explains it. Go ahead.
Mark Geragos: Crystal clear.
Judge Delucchi: Right


Cross Examination, resumed

Mark Geragos: Detective, specifically, once again, this is a sheet like what we had up before on Harshman's, correct?
Craig Grogan: Correct.
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?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And who is he?
Craig Grogan: He's a sergeant with the Modesto Police Department. He was assigned to go –
Judge Delucchi: Detective Grogan, you're talking away from the microphone. I'm not sure they can hear you.
Craig Grogan: Assigned to go to the volunteer center after it was opened at the hotel.
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?
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.
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?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: On 12:24 at 11:40 a.m.?
Craig Grogan: That's what it says.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And she said she saw the van and the safe being removed from the house, correct?
Craig Grogan: That's what it says.

[TopGunner]

Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, the, specifically she had phoned in a call to the command center as well. And pointing you to 14765. And she said that on 12/24 at 11:40 she saw the van and a safe being removed from the house, correct?
Birgit Fladager: Your Honor, at this point, I hate to do this, but I'd ask to go side bar.
Judge Delucchi: We can't have it side bar because we have to have it on the record. We have to go into chambers. If you want to come into chambers, we'll get this sorted out and do that now. I'm going to ask the jury to remain seated. You don't have to get up. This won't take very long. I think I've already ruled on this, in my recollection, back in the cobwebs of my mind. I think I already ruled on this, but I'll be glad to revisit it again so everybody's on the same page. So why don't we just go into chambers, and I'll entertain everything you've got to say; and (to the reporter) you bring in your, okay.

<hearing in chambers>

Judge Delucchi’s instructions to the Jury on the Diane Jackson evidence
Judge Delucchi: All right. Let the record show these proceedings are taking place in the courtroom. The defendant is present with counsel, and the jury is in the jury box, along with the alternates. Ladies and gentlemen, the court has made a ruling about the introduction of this evidence. The district attorney's requested me to remind you again that this evidence is being offered to explain the reasonableness of,
Mark Geragos: Actually, this is not. Diane Jackson is for the truth, is what the court did indicate.
Judge Delucchi: I don't think so.
Mark Geragos: I think so. Diane Jackson
Judge Delucchi: No, no. We'll have to go back in there, because,
Mark Geragos: Okay. Diane Jackson is for the truth.
Judge Delucchi: No, I don't think so.
Mark Geragos: Okay. We'll go back in?
Judge Delucchi: Then we'll go back in because if it's for the truth, there's a real issue whether it's going to come in.
Mark Geragos: Okay.
Judge Delucchi: All right. We'll have to go back. We didn't decide that issue, okay

<hearing in Chambers>

Judge Delucchi’s instructions to the Jury on the Diane Jackson evidence
Judge Delucchi: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I have to sort of, in order to put all this evidence we've been receiving the last couple days back into context. A lot of this information that the, Detective Grogan got on the tip line is not being offered for the truth, okay? It's being offered to explain the reasonableness of Detective Grogan's conduct; what did he do as a result of this information that he received, okay? With respect to the testimony, and it's going to come in now as it relates to Ms. Jackson, that is being offered for the truth, okay? A little different from the other, other stuff. You can give this evidence whatever weight you think it's entitled to. That's for you to decide. Whatever you want, but it's being offered for the truth; all right? That's the distinction between this tip line stuff, this is also tip line stuff, but this is a little different, okay? All right. Hope that explains it. Go ahead.
Mark Geragos: Crystal clear.
Judge Delucchi: Right


Cross Examination, resumed

Mark Geragos: Detective, specifically, once again, this is a sheet like what we had up before on Harshman's, correct?
Craig Grogan: Correct.
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?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And who is he?
Craig Grogan: He's a sergeant with the Modesto Police Department. He was assigned to go –
Judge Delucchi: Detective Grogan, you're talking away from the microphone. I'm not sure they can hear you.
Craig Grogan: Assigned to go to the volunteer center after it was opened at the hotel.
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?
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.
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?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: On 12:24 at 11:40 a.m.?
Craig Grogan: That's what it says.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And she said she saw the van and the safe being removed from the house, correct?
Craig Grogan: That's what it says.

I know we already went through all of this last night, so why it's here again is beyond me, but CLEARLY, Grogan is stating that "that's what it says" on a SHEET of paper. He is NOT stating that what it says on that paper actually occured !:no:

[attorneywan2be]

I know we already went through all of this last night, so why it's here again is beyond me, but CLEARLY, Grogan is stating that "that's what it says" on a SHEET of paper. He is NOT stating that what it says on that paper actually occured !:no:

I'm simply stunned..

Do you think Geragos will show him just any piece of paper and Grogan will testify about it while the prosecution and the judge watched this illegal situation happening??....have you heard the legal term "lack of foundation"?

Here is an example..Ron Cloward was not allowed to testify about Bates 14765 because he had no knowledge of that report..

Mark Geragos: And the information about the three people who were, let me just show you something. Got Bates stamp 14765. And I would just ask if I could, do you remember what date, Mr. Harris, my Mr. Harris, do you remember what date that's from?
Pat Harris: Which one? What's the dates?
Mark Geragos: For Diane Jackson.
Pat Harris: Looks like 12-26.
Mark Geragos: Okay.
Mark Geragos: Does it appear that at 4:10 that Diane Jackson called and said that she witnessed the 459 on Covena at 11:40? She saw the van and the safe being removed from the house?
Rick Distaso: Objection, your Honor. Lack of foundation. He said he didn't have that information.
Mark Geragos: He had to have had that information because he talked about --
Judge Delucchi: But he just said he didn't. He just testified a few minutes ago.
Mark Geragos: Well, you got this information, Modesto PD got this information from somewhere, correct?
Rick Distaso: Objection, your Honor. Lack of foundation.
Judge Delucchi: He's not the Modesto Police Department.
Mark Geragos: He's working for the Modesto Police Department.
Judge Delucchi: Sustained.
Mark Geragos: I'll lay a foundation for it.
Judge Delucchi: Okay.
Mark Geragos: You had information and, to the point where a flyer was made up, that said looking for information on a van with three people, dark-skinned, not African American, correct?
Ron Cloward: Correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. That was based upon, as far as you know, an eyewitness, correct?
Ron Cloward: I have no idea what it was based on.
Mark Geragos: So you have no idea where that information came from?
Ron Cloward: No idea.
Mark Geragos: Okay. So did you ever inquire to anybody how, how it was that they determined that there was a van that you were looking for? Or why you were looking for three people, or anything of that nature?
Ron Cloward: No, I didn't. I was pretty busy with what I had.
Mark Geragos: And one of those things you were pretty busy with was looking for the van and any tips that came in, correct?
Ron Cloward: I was following up on any information they provided me with, so I,
Mark Geragos: Okay. Nobody told you Look, if you get a tip on a van, don't follow it up, did they?
Ron Cloward: No.

[Lavindar]

Please forgive my mistake re: the Covena and Highland intersection. If YOU will look at the map, you will see a large area east and north of Encina. That is the Gallo property. I'm sorry I do not have a link to the plat maps for the city of Modesto.
Do you have an addrss for it? BTW Highland and Covena do NOT intersect

And to the best of my knowledge Kim's mother is another block away from the park and could not have heard jack coming from the park.

Sage, the dog, per Susan Medina lives next door to Amie Krigbaum

[Lavindar]

I'm simply stunned..

Do you think Geragos will show him just any piece of paper and Grogan will testify about it while the prosecution and the judge watched this illegal situation happening??....have you heard the legal term "lack of foundation"?

Here is an example..Ron Cloward was not allowed to testify about Bates 14765 because he had no knowledge of that report..

Mark Geragos: And the information about the three people who were, let me just show you something. Got Bates stamp 14765. And I would just ask if I could, do you remember what date, Mr. Harris, my Mr. Harris, do you remember what date that's from?
Pat Harris: Which one? What's the dates?
Mark Geragos: For Diane Jackson.
Pat Harris: Looks like 12-26.
Mark Geragos: Okay.
Mark Geragos: Does it appear that at 4:10 that Diane Jackson called and said that she witnessed the 459 on Covena at 11:40? She saw the van and the safe being removed from the house?
Rick Distaso: Objection, your Honor. Lack of foundation. He said he didn't have that information.
Mark Geragos: He had to have had that information because he talked about --
Judge Delucchi: But he just said he didn't. He just testified a few minutes ago.
Mark Geragos: Well, you got this information, Modesto PD got this information from somewhere, correct?
Rick Distaso: Objection, your Honor. Lack of foundation.
Judge Delucchi: He's not the Modesto Police Department.
Mark Geragos: He's working for the Modesto Police Department.
Judge Delucchi: Sustained.
Mark Geragos: I'll lay a foundation for it.
Judge Delucchi: Okay.
Mark Geragos: You had information and, to the point where a flyer was made up, that said looking for information on a van with three people, dark-skinned, not African American, correct?
Ron Cloward: Correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. That was based upon, as far as you know, an eyewitness, correct?
Ron Cloward: I have no idea what it was based on.
Mark Geragos: So you have no idea where that information came from?
Ron Cloward: No idea.
Mark Geragos: Okay. So did you ever inquire to anybody how, how it was that they determined that there was a van that you were looking for? Or why you were looking for three people, or anything of that nature?
Ron Cloward: No, I didn't. I was pretty busy with what I had.
Mark Geragos: And one of those things you were pretty busy with was looking for the van and any tips that came in, correct?
Ron Cloward: I was following up on any information they provided me with, so I,
Mark Geragos: Okay. Nobody told you Look, if you get a tip on a van, don't follow it up, did they?
Ron Cloward: No.

Personlly I would not put it past Mark Geragos to sell his wife into slavery for his own benfit. That's JMO but he's exhibited trashy behavior before, during and AFTER this trial.

Funniest thing, Geragos does NOT mention a safe in his opening statemetn when he talks about Diane Jackson either. Wonder when he came up with this fairy tale imo

[frydaddy]

That's the type of distinction that requires a functional cerebral cortex to comprehend. You get it. I get it. Not all will get it.

It won't be from lack of repetitive, mind-numbing efforts to repost the same transcript ten thousand times. Yet, I can't get a single question answered. Guess I'll go drink, wouldn't want day 863 of Scott's residency at San Quentin to pass without my enjoying an ice cold beverage.

[Lavindar]

For those of you who believe Conner was placed there by human hands, this is what the man who picked him up for the Coronor's office testified to:


MARTINEZ: I used a towel, and then rolled the baby onto the towel so it could be examined, due to the decomposed remains were so bad. And then I placed it into two bags and took it back to the Coroner's van.

HARRIS: After you had, let me back up for a second. You were saying you rolled it into a towel. Why did you do that?

MARTINEZ: Because it was so decomposed. Kind of put the towel onto it and rolled it on to it. I couldn't really pick it up.HARRIS: Once it was onto the towel, you said you put it into two bags?

MARTINEZ: Yes.

HARRIS: And was the body transported back to the Coroner's facility?

MARTINEZ: Yes.


MARTINEZ: Well, that's not why I did it. I did it because it was so decomposed that that way I avoid, when I was done photographing or moving or trying to look at anything, I could just pick the towel up and place that into the bag.GERAGOS: Okay. And is it a fair statement that you, based upon this picture, that most of the items that were in and around the baby were maintained within the towel itself when you rolled it up?
GERAGOS: Okay. And how long did you say you've been doing this for the sheriff's department?

MARTINEZ: At the Coroner's Office?

GERAGOS: Yes.

MARTINEZ: Two years.

GERAGOS: And you estimated the baby to be several days old when you found it?

MARTINEZ: That was, I meant that in several days in stages of decomposition.

[TopGunner]

It won't be from lack of repetitive, mind-numbing efforts to repost the same transcript ten thousand times. Yet, I can't get a single question answered. Guess I'll go drink, wouldn't want day 863 of Scott's residency at San Quentin to pass without my enjoying an ice cold beverage.

Actually FD, I think shots are in order... :tongue: LOL !

[Lavindar]

22) Mark Geragos: And the information about the three people who were, let me just show you something. Got Bates stamp 14765. And I would just ask if I could, do you remember what date, Mr. Harris, my Mr. Harris, do you remember what date that's from?
23) David Harris: Which one? What's the dates?
24) Mark Geragos: For Diane Jackson.
25) David Harris: Looks like 12-26.
26) Mark Geragos: Okay.
27) Mark Geragos: Does it appear that at 4:10 that Diane Jackson called and said that she witnessed the 459 on Covena at 11:40? She saw the van and the safe being removed from the house?
28) Rick Distaso: Objection, your Honor. Lack of foundation. He said he didn't have that information.
29) Mark Geragos: He had to have had that information because he talked about --
30) Judge Delucchi: But he just said he didn't. He just testified a few minutes ago.
31) Mark Geragos: Well, you got this information, Modesto PD got this information from somewhere, correct?
32) Rick Distaso: Objection, your Honor. Lack of foundation.
33) Judge Delucchi: He's not the Modesto Police Department.
34) Mark Geragos: He's working for the Modesto Police Department.
35) Judge Delucchi: Sustained.
36) Mark Geragos: I'll lay a foundation for it.
37) Judge Delucchi: Okay.
38) Mark Geragos: You had information and, to the point where a flyer was made up, that said looking for information on a van with three people, dark-skinned, not African American, correct?
39) Ron Cloward: Correct.
40) Mark Geragos: Okay. That was based upon, as far as you know, an eyewitness, correct?
41) Ron Cloward: I have no idea what it was based on.
42) Mark Geragos: So you have no idea where that information came from?
43) Ron Cloward: No idea.
44) Mark Geragos: Okay. So did you ever inquire to anybody how, how it was that they determined that there was a van that you were looking for? Or why you were looking for three people, or anything of that nature?
45) Ron Cloward: No, I didn't. I was pretty busy with what I had.
46) Mark Geragos: And one of those things you were pretty busy with was looking for the van and any tips that came in, correct?
47) Ron Cloward: I was following up on any information they provided me with, so I,
48) Mark Geragos: Okay. Nobody told you Look, if you get a tip on a van, don't follow it up, did they?
49) Ron Cloward: No.
50) Mark Geragos: In fact, it was the opposite; you were following it up and running down some vans, correct?
51) Ron Cloward: Correct.
52) Mark Geragos: Okay. And because that was considered to be part of your mandate was we believe that could have something to do with Laci Peterson's disappearance, correct?
53) Ron Cloward: There was a possibility, yes, that it could.

Grogan 6/29
148. THE COURT: Yeah. You want the court's red pen again? I'll have to get more than one. I'll limit you, Mr. Geragos.

149. MR. GERAGOS: Thank you.

150. THE WITNESS: Somewhere in that are
151. MR. GERAGOS: Okay. I'm going to put a D 1 for that. And that was on Covena itself, correct?

152. Yes.

153. Okay. Now, the -- specifically she had phoned in a call to the command center as well. And pointing you to 14765. And she said that on 12/24 at 11:40 she saw the van and a safe being removed from the house, correct?

154. MS. FLADAGER: Your Honor, at this point, I hate to do this, but I'd ask to go side bar.

155. THE COURT: We can't have it side bar because we have to have it on the record. We have to go into chambers. If you want to come into chambers, we'll get this sorted out and do that now. I'm going to ask the jury to remain seated. You don't have to get up. This won't take very long. I think I've already ruled on this, in my recollection, back in the cobwebs of my mind. I think I already ruled on this, but I'll be glad to revisit it again so everybody's on the same page. So why don't we just go into chambers, and I'll entertain everything you've got to say; and (to the reporter) you bring in your...okay?

156. THE COURT: All right. Let the record show these proceedings are taking place in the courtroom. The defendant is present with counsel, and the jury is in the jury box, along with the alternates. Ladies and gentlemen, the court has made a ruling about the introduction of this evidence. The district attorney's requested me to remind you again that this evidence is being offered to explain the reasonableness of --

157. MR. GERAGOS: Actually, this is not. Diane Jackson is for the truth, is what the court did indicate.

158. THE COURT: I don't think so.

159. MR. GERAGOS: I think so

160. MR. GERAGOS: Diane Jackson --

161. THE COURT: No, no. We'll have to go back in there, because

162. MR. GERAGOS: Okay. Diane Jackson is for the truth.

163. THE COURT: No, I don't think so.

164. MR. GERAGOS: Okay. We'll go back in?

165. THE COURT: Then we'll go back in because if it's for the truth, there's a real issue whether it's going to come in.

166. MR. GERAGOS: Okay.

167. THE COURT: All right. We'll have to go back. We didn't decide that issue, okay

168. THE COURT:† All right. This is the case of People vs. Scott Peterson. And the record should reflect the defendant's present with counsel, the jury's in the jury box, along with the alternates. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I have to sort of -- in order to put all this evidence we've been receiving the last couple days back into context. A lot of this information that the -- Detective Grogan got on the tip line is not being offered for the truth, okay? It's being offered to explain the reasonableness of Detective Grogan's conduct; what did he do as a result of this information that he received, okay? With respect to the testimony, and it's going to come in now as it relates to Ms. Jackson, that is being offered for the truth, okay? A little different from the other -- other stuff. You can give this evidence whatever weight you think it's entitled to. That's for you to decide. Whatever you want, but it's being offered for the truth; all right? That's the distinction between this tip line stuff -- this is also tip line stuff, but this is a little different, okay?† All right. Hope that explains it. Go ahead.

169. MR. GERAGOS: Crystal clear.

170. THE COURT: Right




As I read it, the tip line information is offered for reasonableness and Grogan's statements from the reports is offered for the truth

1) Judge Delucchi: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I have to sort of, in order to put all this evidence we've been receiving the last couple days back into context. A lot of this information that the, Detective Grogan got on the tip line is not being offered for the truth, okay? It's being offered to explain the reasonableness of Detective Grogan's conduct; what did he do as a result of this information that he received, okay? With respect to the testimony, and it's going to come in now as it relates to Ms. Jackson, that is being offered for the truth, okay? A little different from the other, other stuff. You can give this evidence whatever weight you think it's entitled to. That's for you to decide. Whatever you want, but it's being offered for the truth; all right? That's the distinction between this tip line stuff, this is also tip line stuff, but this is a little different, okay? All right. Hope that explains it. Go ahead.

Guess Geragos doesn't know what NO means.

[Lavindar]

Please forgive my mistake re: the Covena and Highland intersection. If YOU will look at the map, you will see a large area east and north of Encina. That is the Gallo property. I'm sorry I do not have a link to the plat maps for the city of Modesto.

I am curious where you got the information that was Gallo property?

[Lavindar]

[QUOTE=attorneywan2be;8925489]Exactly..I think the fact that Diane reported seeing the safe on the lawn corrobortates her story..since the safe was indeed found in Todd's possession..that's why IMO, it is being disputed here despite the fact Grogan clearly testified that according to Bates 14765 Diane did say that she saw a safe when she reported the burglary incident to the police..[/QUOTs

Diane's tip line call corroborates what whose story? Too many hers. You are saying that Diane's alleged report of a safe on the lawn corroborates her OWN story? I am confused. That tip was NOT Offered for truth - read my post on judge's decision

[adnoid]

...Guess I'll go drink, wouldn't want day 863 of Scott's residency at San Quentin to pass without my enjoying an ice cold beverage.

I must have started before you, I'm having trouble finding something I knew was here earlier!

ETA: This post was numbered my #666. I guess I'm a suspect due to my satanic connection now. I'm going to go grab a drink down at City Lights with Dirty & Skeeter. Since I was responding to you, Skov will now post that we "CONNECT 100%!!!!", so why don't you join us?

[woohoo]

That tip was NOT Offered for truth - read my post on judge's decision

I suggest you read YOUR post real s-l-o-w-l-y.

Judge D. : A lot of this information that the -- Detective Grogan got on the tip line is not being offered for the truth, okay? It's being offered to explain the reasonableness of Detective Grogan's conduct;
what did he do as a result of this information that he received, okay?
With respect to the testimony, and it's going to come in now as it relates to Ms. Jackson, that is being offered for the truth, okay?
A little different from the other -- other stuff. You can give this evidence whatever weight you think it's entitled to. That's for you to decide. Whatever you want, but it's being offered for the truth; all right?
Exactly..I think the fact that Diane reported seeing the safe on the lawn corrobortates her story..since the safe was indeed found in Todd's possession..that's why IMO, it is being disputed here despite the fact Grogan clearly testified that according to Bates 14765 Diane did say that she saw a safe when she reported the burglary incident to the police..
You are saying that Diane's alleged report of a safe on the lawn corroborates her OWN story? I am confused.


In simple terms -(1) Diane Jackson reported seeing a safe (2) Todd was found in possession of a safe (3) She reported seeing a safe on the Medina's lawn before it was disclosed that a safe had been stolen. (4) Thus her testimony was corroborated.

[woohoo]

LOL ~ I can relate!

Actually, it's half done.....now I have to figure out how to shove everything in the room to the other side. This computer. 2 couches, 4 snoring dogs, and a partridge in a pear tree (cockatail actually). :seeya:

I can relate to the drag & scoot to one side routine. 1 oak table, 6 heavy chairs, 1 rolling work table, 2 barking dogs, 1 mewing cat, 2 hungry kids,
1 snoring husband, and a partridge in a pear tree.:beer:
(Actually it's an annoying woodpecker in a pecan tree!):D

[Mysteri]

If the safe sighting was such a red herring, why did the DA try to bury that info along with trying to change the date of the robbery?


It's only illogical conjecture that they did either. Some factors aren't relative.


imo

[Lavindar]

I suggest you read YOUR post real s-l-o-w-l-y.

Judge D. : A lot of this information that the -- Detective Grogan got on the tip line is not being offered for the truth, okay? It's being offered to explain the reasonableness of Detective Grogan's conduct;
what did he do as a result of this information that he received, okay?
With respect to the testimony, and it's going to come in now as it relates to Ms. Jackson, that is being offered for the truth, okay?
A little different from the other -- other stuff. You can give this evidence whatever weight you think it's entitled to. That's for you to decide. Whatever you want, but it's being offered for the truth; all right?


34) Craig Grogan: Stough, yes.
35) Mark Geragos: And then also, in addition to that, she gave this description, and I'm at 2091, your, you've got that up on your computer?
36) Craig Grogan: Yes.
37) Mark Geragos: Okay. And Stough had gone out there, I guess, as it says from the tip line here, at 6:30 on the 27th?
38) Craig Grogan: Yes, it appears so.
39) Mark Geragos: Okay. And she said that she was driving by 516 Covena. Now, 516 Covena is directly across the street from the Peterson house, correct?
40) Craig Grogan: Yes. It's, I don't think it's, Mark Geragos: The Medina, the Medina house, which is, I guess if I'm standing on the, on the driveway of the Peterson house and I'm looking across the street, it's going to be just at a slight angle right across the street?
41) Craig Grogan: I think if you were standing in the driveway you would see, yeah, the north, north property line of the Medina residence.
42) Mark Geragos: Okay. That's 516 Covena, right?
43) Craig Grogan: Yes.
44) Mark Geragos: Okay. And she said that as she drove by she saw three short of stature dark-skinned but not African American guys in the front yard of the residence, correct?
45) Craig Grogan: Yeah.
46) Mark Geragos: And she stated as she drove by the guys turned and looked at her and that they were standing near a van; is that correct?
47) Craig Grogan: That's what it says, yes.
48) Mark Geragos: And when asked to further describe them she said that's all she could remember and she wasn't thinking about that, until she called the police?
49) Craig Grogan: Correct.
50) Mark Geragos: And asked if she was able to identify any of these subjects if she saw them again, she stated she didn't know but she doubted it, correct?
51) Craig Grogan: That's what it says, yes.
52) Mark Geragos: Okay. And then your, she was asked if she saw them at the back of the van or the yard, and she said that the van was parked on the street in front of the house and not in the driveway, correct?
53) Craig Grogan: Correct.
54) Mark Geragos: She stated that two of the individuals were standing at the back of the van, and one was standing in the front yard near the van, correct?
55) Craig Grogan: Correct.
56) Mark Geragos: And she thought it was unusual because they looked, let's see, because they looked, or initially she thought that they were landscapers and that landscapers normally would continue working, correct?
57) Craig Grogan: Yes.
58) Mark Geragos: But that they didn't and looked at the traffic going by, correct?
59) Craig Grogan: Correct.
60) Mark Geragos: And that when she first saw the van, when she first stated that she had seen it, she first told the officers she believed the van was white, but, upon thinking about it, she thought it was darker than that, correct?
61) Craig Grogan: Correct.
62) Mark Geragos: And then I guess at that point she said she thought it was darker, either a tan or a brown color, and stated it was an older van, it had a door, or both doors would open at the rear she didn't really remember, correct?
63) Craig Grogan: Correct.
64) Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, the, specifically the reward poster was previously marked as Defendant's double N, and I think I've got all this up here. This, for the most part, for the most part the information on double N was taken from Diane Jackson's, or at least, I should say, the information that is, the information that's up here, 500 block of Covena, three dark-skinned males, not African American, short in stature, older model, full sized van, tan or light brown in color, one or two possibly two doors that open at the rear; all of that came from Diane Jackson, correct?




In simple terms -(1) Diane Jackson reported seeing a safe (2) Todd was found in possession of a safe (3) She reported seeing a safe on the Medina's lawn before it was disclosed that a safe had been stolen. (4) Thus her testimony was corroborated.



Except for one thing. The tip said their was a safe. The report did not mention a safe. The REPORT was allowed for the truth, the TIP was not

No SAFE and NO Burglars IN the report

[Lavindar]

I suggest you read YOUR post real s-l-o-w-l-y.

Judge D. : A lot of this information that the -- Detective Grogan got on the tip line is not being offered for the truth, okay? It's being offered to explain the reasonableness of Detective Grogan's conduct;
what did he do as a result of this information that he received, okay?
With respect to the testimony, and it's going to come in now as it relates to Ms. Jackson, that is being offered for the truth, okay?
A little different from the other -- other stuff. You can give this evidence whatever weight you think it's entitled to. That's for you to decide. Whatever you want, but it's being offered for the truth; all right?




In simple terms -(1) Diane Jackson reported seeing a safe (2) Todd was found in possession of a safe (3) She reported seeing a safe on the Medina's lawn before it was disclosed that a safe had been stolen. (4) Thus her testimony was corroborated. By herself???????????????????

I did read it - the tip was for reasonableness; the report for the truth.

NEWSFLASH: Diane did not testify

[woohoo]

Shoot, I've waited all day and still, no dates of the hypnoses, no info on the prosecution procuring the hypnotist. Very disappointing!

Okay - I thought this would be best to post because it does give a time frame and is a court record.
It's LONG, but in brief it details the attorneys discussing the hypnosis and Distaso does admit it was done by the police. Geragos later says the police were acting as an agent for the prosecution - so you can judge.

Trial Record
Pre-Trial Evidentiary Hearings: Arguments & Ruling on Hypnotized Witness

February 17, 2004
Judge Delucchi: I think. Okay. I might ask you this. Hypnosis issue, there is a witness for the defense, witnesses for the prosecution and a witness for the defense. I have got your brief attacking the foundation for the admissibility of the testimony of the hypnotized witness for the prosecution. I have got nothing attacking or disputing admissibility of the defense witness being,
Mark Geragos: That's correct.
Judge Delucchi: Being able to testify, even though Mr. Distaso said the foundation basically is the same.
Mark Geragos: We were not the ones who did the hypnosis. There is a due process consideration in that thing that insures to the defense that's separate and apart from what the prosecution has done here, because as to both of these witnesses, they hypnotized both of these witnesses prior to my client even being arrested. So there is a situation I think that's appreciably different.
I'm willing at this point, however, to let the Court rule as Miss Dempewolf, because I think it's a case-by-case basis. I don't think the Court has to make a ruling and say, okay, what's good information. It is good for the gander. I don't think we're at that point.
Judge Delucchi: That's what I was asking you, was the foundation basically the same for your witness as it was presented for Dempewolf.
Mark Geragos: I do not believe it's the same qualitative difference. We'll let the Court rule on Miss Dempewolf, I'll suffer whatever consequence,
Judge Delucchi: Yes.
Rick Distaso: Just so I can be clear, your Honor, actually his argument is relating to the people or the police department in this case, hypnotizing those two individual witnesses. I think he was saying, because the police did it, that he believes there is a difference between the two witnesses. Is that correct? Mark Geragos: In one sense, yes. There is a difference, because the police did it as an agent for the prosecution. They then have to suffer the consequence, obviously, if they didn't comply with the statute.
Judge Delucchi: Sanction if they did it, shouldn't be entitled to testify.
Mark Geragos: Exactly. If the police did it, it's contrary to the Evidence Code. That's correct.

Judge Delucchi: The hypnotist is a police agent. That's contrary to what's prescribed in the Evidence Code.
Mark Geragos: That's absolutely correct. That's why we were bringing it up, and specifically in terms of their witness. I haven't proffered this witness as our witness. I reasonably do not anticipate calling her as of yet. I will let them know if and when I change my mind. But at this point, I think the only issue that's ripe is whether Dempewolf, who they have indicated they wanted to call, whether or not the Court feels this has become relevant. And obviously I think it's not even a close question. There is no compliance.

Judge Delucchi: All right. This is the case of People vs. Peterson. I'm ready to make a ruling now on the admissibility of the testimony of the witness Kristin Dempewolf, and I've read the moving papers for both sides. Since you're the proponent, Mr. Distaso, you want to make any final comments?

My note: Then Distaso tells the judge of the problem with Pennington's credentials-
Rick Distaso: Your Honor, actually, I'm inclined to submit it. I do want the court to be aware of one thing that I, that I learned in the last day or two when I was doing some research to prepare for this argument. The, the code requires that the psychologist be, be a qualified psychologist. I think, and that the hypnotist,
Judge Delucchi: Be an experienced hypnotist.
Rick Distaso: That's correct. And I believe, based on the doctor's CV, he's got a Ph.D in psychology and he is qualified in hypnosis. However, the issue I want to bring before the court is looking at the Business & Professions Code, what the statute says is it says I think a licensed medical doctor, a psychologist, like licensed family therapist or something. And so I went back and I looked at the Business & Professions Code, and it actually says in order to call yourself a psychologist in the State of California you have to be licensed. I then called the doctor, and I looked, and I asked him about that issue, because I didn't see that on his CV, and he's actually not a licensed psychologist here in California. So I wanted to bring that to the court's attention. And I'm really just prepared to submit it at this point.
Mark Geragos: I thought, I appreciate that, but I thought we brought that up in the moving papers. We had gone online, we produced his CV. At best it's almost comical. With all due respect to this gentleman, he's, he does not comply with the code in any way, shape or form. None of the statutory requirements were met in this case. And, to some degree, if you wanted a primer on how not to handle a witness, this was it. And all things considered, I don't believe that they, that they complied with the code, that the witness complies with the requirements that are necessary as a predicate for admission of this evidence, and I'd ask that the court sustain our objection to the calling of the witness.
Judge Delucchi: Yeah. I'm inclined to agree with the defense. In reviewing the moving papers here, I don't believe that the proper record was made prior to the hypnosis documenting the subject's description. I don't think that was fairly done, at least as Evidence Code number 795 requires. Secondly, I don't think that the, the hypnotist here, Dr. Pennington. I don't think there's been a sufficient showing that he's experienced any use of hypnosis as required under 795, and there is a real issue as to whether or not he's really independent of law enforcement. So this is all very troubling and I think weighs against the admissibility, so I'm going to sustain Mr. Geragos's objection to the testimony on the ground that the court feels that 795 of the Evidence Code had not been rigidly complied with.
Mark Geragos: Thank you.
Rick Distaso: And, your Honor, I would ask the court to, oh, I lost my train of thought. Put off, put off a ruling, or at least allow the People, reserve that issue regarding Diane Jackson, that the People,
Judge Delucchi: Yeah, of course; we'll hear that later. I'm not making a ruling on Diane Jackson. I'm not going to rule on something until I have to.
Rick Distaso: Thank you, your Honor.

Hope this helps - going to bed~~~

Oh one other article - this was PRIOR to the court's ruling on the trial testimony. This article was before the pre-lim.
15 Oct 2003 Dempewolf won't testify at Prelim
Prosecutors announced they will not introduce testimony from Kristen Dempewolf, at the preliminary hearing, who was hypnotized by investigators, but still intend to call her at the trial. They also claim that the defense objections to Dempewolf must also apply to Diane Jackson, the witness who saw the van parked across the street from the Petersons. Jackson, too, was hypnotized.

[Lavindar]

Trial Record
Pre-Trial Evidentiary Hearings: Arguments & Ruling on Hypnotized Witness

February 17, 2004
Judge Delucchi: I think. Okay. I might ask you this. Hypnosis issue, there is a witness for the defense, witnesses for the prosecution and a witness for the defense. I have got your brief attacking the foundation for the admissibility of the testimony of the hypnotized witness for the prosecution. I have got nothing attacking or disputing admissibility of the defense witness being,
Mark Geragos: That's correct.
Judge Delucchi: Being able to testify, even though Mr. Distaso said the foundation basically is the same.
Mark Geragos: We were not the ones who did the hypnosis. There is a due process consideration in that thing that insures to the defense that's separate and apart from what the prosecution has done here, because as to both of these witnesses, they hypnotized both of these witnesses prior to my client even being arrested. So there is a situation I think that's appreciably different.
I'm willing at this point, however, to let the Court rule as Miss Dempewolf, because I think it's a case-by-case basis. I don't think the Court has to make a ruling and say, okay, what's good information. It is good for the gander. I don't think we're at that point.
Judge Delucchi: That's what I was asking you, was the foundation basically the same for your witness as it was presented for Dempewolf.
Mark Geragos: I do not believe it's the same qualitative difference. We'll let the Court rule on Miss Dempewolf, I'll suffer whatever consequence,
Judge Delucchi: Yes.
Rick Distaso: Just so I can be clear, your Honor, actually his argument is relating to the people or the police department in this case, hypnotizing those two individual witnesses. I think he was saying, because the police did it, that he believes there is a difference between the two witnesses. Is that correct? Mark Geragos: In one sense, yes. There is a difference, because the police did it as an agent for the prosecution. They then have to suffer the consequence, obviously, if they didn't comply with the statute.
Judge Delucchi: Sanction if they did it, shouldn't be entitled to testify.
Mark Geragos: Exactly. If the police did it, it's contrary to the Evidence Code. That's correct.

Judge Delucchi: The hypnotist is a police agent. That's contrary to what's prescribed in the Evidence Code.
Mark Geragos: That's absolutely correct. That's why we were bringing it up, and specifically in terms of their witness. I haven't proffered this witness as our witness. I reasonably do not anticipate calling her as of yet. I will let them know if and when I change my mind. But at this point, I think the only issue that's ripe is whether Dempewolf, who they have indicated they wanted to call, whether or not the Court feels this has become relevant. And obviously I think it's not even a close question. There is no compliance.

Judge Delucchi: All right. This is the case of People vs. Peterson. I'm ready to make a ruling now on the admissibility of the testimony of the witness Kristin Dempewolf, and I've read the moving papers for both sides. Since you're the proponent, Mr. Distaso, you want to make any final comments?

My note: Then Distaso tells the judge of the problem with Pennington's credentials-
Rick Distaso: Your Honor, actually, I'm inclined to submit it. I do want the court to be aware of one thing that I, that I learned in the last day or two when I was doing some research to prepare for this argument. The, the code requires that the psychologist be, be a qualified psychologist. I think, and that the hypnotist,
Judge Delucchi: Be an experienced hypnotist.
Rick Distaso: That's correct. And I believe, based on the doctor's CV, he's got a Ph.D in psychology and he is qualified in hypnosis. However, the issue I want to bring before the court is looking at the Business & Professions Code, what the statute says is it says I think a licensed medical doctor, a psychologist, like licensed family therapist or something. And so I went back and I looked at the Business & Professions Code, and it actually says in order to call yourself a psychologist in the State of California you have to be licensed. I then called the doctor, and I looked, and I asked him about that issue, because I didn't see that on his CV, and he's actually not a licensed psychologist here in California. So I wanted to bring that to the court's attention. And I'm really just prepared to submit it at this point.
Mark Geragos: I thought, I appreciate that, but I thought we brought that up in the moving papers. We had gone online, we produced his CV. At best it's almost comical. With all due respect to this gentleman, he's, he does not comply with the code in any way, shape or form. None of the statutory requirements were met in this case. And, to some degree, if you wanted a primer on how not to handle a witness, this was it. And all things considered, I don't believe that they, that they complied with the code, that the witness complies with the requirements that are necessary as a predicate for admission of this evidence, and I'd ask that the court sustain our objection to the calling of the witness.
Judge Delucchi: Yeah. I'm inclined to agree with the defense. In reviewing the moving papers here, I don't believe that the proper record was made prior to the hypnosis documenting the subject's description. I don't think that was fairly done, at least as Evidence Code number 795 requires. Secondly, I don't think that the, the hypnotist here, Dr. Pennington. I don't think there's been a sufficient showing that he's experienced any use of hypnosis as required under 795, and there is a real issue as to whether or not he's really independent of law enforcement. So this is all very troubling and I think weighs against the admissibility, so I'm going to sustain Mr. Geragos's objection to the testimony on the ground that the court feels that 795 of the Evidence Code had not been rigidly complied with.
Mark Geragos: Thank you.
Rick Distaso: And, your Honor, I would ask the court to, oh, I lost my train of thought. Put off, put off a ruling, or at least allow the People, reserve that issue regarding Diane Jackson, that the People,
Judge Delucchi: Yeah, of course; we'll hear that later. I'm not making a ruling on Diane Jackson. I'm not going to rule on something until I have to.
Rick Distaso: Thank you, your Honor.

Hope this helps - going to bed~~~

Oh one other article - this was PRIOR to the court's ruling on the trial testimony. This article was before the pre-lim.
15 Oct 2003 Dempewolf won't testify at Prelim
Prosecutors announced they will not introduce testimony from Kristen Dempewolf, at the preliminary hearing, who was hypnotized by investigators, but still intend to call her at the trial. They also claim that the defense objections to Dempewolf must also apply to Diane Jackson, the witness who saw the van parked across the street from the Petersons. Jackson, too, was hypnotized.

Ho Hum. MOre Garegos "not fair" crapola. If the hypnotism of one was not ok, then the hypnotism of the other is not ok. Garegos does not get his cake and eat it too - even tho he thinks he does.

There's no difference in this than in his claiming that the dismissal of "his" jurors is unfair, but the dismissal of the other one is completely fair. I would hate to play sports with this guy.

[TopGunner]

Ho Hum. MOre Garegos "not fair" crapola. If the hypnotism of one was not ok, then the hypnotism of the other is not ok. Garegos does not get his cake and eat it too - even tho he thinks he does.

There's no difference in this than in his claiming that the dismissal of "his" jurors is unfair, but the dismissal of the other one is completely fair. I would hate to play sports with this guy.



LOL ! ITA ! :beer:

[Miss Bootsie]

I suggest you read YOUR post real s-l-o-w-l-y.
In simple terms -(1) Diane Jackson reported seeing a safe (2) Todd was found in possession of a safe (3) She reported seeing a safe on the Medina's lawn before it was disclosed that a safe had been stolen. (4) Thus her testimony was corroborated.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c384/3232mypic/hand_wave-ani.gif
I suggest you read the testimony real s-l-o-w-l-y.

Lav is right.:seeya: Per Judge D., the defense report was offered for the truth.

Can't be more obvious.



JUDGE: This is the one that I think I already ruled on her as,

GERAGOS: Right.

JUDGE: under, as it being Brady material?

GERAGOS: Yes.

FLADAGER: I think the ruling, though, was through the defense investigator.

GERAGOS: No, the ruling was not.


JUDGE:We have to go into chambers



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.

JUDGE: Remind the jury, this is the testimony that was off reports. A little different from the other.

GROGAN: All right, I have that report.




FLADAGER: What is the date of that interview?

GROGAN: I believe it's January 16th. Yes.

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?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: Is there any indication at all in that interview that Ms. Jackson claimed to have witnessed a burglary?

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.

FLADAGER: Is that because she saw a van?

GROGAN: Yes, it appears so.

FLADAGER: And that she saw three short, dark-skinned males by the van?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: In the video that we saw of the traffic on Covena and on La Loma and Encina, do you recall seeing a number of different vans driving around in the traffic?

GROGAN: Yes, I think there is a few of them.

FLADAGER: I'm going to take you back real quick to that report with Ms. Reed, excuse me, Miss Jackson. What was the time of her reported sighting of these individuals by a van on Covena?

GROGAN: It's around 11:40 a.m., based on this report.
FLADAGER: On the 24th?

GROGAN: 11:40.

[frydaddy]

I must have started before you, I'm having trouble finding something I knew was here earlier!

ETA: This post was numbered my #666. I guess I'm a suspect due to my satanic connection now. I'm going to go grab a drink down at City Lights with Dirty & Skeeter. Since I was responding to you, Skov will now post that we "CONNECT 100%!!!!", so why don't you join us?

Sorry, waaayyyy too dangerous! After all, we men, we cut each other!

[USAHICK]

Sorry, waaayyyy too dangerous! After all, we men, we cut each other!

OHLORDIE -ROF - CAN'TGEUP - LMAO!!!!:beer:

[frydaddy]

Okay - I thought this would be best to post because it does give a time frame and is a court record.
It's LONG, but in brief it details the attorneys discussing the hypnosis and Distaso does admit it was done by the police. Geragos later says the police were acting as an agent for the prosecution - so you can judge.

Trial Record
Pre-Trial Evidentiary Hearings: Arguments & Ruling on Hypnotized Witness

February 17, 2004
Judge Delucchi: I think. Okay. I might ask you this. Hypnosis issue, there is a witness for the defense, witnesses for the prosecution and a witness for the defense. I have got your brief attacking the foundation for the admissibility of the testimony of the hypnotized witness for the prosecution. I have got nothing attacking or disputing admissibility of the defense witness being,
Mark Geragos: That's correct.
Judge Delucchi: Being able to testify, even though Mr. Distaso said the foundation basically is the same.
Mark Geragos: We were not the ones who did the hypnosis. There is a due process consideration in that thing that insures to the defense that's separate and apart from what the prosecution has done here, because as to both of these witnesses, they hypnotized both of these witnesses prior to my client even being arrested. So there is a situation I think that's appreciably different.
I'm willing at this point, however, to let the Court rule as Miss Dempewolf, because I think it's a case-by-case basis. I don't think the Court has to make a ruling and say, okay, what's good information. It is good for the gander. I don't think we're at that point.
Judge Delucchi: That's what I was asking you, was the foundation basically the same for your witness as it was presented for Dempewolf.
Mark Geragos: I do not believe it's the same qualitative difference. We'll let the Court rule on Miss Dempewolf, I'll suffer whatever consequence,
Judge Delucchi: Yes.
Rick Distaso: Just so I can be clear, your Honor, actually his argument is relating to the people or the police department in this case, hypnotizing those two individual witnesses. I think he was saying, because the police did it, that he believes there is a difference between the two witnesses. Is that correct? Mark Geragos: In one sense, yes. There is a difference, because the police did it as an agent for the prosecution. They then have to suffer the consequence, obviously, if they didn't comply with the statute.
Judge Delucchi: Sanction if they did it, shouldn't be entitled to testify.
Mark Geragos: Exactly. If the police did it, it's contrary to the Evidence Code. That's correct.

Judge Delucchi: The hypnotist is a police agent. That's contrary to what's prescribed in the Evidence Code.
Mark Geragos: That's absolutely correct. That's why we were bringing it up, and specifically in terms of their witness. I haven't proffered this witness as our witness. I reasonably do not anticipate calling her as of yet. I will let them know if and when I change my mind. But at this point, I think the only issue that's ripe is whether Dempewolf, who they have indicated they wanted to call, whether or not the Court feels this has become relevant. And obviously I think it's not even a close question. There is no compliance.

Judge Delucchi: All right. This is the case of People vs. Peterson. I'm ready to make a ruling now on the admissibility of the testimony of the witness Kristin Dempewolf, and I've read the moving papers for both sides. Since you're the proponent, Mr. Distaso, you want to make any final comments?

My note: Then Distaso tells the judge of the problem with Pennington's credentials-
Rick Distaso: Your Honor, actually, I'm inclined to submit it. I do want the court to be aware of one thing that I, that I learned in the last day or two when I was doing some research to prepare for this argument. The, the code requires that the psychologist be, be a qualified psychologist. I think, and that the hypnotist,
Judge Delucchi: Be an experienced hypnotist.
Rick Distaso: That's correct. And I believe, based on the doctor's CV, he's got a Ph.D in psychology and he is qualified in hypnosis. However, the issue I want to bring before the court is looking at the Business & Professions Code, what the statute says is it says I think a licensed medical doctor, a psychologist, like licensed family therapist or something. And so I went back and I looked at the Business & Professions Code, and it actually says in order to call yourself a psychologist in the State of California you have to be licensed. I then called the doctor, and I looked, and I asked him about that issue, because I didn't see that on his CV, and he's actually not a licensed psychologist here in California. So I wanted to bring that to the court's attention. And I'm really just prepared to submit it at this point.
Mark Geragos: I thought, I appreciate that, but I thought we brought that up in the moving papers. We had gone online, we produced his CV. At best it's almost comical. With all due respect to this gentleman, he's, he does not comply with the code in any way, shape or form. None of the statutory requirements were met in this case. And, to some degree, if you wanted a primer on how not to handle a witness, this was it. And all things considered, I don't believe that they, that they complied with the code, that the witness complies with the requirements that are necessary as a predicate for admission of this evidence, and I'd ask that the court sustain our objection to the calling of the witness.

*snipped to fit under the character limit*



Well done Woo, though it took a little longer than I though it would.

I am nearly certain that both witnesses were hypnotized on January 17th, 2003, by the police. Your post pretty much acknowledges that the "DA hypnotized them" is wrong. It also makes the "prosecutor failed to follow the law when hypnotizing a witness" wrong. It makes the notion that the proecutors were trying to hide anything, at the time of the hypnosis, somewhat absurd.

So, LE did the hypnosis and LE failed to follow the law. And they did this three and a half weeks after Laci disappeared. So, there's two issues. Did LE purposely hypnotize the witnesses to stifle memory that could help Scott and did they purposely do so with an unlicensed hypnotist? In my opinion, the answer to both is NO!. However, I know to some, EVERY acton by EVERY member of LE was a sinister plot to get Scott. Do advocates really think there was some "convict Scott and only Scott" war room at MPD from day one, where they had their plotting and strategy sessions with assistance from the DA's office, that at times required a crystal ball? Do advocates realize how manic their opinions look regarding this hypnosis thing?

Why can't people just accept that at that early stage, LE was trying to gain more information about what was seen by these two witnesses in an effort to get to the truth, wherever it led? Because it hinders the advocates efforts on a couple of their manufactured theories?

By the way, I will acknowldge that for trial purposes, the DA screwed up in not knowing that the hypnotist wasn't properly licensed, it's his job to know these things. But, I don't think he had anything to do with it happening as it did when it did and you can't conspire to hide anything in hindsight alone. Unless you're Marty McFly.

[Miss Bootsie]

Well done Woo, though it took a little longer than I though it would.

I am nearly certain that both witnesses were hypnotized on January 17th, 2003, by the police. Your post pretty much acknowledges that the "DA hypnotized them" is wrong. It also makes the "prosecutor failed to follow the law when hypnotizing a witness" wrong. It makes the notion that the proecutors were trying to hide anything, at the time of the hypnosis, somewhat absurd.

So, LE did the hypnosis and LE failed to follow the law. And they did this three and a half weeks after Laci disappeared. So, there's two issues. Did LE purposely hypnotize the witnesses to stifle memory that could help Scott and did they purposely do so with an unlicensed hypnotist? In my opinion, the answer to both is NO!. However, I know to some, EVERY acton by EVERY member of LE was a sinister plot to get Scott. Do advocates really think there was some "convict Scott and only Scott" war room at MPD from day one, where they had their plotting and strategy sessions with assistance from the DA's office, that at times required a crystal ball? Do advocates realize how manic their opinions look regarding this hypnosis thing?

Why can't people just accept that at that early stage, LE was trying to gain more information about what was seen by these two witnesses in an effort to get to the truth, wherever it led? Because it hinders the advocates efforts on a couple of their manufactured theories?

By the way, I will acknowldge that for trial purposes, the DA screwed up in not knowing that the hypnotist wasn't properly licensed, it's his job to know these things. But, I don't think he had anything to do with it happening as it did when it did and you can't conspire to hide anything in hindsight alone. Unless you're Marty McFly.


Why can't people just accept that at that early stage, LE was trying to gain more information about what was seen by these two witnesses in an effort to get to the truth, wherever it led? Because it hinders the advocates efforts on a couple of their manufactured theories?

Because,"The bell had already been rung", in regards to Law Enforcement, before advocates ever knew that Scott P. on Covena ever existed. imo

[adnoid]

...Did LE purposely hypnotize the witnesses to stifle memory that could help Scott and did they purposely do so with an unlicensed hypnotist? In my opinion, the answer to both is NO!...

Exactly. It is clear they were still trying to find Laci under the presumption that she was missing and COULD be found. It's just like why I have always said I would take a polygraph if I was innocent: It's not admissible, attorneys advise against it, but it MIGHT help in the search for my family - and that's ALL I should care about at that point.

..However, I know to some, EVERY acton by EVERY member of LE was a sinister plot to get Scott...

Oh my yes.

...Do advocates really think there was some "convict Scott and only Scott" war room at MPD from day one, where they had their plotting and strategy sessions with assistance from the DA's office, that at times required a crystal ball?...

Based on my observations, I'd say the vast majority do feel this way.

...Do advocates realize how manic their opinions look regarding this hypnosis thing?

Why can't people just accept that at that early stage, LE was trying to gain more information about what was seen by these two witnesses in an effort to get to the truth, wherever it led? Because it hinders the advocates efforts on a couple of their manufactured theories?...

I'm not going to touch the first one due to the completely predictable red-triangle clicking that would certainly result. But I don't disagree with a single thing you said.

[woohoo]

LOL ! ITA ! :beer:

I posted this information because Frydaddy had inquired about the dates of the hypnosis and who procured it etc. There are not a lot of reports and documents available on the net anymore but I thought this one might give SOME information about the hypnosis events that ocurred.

I don't really have an interest in this portion of the trial but I did spend a lot of time reading trying to find something that might have a time frame, because I thought he was interested in the information.

I wasnt doing it to make a point or to entertain anyone but should have known how it would be received.

[attorneywan2be]

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c384/3232mypic/hand_wave-ani.gif
I suggest you read the testimony real s-l-o-w-l-y.

Lav is right.:seeya: Per Judge D., the defense report was offered for the truth.

Can't be more obvious.

Quote:

JUDGE: This is the one that I think I already ruled on her as,

GERAGOS: Right.

JUDGE: under, as it being Brady material?

GERAGOS: Yes.

FLADAGER: I think the ruling, though, was through the defense investigator.

GERAGOS: No, the ruling was not.



Quote:
JUDGE:We have to go into chambers

quote:
Quote:
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.

JUDGE: Remind the jury, this is the testimony that was off reports. A little different from the other.

GROGAN: All right, I have that report.



FLADAGER: What is the date of that interview?

GROGAN: I believe it's January 16th. Yes.

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?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: Is there any indication at all in that interview that Ms. Jackson claimed to have witnessed a burglary?

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.

FLADAGER: Is that because she saw a van?

GROGAN: Yes, it appears so.

FLADAGER: And that she saw three short, dark-skinned males by the van?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: In the video that we saw of the traffic on Covena and on La Loma and Encina, do you recall seeing a number of different vans driving around in the traffic?

GROGAN: Yes, I think there is a few of them.

FLADAGER: I'm going to take you back real quick to that report with Ms. Reed, excuse me, Miss Jackson. What was the time of her reported sighting of these individuals by a van on Covena?

GROGAN: It's around 11:40 a.m., based on this report.
FLADAGER: On the 24th?


Miss Bootsie...I suggest you and Lavindar read what Delucchi said REAL s-l-o-w-l-y!!!

For whatever reason your post above didn't include what the judge said AFTER the second hearing they had in chambers:

quote:

[Judge Delucchi: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I have to sort of, in order to put all this evidence we've been receiving the last couple days back into context. A lot of this information that the, Detective Grogan got on the tip line is not being offered for the truth, okay? It's being offered to explain the reasonableness of Detective Grogan's conduct; what did he do as a result of this information that he received, okay? With respect to the testimony, and it's going to come in now as it relates to Ms. Jackson, that is being offered for the truth, okay? A little different from the other, other stuff. You can give this evidence whatever weight you think it's entitled to. That's for you to decide. Whatever you want, but it's being offered for the truth; all right? That's the distinction between this tip line stuff, this is also tip line stuff, but this is a little different, okay? All right. Hope that explains it. Go ahead.
Mark Geragos: Crystal clear. ]


Mark Geragos is right..it is CRYSTAL CLEAR...!!

[Lavindar]

Why can't people just accept that at that early stage, LE was trying to gain more information about what was seen by these two witnesses in an effort to get to the truth, wherever it led? Because it hinders the advocates efforts on a couple of their manufactured theories?

Because,"The bell had already been rung", in regards to Law Enforcement, before advocates ever knew that Scott P. on Covena ever existed. imo


Well, "rush to judgment" worked for OJ, why not try it with Scott?

[woohoo]

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c384/3232mypic/hand_wave-ani.gif
I suggest you read the testimony real s-l-o-w-l-y.

Lav is right.:seeya: Per Judge D., the defense report was offered for the truth.
Can't be more obvious.
This was Lavinder's post:
[I]Diane's tip line call corroborates what whose story? Too many hers. You are saying that Diane's alleged report of a safe on the lawn corroborates her OWN story? I am confused. That tip was NOT Offered for truth - read my post on judge's decision

To me it can't be more obvious she was saying it was NOT offered for truth.

[Lavindar]

Miss Bootsie...I suggest you and Lavindar read what Delucchi said REAL s-l-o-w-l-y!!!

For whatever reason your post above didn't include what the judge said AFTER the second hearing they had in chambers:

quote:

[Judge Delucchi: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I have to sort of, in order to put all this evidence we've been receiving the last couple days back into context. A lot of this information that the, Detective Grogan got on the tip line is not being offered for the truth, okay? It's being offered to explain the reasonableness of Detective Grogan's conduct; what did he do as a result of this information that he received, okay? With respect to the testimony, and it's going to come in now as it relates to Ms. Jackson, that is being offered for the truth, okay? A little different from the other, other stuff. You can give this evidence whatever weight you think it's entitled to. That's for you to decide. Whatever you want, but it's being offered for the truth; all right? That's the distinction between this tip line stuff, this is also tip line stuff, but this is a little different, okay? All right. Hope that explains it. Go ahead.
Mark Geragos: Crystal clear. ]


Mark Geragos is right..it is CRYSTAL CLEAR...!! The point is that the information that Geragos quizzed Grogan on after this pronouncement was offered for the truth, and the other was NOT

[attorneywan2be]

This was Lavinder's post:
[I]Diane's tip line call corroborates what whose story? Too many hers. You are saying that Diane's alleged report of a safe on the lawn corroborates her OWN story? I am confused. That tip was NOT Offered for truth - read my post on judge's decision

To me it can't be more obvious she was saying it was NOT offered for truth.


Hi Woo :seeya:

Miss Bootsie and Lavindar were saying that the judge somehow was saying that the DEFENSE report (Jan 16) was for the truth but NOT the tip line report (Dec 26) where Diane Jackson mentioned the safe...

But as we both know that is not correct..judge Delucchi told the jury that the tip line report was coming for the truth...I just posted Delucchi's ruling regarding Jackson's tip line report..

[woohoo]

Except for one thing. The tip said their was a safe. The report did not mention a safe. The REPORT was allowed for the truth, the TIP was not

No SAFE and NO Burglars IN the report

WRONG!

This is the admonishment of the judge directly PRECEEDING the questioning of Grogan about the TIP!!!

With respect to the testimony, and it's going to come in now as it relates to Ms. Jackson, that is being offered for the truth, okay? A little different from the other, other stuff.

[attorneywan2be]

The point is that the information that Geragos quizzed Grogan on after this pronouncement was offered for the truth, and the other was NOT


Can you be more specific as to what was offered for the truth and what was not IYO?

[Lavindar]

Hi Woo :seeya:

Miss Bootsie and Lavindar were saying that the judge somehow was saying that the DEFENSE report (Jan 16) was for the truth but NOT the tip line report (Dec 26) where Diane Jackson mentioned the safe...

But as we both know that is not correct..judge Delucchi told the jury that the tip line report was coming for the truth...I just posted Delucchi's ruling regarding Jackson's tip line report..


http://scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/Pwitnesses/Grogan.htm#cross%2029

This gives the entire sequence. The tip line "with the safe" was done. Then the judges order and THEN Fladager's redirect of Grogan that was for "the truth

[woohoo]

Well done Woo, though it took a little longer than I though it would.

I am nearly certain that both witnesses were hypnotized on January 17th, 2003, by the police. Your post pretty much acknowledges that the "DA hypnotized them" is wrong. It also makes the "prosecutor failed to follow the law when hypnotizing a witness" wrong. It makes the notion that the proecutors were trying to hide anything, at the time of the hypnosis, somewhat absurd.

So, LE did the hypnosis and LE failed to follow the law. And they did this three and a half weeks after Laci disappeared. So, there's two issues. Did LE purposely hypnotize the witnesses to stifle memory that could help Scott and did they purposely do so with an unlicensed hypnotist? In my opinion, the answer to both is NO!. However, I know to some, EVERY acton by EVERY member of LE was a sinister plot to get Scott. Do advocates really think there was some "convict Scott and only Scott" war room at MPD from day one, where they had their plotting and strategy sessions with assistance from the DA's office, that at times required a crystal ball? Do advocates realize how manic their opinions look regarding this hypnosis thing?

Why can't people just accept that at that early stage, LE was trying to gain more information about what was seen by these two witnesses in an effort to get to the truth, wherever it led? Because it hinders the advocates efforts on a couple of their manufactured theories?

By the way, I will acknowldge that for trial purposes, the DA screwed up in not knowing that the hypnotist wasn't properly licensed, it's his job to know these things. But, I don't think he had anything to do with it happening as it did when it did and you can't conspire to hide anything in hindsight alone. Unless you're Marty McFly.

Thank you frydaddy. I don't disagree with what you say. Yes I think the police did it but I don't know their reasoning. Probably no one ever will. However I assume the DA agreed with it, even if he agreed after-the-fact, because he wanted to use the Kristin D. hypnotized testimony at trial.

Question: Reading the transcript, do you think Distaso would have brought up the "problem" with the hypnosis if Judge D. had allowed Kristin D.' hynotized testimony?

[woohoo]

Originally Posted by frydaddy
Well done Woo, though it took a little longer than I though it would.

I waited quite awhile to even begin to look for it. I wanted to be sure it was an "open question." The last time I responded to a question not addressed to me - it didn't go so well. I still don't know why though, since SOME people respond to every single post! (present company not included)

[Lavindar]

WRONG!

This is the admonishment of the judge directly PRECEEDING the questioning of Grogan about the TIP!!!

With respect to the testimony, and it's going to come in now as it relates to Ms. Jackson, that is being offered for the truth, okay? A little different from the other, other stuff.



I posted a link to the exact sequence of events. I believe you are incorrect. I do not understand your nastiness

[attorneywan2be]

http://scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/Pwitnesses/Grogan.htm#cross%2029

This gives the entire sequence. The tip line "with the safe" was done. Then the judges order and THEN Fladager's redirect of Grogan that was for "the truth

It is totally irrelevant when the questions regarding the safe were addressed..BEFORE..or AFTER the ruling..Delucchi's ruling was about the tip line report PERIOD..

With that said, MG asked Grogan about the safe IMMEDIATELY after Delucchi's ruling..:


Judge Delucchi: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I have to sort of, in order to put all this evidence we've been receiving the last couple days back into context. A lot of this information that the, Detective Grogan got on the tip line is not being offered for the truth, okay? It's being offered to explain the reasonableness of Detective Grogan's conduct; what did he do as a result of this information that he received, okay? With respect to the testimony, and it's going to come in now as it relates to Ms. Jackson, that is being offered for the truth, okay? A little different from the other, other stuff. You can give this evidence whatever weight you think it's entitled to. That's for you to decide. Whatever you want, but it's being offered for the truth; all right? That's the distinction between this tip line stuff, this is also tip line stuff, but this is a little different, okay? All right. Hope that explains it. Go ahead.
Mark Geragos: Crystal clear.

Judge Delucchi: Right

Cross Examination, resumed

Mark Geragos: Detective, specifically, once again, this is a sheet like what we had up before on Harshman's, correct?
Craig Grogan: Correct.
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?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And who is he?
Craig Grogan: He's a sergeant with the Modesto Police Department. He was assigned to go –
Judge Delucchi: Detective Grogan, you're talking away from the microphone. I'm not sure they can hear you.
Craig Grogan: Assigned to go to the volunteer center after it was opened at the hotel.
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?
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.
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?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: On 12:24 at 11:40 a.m.?
Craig Grogan: That's what it says.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And she said she saw the van and the safe being removed from the house, correct?
Craig Grogan: That's what it says.

[frydaddy]

Exactly. It is clear they were still trying to find Laci under the presumption that she was missing and COULD be found. It's just like why I have always said I would take a polygraph if I was innocent: It's not admissible, attorneys advise against it, but it MIGHT help in the search for my family - and that's ALL I should care about at that point.



Oh my yes.



Based on my observations, I'd say the vast majority do feel this way.



I'm not going to touch the first one due to the completely predictable red-triangle clicking that would certainly result. But I don't disagree with a single thing you said.

Yes, you and I post at our own peril. Our posts are a petri dish of reportable issues. :no:

[Lavindar]

It is totally irrelevant when the questions regarding the safe were addressed..BEFORE..or AFTER the ruling..Delucchi's ruling was about the tip line report PERIOD..

With that said, MG asked Grogan about the safe IMMEDIATELY after Delucchi's ruling..:


Judge Delucchi: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I have to sort of, in order to put all this evidence we've been receiving the last couple days back into context. A lot of this information that the, Detective Grogan got on the tip line is not being offered for the truth, okay? It's being offered to explain the reasonableness of Detective Grogan's conduct; what did he do as a result of this information that he received, okay? With respect to the testimony, and it's going to come in now as it relates to Ms. Jackson, that is being offered for the truth, okay? A little different from the other, other stuff. You can give this evidence whatever weight you think it's entitled to. That's for you to decide. Whatever you want, but it's being offered for the truth; all right? That's the distinction between this tip line stuff, this is also tip line stuff, but this is a little different, okay? All right. Hope that explains it. Go ahead.
Mark Geragos: Crystal clear.

Judge Delucchi: Right

Cross Examination, resumed

Mark Geragos: Detective, specifically, once again, this is a sheet like what we had up before on Harshman's, correct?
Craig Grogan: Correct.
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?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And who is he?
Craig Grogan: He's a sergeant with the Modesto Police Department. He was assigned to go –
Judge Delucchi: Detective Grogan, you're talking away from the microphone. I'm not sure they can hear you.
Craig Grogan: Assigned to go to the volunteer center after it was opened at the hotel.
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?
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.
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?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: On 12:24 at 11:40 a.m.?
Craig Grogan: That's what it says.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And she said she saw the van and the safe being removed from the house, correct?
Craig Grogan: That's what it says.


After that information Garegos never mentions safe again. ON cross, Fladager


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?
698) Craig Grogan: Yes.

So Diane did not say SAFE or BURGLARS on Jan 16th, yet Garegos claims she did on Dec 26th. Don't you think the DEFENSE investigator would have clarified that information?

(Note: Garegos had the last words on this witness and he did not counter the defense report at all)

[adnoid]

Yes, you and I post at our own peril. Our posts are a petri dish of reportable issues. :no:

Yep. I know it's easier to click on the red triangle than it is to formulate a response, but a little intellectual effort never hurt anyone. At least not anyone I'd want to hang around with.

[frydaddy]

Thank you frydaddy. I don't disagree with what you say. Yes I think the police did it but I don't know their reasoning. Probably no one ever will. However I assume the DA agreed with it, even if he agreed after-the-fact, because he wanted to use the Kristin D. hypnotized testimony at trial.

Question: Reading the transcript, do you think Distaso would have brought up the "problem" with the hypnosis if Judge D. had allowed Kristin D.' hynotized testimony?

Of course I do, but that's an easy question to answer. Once the issue is out there and Distaso had read up on the laws governing hypnosis, he'd have created an appelate issue even if the judge had allowed it. He'd never have risked a potential guilt verdict being tossed out on this issue. Here's the question you should have asked...

Do I think Distaso would have brought up the problem had Mark Geragos not contested the hypnotized witnesses in any way? Doesn't that question better typify the essence of this debate? Was this simply oversight on detail on an issue not often encountered by the DA or was this malicious intent to try and hide the fact that the hypnotist wasn't licensed?

There's really two separate issues here. Did the DA or LE try to supress the witnesses or any recall that might help Scott. My answer is absolutely NO. Did the DA try to skirt the law, my answer is, I don't think so. I simply do not think they feared either witness testifying, nor did they fear not using testimony that helped their case. I think their only issue was exactly what happened and that was the the burglary ruse coming in with no ability to put it to 100% to rest. I think they goofed tactically in not including the tipsheet or testimony by Steele. However, the safe issue wasn't a big deal until the Aponte deal came up, so I don't think they gave any pause to the DJ thing until it was too late.

In truth, it might have been better for the DA had the witnesses not been hypnotized. It certainly would have been better for us, probably have eliminated about 10000 posts over the last couple/three years. If by some odd turn of events, Scott is granted a new trial, I hope for both sides that this issue gets cleared up and we get to see that tipsheet. Of course, I have about 50 exhibits I'd like to see added or unsealed. Where do I place my order? :)

[frydaddy]

Originally Posted by frydaddy
Well done Woo, though it took a little longer than I though it would.

I waited quite awhile to even begin to look for it. I wanted to be sure it was an "open question." The last time I responded to a question not addressed to me - it didn't go so well. I still don't know why though, since SOME people respond to every single post! (present company not included)

LOL - This is twice now. I promise to post a disclaimer on all future questions on whether or not they are addressed to a single poster, a particular group, or the entire board. :D

[I'mSun]

Yes, you and I post at our own peril. Our posts are a petri dish of reportable issues. :no:Awwww, but have they been brutally impeached? ;)

[frydaddy]

Yep. I know it's easier to click on the red triangle than it is to formulate a response, but a little intellectual effort never hurt anyone. At least not anyone I'd want to hang around with.

I tried that (clicking red triangle) with this post. Let me know if you get an infraction! LMAO

:biggrin:

[I'mSun]

I'm not going to touch the first one due to the completely predictable red-triangle clicking that would certainly result. But I don't disagree with a single thing you said.If you use only one or two syllable words, you should be OK. :D

[I'mSun]

I tried that (clicking red triangle) with this post. Let me know if you get an infraction! LMAO

:biggrin:ROFLMAO!!! :D

[adnoid]

If you use only one or two syllable words, you should be OK. :D

I will endeavor to eschew polysyllabic pronouncements.

[enlightenme]

After that information Garegos never mentions safe again. ON cross, Fladager


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?
698) Craig Grogan: Yes.

So Diane did not say SAFE or BURGLARS on Jan 16th, yet Garegos claims she did on Dec 26th. Don't you think the DEFENSE investigator would have clarified that information?

(Note: Garegos had the last words on this witness and he did not counter the defense report at all)

Not only that but WHY would she wait two days to call in something as suspicious as three men, a van, and one of them rolling a safe into the van? Esp. when Laci has disappeared from the neighborhood on the same day?

That makes no sense. And how do the three dark skinned men relate to Todd and Pearce?

Todd told LE that he hid the safe in the bushes in the front yard, then went and got Pearce to drive a car over there. Then he pushed the safe into the car with the dolly in the EARLY morning hours so they wouldn't be seen.

If these 3 dark skinned men were involved, one of them should have been looking out for cars driving by before the other one pushed a safe into the van at 11:40am!

None of it makes any common sense or any other kind of sense. IMO.

[deputydi]

For those of you who believe Conner was placed there by human hands, this is what the man who picked him up for the Coronor's office testified to:<snip>[/COLOR]
Thanks for posting this. Conner was not in the same advanced stage of decomposition as was his mother -- but that in NO WAY means he was pristine.

[Miss Bootsie]

The point is that the information that Geragos quizzed Grogan on after this pronouncement was offered for the truth, and the other was NOT

You're right Lav.

JUDGE:
With respect to the testimony, and it's going to come in now as it relates to Ms. Jackson, that is being offered for the truth, okay? A little different from the other -- other stuff.


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.

JUDGE: Remind the jury, this is the testimony that was off reports. A little different from the other.

GROGAN: All right, I have that report.

[ekg]

Ho Hum. MOre Garegos "not fair" crapola. If the hypnotism of one was not ok, then the hypnotism of the other is not ok. Garegos does not get his cake and eat it too - even tho he thinks he does.

There's no difference in this than in his claiming that the dismissal of "his" jurors is unfair, but the dismissal of the other one is completely fair. I would hate to play sports with this guy.

There absolutely is a difference.... MG didn't DO ANYTHING WRONG.. why should his and Scott's case suffer b/c of (imo)dirty tricks by LE?

IMO IT's beyond unfair to a defendant that he not be able to question a witness b/c LE cheated and ruined the witness...And you want to call Geragos the ass for trying to get the information in?

We live in a country where the State has the burden.... not the defendant!!! You're damn right the dismissal of Geragos' witness stunk to high heaven... and you're damn right he complained when one of his potential witnesses was corrupted by LE... what did you want him to do? Ignore it? Let LE just work willy nilly and damn the consequences? B/c they are ALL such fine upstanding ppl that they'd never do anything intentionally, they are just inept thats all..yeah, tell that to Jessie Davis and her family.


But hey, we're good with that too aren't we? They can ignore ppl, leads,tips and make mistakes.. b/c in the end we know with every fiber of our being that Scott did it..and we're ok with whatever means were used to get him behind bars..

what kind of person is OK with stacking the cards so much in favor of the State just b/c they are so sure the defendant is guilty? absolute insanity IMO! I can't believe ppl would condemn a man before he's even tried and then stack every single card against him and THEN condemn the defense lawyer for doing what we'd all hpoe he'd do in our case.

If you're so sure of Scotts guilt, then why can't you allow him to defend himself...why do you allow LE to play so unfair? I would think winning anything by cheating would make it a hollow and sad victory.... But I've never understood the kinds of ppl who like to win at all costs so maybe that's my mistake...

DJ could have proven Scott innocent And LE (imo) willfully and possibly even purposely corrupted her ..... don't you understand that?

IF she saw what she saw.... on the day she saw it... THAT'S REASONABLE DOUBT!! AND IT PROVES LE CORRUPTION.. Don't you understand that Scott might not have done it IF she was 100% correct?


oh wait....Of course you understand that... that's why MG is scum for trying to get her testimony in. nothing can prove Scott's innocent...... nooooooooooo can't have that at all, then all these ppl would be wrong wouldn't they.... and nnnnnnooooooooooo we can't have that..


LE and the DA can lie,cheat or manipulate... But God forbid the defense calls them on it.....

amazing! disgusting.. and a whole lot of other few choice descriptions that would get me banned for listing..

Karma~threefold.....you reap what you sow...and all that jazz

and know this........... If God forbid it was you or yours, I would fight just as hard for you as I do for Scott.... I wouldn't ever be ok with what LE did to DJ chance of testifying and I would cheer any defense attorney that worked to get her statement in anyway...

[Lavindar]

There absolutely is a difference.... MG didn't DO ANYTHING WRONG.. why should his and Scott's case suffer b/c of (imo)dirty tricks by LE?

IMO IT's beyond unfair to a defendant that he not be able to question a witness b/c LE cheated and ruined the witness...And you want to call Geragos the ass for trying to get the information in?

We live in a country where the State has the burden.... not the defendant!!! You're damn right the dismissal of Geragos' witness stunk to high heaven... and you're damn right he complained when one of his potential witnesses was corrupted by LE... what did you want him to do? Ignore it? Let LE just work willy nilly and damn the consequences? B/c they are ALL such fine upstanding ppl that they'd never do anything intentionally, they are just inept thats all..yeah, tell that to Jessie Davis and her family.


But hey, we're good with that too aren't we? They can ignore ppl, leads,tips and make mistakes.. b/c in the end we know with every fiber of our being that Scott did it..and we're ok with whatever means were used to get him behind bars..

what kind of person is OK with stacking the cards so much in favor of the State just b/c they are so sure the defendant is guilty? absolute insanity IMO! I can't believe ppl would condemn a man before he's even tried and then stack every single card against him and THEN condemn the defense lawyer for doing what we'd all hpoe he'd do in our case.

If you're so sure of Scotts guilt, then why can't you allow him to defend himself...why do you allow LE to play so unfair? I would think winning anything by cheating would make it a hollow and sad victory.... But I've never understood the kinds of ppl who like to win at all costs so maybe that's my mistake...

DJ could have proven Scott innocent And LE (imo) willfully and possibly even purposely corrupted her ..... don't you understand that?

IF she saw what she saw.... on the day she saw it... THAT'S REASONABLE DOUBT!! AND IT PROVES LE CORRUPTION.. Don't you understand that Scott might not have done it IF she was 100% correct?


oh wait....Of course you understand that... that's why MG is scum for trying to get her testimony in. nothing can prove Scott's innocent...... nooooooooooo can't have that at all, then all these ppl would be wrong wouldn't they.... and nnnnnnooooooooooo we can't have that..


LE and the DA can lie,cheat or manipulate... But God forbid the defense calls them on it.....

amazing! disgusting.. and a whole lot of other few choice descriptions that would get me banned for listing..

Karma~threefold.....you reap what you sow...and all that jazz

and know this........... If God forbid it was you or yours, I would fight just as hard for you as I do for Scott.... I wouldn't ever be ok with what LE did to DJ chance of testifying and I would cheer any defense attorney that worked to get her statement in anyway...

Guess you missed all the whinging and crying he did when he was in Modesto. All he did was complain about everything. I don't believe a word out of his mouth, and his motions are ridiculous. He can't even write a decent motion station case history.

I would fight FAIRLY. He did not. What about the crap about the "Brown van not being tested" when it had been tested. So the state had to rest it again. The state had to pay for his high-priced experts that he didn't use.
How about his tasteless jokes in the courtroom. Garegos only plays to an audience, and nothing will convince me otherwise. I've seen him in action and I have to tell you I am not impressed.

Can you forget his waving a piece of paper in the air and saying he had the receipt in the Ryder trial. Did he? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO . imo

[ekg]

Exactly. It is clear they were still trying to find Laci under the presumption that she was missing and COULD be found. It's just like why I have always said I would take a polygraph if I was innocent: It's not admissible, attorneys advise against it, but it MIGHT help in the search for my family - and that's ALL I should care about at that point.



Look at these headlines around the time LE hypnotize DJ and tell me they Presumed she was alive....

http://web.archive.org/web/20030207172226/www.modbee.com/reports/laci/story/5858235p-6823614c.html
Divers set to renew search in SF Bay Published 01/17/03

http://web.archive.org/web/20030207182407/www.modbee.com/reports/laci/story/5911013p-6873181c.html
Relative voices suspicion Published 01/17/03

http://web.archive.org/web/20030201095531/www.modbee.com/reports/laci/story/5921805p-6882694c.html
Volunteers close up center Published 01/18/03

http://web.archive.org/web/20030605091148/www.modbee.com/reports/laci/story/5940332p-6893056c.html
No link found to missing student Published 01/20/03

yeah, I think LE just said.... "well hypno her and see what she remembers.... we'll worry about the trial later..."

[Miss Bootsie]

There absolutely is a difference.... MG didn't DO ANYTHING WRONG.. why should his and Scott's case suffer b/c of (imo)dirty tricks by LE?

IMO IT's beyond unfair to a defendant that he not be able to question a witness b/c LE cheated and ruined the witness...And you want to call Geragos the ass for trying to get the information in?

We live in a country where the State has the burden.... not the defendant!!! You're damn right the dismissal of Geragos' witness stunk to high heaven... and you're damn right he complained when one of his potential witnesses was corrupted by LE... what did you want him to do? Ignore it? Let LE just work willy nilly and damn the consequences? B/c they are ALL such fine upstanding ppl that they'd never do anything intentionally, they are just inept thats all..yeah, tell that to Jessie Davis and her family.


But hey, we're good with that too aren't we? They can ignore ppl, leads,tips and make mistakes.. b/c in the end we know with every fiber of our being that Scott did it..and we're ok with whatever means were used to get him behind bars..

what kind of person is OK with stacking the cards so much in favor of the State just b/c they are so sure the defendant is guilty? absolute insanity IMO! I can't believe ppl would condemn a man before he's even tried and then stack every single card against him and THEN condemn the defense lawyer for doing what we'd all hpoe he'd do in our case.

If you're so sure of Scotts guilt, then why can't you allow him to defend himself...why do you allow LE to play so unfair? I would think winning anything by cheating would make it a hollow and sad victory.... But I've never understood the kinds of ppl who like to win at all costs so maybe that's my mistake...

DJ could have proven Scott innocent And LE (imo) willfully and possibly even purposely corrupted her ..... don't you understand that?

IF she saw what she saw.... on the day she saw it... THAT'S REASONABLE DOUBT!! AND IT PROVES LE CORRUPTION.. Don't you understand that Scott might not have done it IF she was 100% correct?


oh wait....Of course you understand that... that's why MG is scum for trying to get her testimony in. nothing can prove Scott's innocent...... nooooooooooo can't have that at all, then all these ppl would be wrong wouldn't they.... and nnnnnnooooooooooo we can't have that..


LE and the DA can lie,cheat or manipulate... But God forbid the defense calls them on it.....

amazing! disgusting.. and a whole lot of other few choice descriptions that would get me banned for listing..

Karma~threefold.....you reap what you sow...and all that jazz

and know this........... If God forbid it was you or yours, I would fight just as hard for you as I do for Scott.... I wouldn't ever be ok with what LE did to DJ chance of testifying and I would cheer any defense attorney that worked to get her statement in anyway...

Good grief, you need to chill.:eek:

[ekg]

Yep. I know it's easier to click on the red triangle than it is to formulate a response, but a little intellectual effort never hurt anyone. At least not anyone I'd want to hang around with.

thats the funniest thing you've ever said IMO....
:lol:

[TopGunner]

I posted this information because Frydaddy had inquired about the dates of the hypnosis and who procured it etc. There are not a lot of reports and documents available on the net anymore but I thought this one might give SOME information about the hypnosis events that ocurred.

I don't really have an interest in this portion of the trial but I did spend a lot of time reading trying to find something that might have a time frame, because I thought he was interested in the information.

I wasnt doing it to make a point or to entertain anyone but should have known how it would be received.


Woo, I was not AT ALL laughing at you, or being entertained by your post. I was laughing at Lavindar's remark " I would hate to play sports with this guy."

I can see that it may have looked like I was laughing at you/your post, and for that, I do apologize. :rose:

[TopGunner]

There absolutely is a difference.... MG didn't DO ANYTHING WRONG.. why should his and Scott's case suffer b/c of (imo)dirty tricks by LE?

IMO IT's beyond unfair to a defendant that he not be able to question a witness b/c LE cheated and ruined the witness...And you want to call Geragos the ass for trying to get the information in?

We live in a country where the State has the burden.... not the defendant!!! You're damn right the dismissal of Geragos' witness stunk to high heaven... and you're damn right he complained when one of his potential witnesses was corrupted by LE... what did you want him to do? Ignore it? Let LE just work willy nilly and damn the consequences? B/c they are ALL such fine upstanding ppl that they'd never do anything intentionally, they are just inept thats all..yeah, tell that to Jessie Davis and her family.


But hey, we're good with that too aren't we? They can ignore ppl, leads,tips and make mistakes.. b/c in the end we know with every fiber of our being that Scott did it..and we're ok with whatever means were used to get him behind bars..

what kind of person is OK with stacking the cards so much in favor of the State just b/c they are so sure the defendant is guilty? absolute insanity IMO! I can't believe ppl would condemn a man before he's even tried and then stack every single card against him and THEN condemn the defense lawyer for doing what we'd all hpoe he'd do in our case.

If you're so sure of Scotts guilt, then why can't you allow him to defend himself...why do you allow LE to play so unfair? I would think winning anything by cheating would make it a hollow and sad victory.... But I've never understood the kinds of ppl who like to win at all costs so maybe that's my mistake...

DJ could have proven Scott innocent And LE (imo) willfully and possibly even purposely corrupted her ..... don't you understand that?

IF she saw what she saw.... on the day she saw it... THAT'S REASONABLE DOUBT!! AND IT PROVES LE CORRUPTION.. Don't you understand that Scott might not have done it IF she was 100% correct?


oh wait....Of course you understand that... that's why MG is scum for trying to get her testimony in. nothing can prove Scott's innocent...... nooooooooooo can't have that at all, then all these ppl would be wrong wouldn't they.... and nnnnnnooooooooooo we can't have that..


LE and the DA can lie,cheat or manipulate... But God forbid the defense calls them on it.....

amazing! disgusting.. and a whole lot of other few choice descriptions that would get me banned for listing..

Karma~threefold.....you reap what you sow...and all that jazz

and know this........... If God forbid it was you or yours, I would fight just as hard for you as I do for Scott.... I wouldn't ever be ok with what LE did to DJ chance of testifying and I would cheer any defense attorney that worked to get her statement in anyway...


WHOA! :eek:

I'm almost scrared to reply, but I will anyway! :D

In my personal opinion, DJ wouldn't have, COULDN'T HAVE, altered the outcome of the trial one bit. It's a very, VERY old defense: cops are corrupt, the guilty are innocent victims. Although MG gave everything his Hollywood spin could to try and turn it all around and make LE the bad guys, he failed miserably, and IMO again, that's why he failed altogether. Had his client been innocent, he wouldn't have need to point fingers in so many directions, people's eyes crossed. Everytime someone yells cops are corrupt, I automatically KNOW that they're saying it because they don't have any other way to defend the guilty one.

The LE did their job. They put their lives and families on hold. They were under as much scrutney as the killer, maybe more. They recieved MORE negative press/reports than anyone. But they just kept going. They did their job, and they did it well. Better than well. To blast the LE for doing what they know to do is ridiculous. Too many eyes were on this case for them to deliberately get away with anything unethical.

Not sure why you have all the anger ekg, but if it was my daughter that went missing - I'd want the same cops on the case.

:chicken:

[adnoid]

...And you want to call Geragos the ass for trying to get the information in?...

No, that's not why I want to call Geragos an ass.

[frydaddy]

There absolutely is a difference.... MG didn't DO ANYTHING WRONG.. why should his and Scott's case suffer b/c of (imo)dirty tricks by LE?

IMO IT's beyond unfair to a defendant that he not be able to question a witness b/c LE cheated and ruined the witness...And you want to call Geragos the ass for trying to get the information in?

We live in a country where the State has the burden.... not the defendant!!! You're damn right the dismissal of Geragos' witness stunk to high heaven... and you're damn right he complained when one of his potential witnesses was corrupted by LE... what did you want him to do? Ignore it? Let LE just work willy nilly and damn the consequences? B/c they are ALL such fine upstanding ppl that they'd never do anything intentionally, they are just inept thats all..yeah, tell that to Jessie Davis and her family.


But hey, we're good with that too aren't we? They can ignore ppl, leads,tips and make mistakes.. b/c in the end we know with every fiber of our being that Scott did it..and we're ok with whatever means were used to get him behind bars..

what kind of person is OK with stacking the cards so much in favor of the State just b/c they are so sure the defendant is guilty? absolute insanity IMO! I can't believe ppl would condemn a man before he's even tried and then stack every single card against him and THEN condemn the defense lawyer for doing what we'd all hpoe he'd do in our case.

If you're so sure of Scotts guilt, then why can't you allow him to defend himself...why do you allow LE to play so unfair? I would think winning anything by cheating would make it a hollow and sad victory.... But I've never understood the kinds of ppl who like to win at all costs so maybe that's my mistake...

DJ could have proven Scott innocent And LE (imo) willfully and possibly even purposely corrupted her ..... don't you understand that?

IF she saw what she saw.... on the day she saw it... THAT'S REASONABLE DOUBT!! AND IT PROVES LE CORRUPTION.. Don't you understand that Scott might not have done it IF she was 100% correct?


oh wait....Of course you understand that... that's why MG is scum for trying to get her testimony in. nothing can prove Scott's innocent...... nooooooooooo can't have that at all, then all these ppl would be wrong wouldn't they.... and nnnnnnooooooooooo we can't have that..


LE and the DA can lie,cheat or manipulate... But God forbid the defense calls them on it.....

amazing! disgusting.. and a whole lot of other few choice descriptions that would get me banned for listing..

Karma~threefold.....you reap what you sow...and all that jazz

and know this........... If God forbid it was you or yours, I would fight just as hard for you as I do for Scott.... I wouldn't ever be ok with what LE did to DJ chance of testifying and I would cheer any defense attorney that worked to get her statement in anyway...

So, you really think that even though Todd and Pearce passed polygraphs and there was apparently no sign of their involvement in Laci's disappearance in any way, shape, or form, that police purposely had her hypnotized by an unlicensed hypnotist to ruin her from testifying in a trial not yet even planned of a suspect not yet even charged?

Let me ask the entire forum a question.

If LE used a licensed hypnotist, is testimony and any reports based on the results of the hypnosis now admissable and fair game for both the prosecution and the defense?

[adnoid]

Look at these headlines around the time LE hypnotize DJ and tell me they Presumed she was alive....

http://web.archive.org/web/20030207172226/www.modbee.com/reports/laci/story/5858235p-6823614c.html
Divers set to renew search in SF Bay Published 01/17/03

http://web.archive.org/web/20030207182407/www.modbee.com/reports/laci/story/5911013p-6873181c.html
Relative voices suspicion Published 01/17/03

http://web.archive.org/web/20030201095531/www.modbee.com/reports/laci/story/5921805p-6882694c.html
Volunteers close up center Published 01/18/03

http://web.archive.org/web/20030605091148/www.modbee.com/reports/laci/story/5940332p-6893056c.html
No link found to missing student Published 01/20/03

yeah, I think LE just said.... "well hypno her and see what she remembers.... we'll worry about the trial later..."

OK, I've looked through those. They presumed she was alive. Happy to help.

I noticed one of the articles had Laci's due date at 2/10, not 2/16. Also, based on the dates, all of these articles came out after the two gals were hypnotized, so I'm not sure what bearing they have on "bias" before they were hypnotized.

This will have no effect on Scott's appeal.

[TopGunner]

OK, I've looked through those. They presumed she was alive. Happy to help.

I noticed one of the articles had Laci's due date at 2/10, not 2/16. Also, based on the dates, all of these articles came out after the two gals were hypnotized, so I'm not sure what bearing they have on "bias" before they were hypnotized.

This will have no effect on Scott's appeal.

Adnoid.

I can't believe you just did THAT!

You brought up the due date again............ ! :cuss:

Gesus, Mari, and Supper !:no: Shhhhhhhhhhhhh ! ! !

[Miss Bootsie]

Adnoid.

I can't believe you just did THAT!

You brought up the due date again............ ! :cuss:

Gesus, Mari, and Supper !:no: Shhhhhhhhhhhhh ! ! !

Oopsie !!

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c384/3232mypic/popc1.gif

[ekg]

OK, I've looked through those. They presumed she was alive. Happy to help.

I noticed one of the articles had Laci's due date at 2/10, not 2/16. Also, based on the dates, all of these articles came out after the two gals were hypnotized, so I'm not sure what bearing they have on "bias" before they were hypnotized.

This will have no effect on Scott's appeal.


Divers set to renew search in SF Bay Published 01/17/03

well of course they presumed she was alive..

who wouldn't.

[Rachel Cory]

Do you have an addrss for it? BTW Highland and Covena do NOT intersect

And to the best of my knowledge Kim's mother is another block away from the park and could not have heard jack coming from the park.

Sage, the dog, per Susan Medina lives next door to Amie Krigbaum
I have already apologized for my mistake on the Highland and Covena intersection. Allow me to now amend it and state Edgebrook and Covena intersect. Okay? Did you look at the map? That large, vacant area on the NORTH of Encina belongs to the Gallo family. Do you know which house belongs to Kim's mother? It's right next to the large, vacant, TILLED acreage to the north of the street. Swimming pool in the backyard, backyard adjoins the Medina property, and I don't need Susan's testimony to prove that Sage lives to the north of Amie, or to be more explicit, right next door. She made that clear in HER testimony. The link to the Covena neighborhood indicating the respective addresses is DEAD, or you can bet your paycheck I'd post it for you. By the way, the van sitting in front of the Medina's that morning, seen by Kristen Dempewolf, the city inspector at the Medina home who had to drive around it to exit their driveway, and Scott himself, held the abductors who snatched Laci at or about 10:38AM as she was nearing the entrance to the park with McKenzie. Said van did not have a thing to do with what Diane Jackson witnessed at 11:40AM the same morning. Believe me, it was long gone by then.

[TopGunner]

I have already apologized for my mistake on the Highland and Covena intersection. Allow me to now amend it and state Edgebrook and Covena intersect. Okay? Did you look at the map? That large, vacant area on the NORTH of Encina belongs to the Gallo family. Do you know which house belongs to Kim's mother? It's right next to the large, vacant, TILLED acreage to the north of the street. Swimming pool in the backyard, backyard adjoins the Medina property, and I don't need Susan's testimony to prove that Sage lives to the north of Amie, or to be more explicit, right next door. She made that clear in HER testimony. The link to the Covena neighborhood indicating the respective addresses is DEAD, or you can bet your paycheck I'd post it for you. By the way, the van sitting in front of the Medina's that morning, seen by Kristen Dempewolf, the city inspector at the Medina home who had to drive around it to exit their driveway, and Scott himself, held the abductors who snatched Laci at or about 10:38AM as she was nearing the entrance to the park with McKenzie. Said van did not have a thing to do with what Diane Jackson witnessed at 11:40AM the same morning. Believe me, it was long gone by then.

Hi Rach ~ I know it's getting late, but I think you just said that the abductors who snatched Laci at or about 10:38 AM was she was nearing the entrance to the park with McKenzie was seen by Dempewolf, the city inspector and Scott...........?

Ummm.....impossible. Time-line is off, dogs never picked up her scent anywhere but the Marina, nothing Scott said counts, the city inspector never testified to seeing a van with abductors and Laci inside, nor did Dempenwolf for that matter.

[Lavindar]

I have already apologized for my mistake on the Highland and Covena intersection. Allow me to now amend it and state Edgebrook and Covena intersect. Okay? Did you look at the map? That large, vacant area on the NORTH of Encina belongs to the Gallo family. Do you know which house belongs to Kim's mother? It's right next to the large, vacant, TILLED acreage to the north of the street. Swimming pool in the backyard, backyard adjoins the Medina property, and I don't need Susan's testimony to prove that Sage lives to the north of Amie, or to be more explicit, right next door. She made that clear in HER testimony. The link to the Covena neighborhood indicating the respective addresses is DEAD, or you can bet your paycheck I'd post it for you. By the way, the van sitting in front of the Medina's that morning, seen by Kristen Dempewolf, the city inspector at the Medina home who had to drive around it to exit their driveway, and Scott himself, held the abductors who snatched Laci at or about 10:38AM as she was nearing the entrance to the park with McKenzie. Said van did not have a thing to do with what Diane Jackson witnessed at 11:40AM the same morning. Believe me, it was long gone by then.

Do you have any links to any of this information? Have you notified the police? If not, you are obstructing justice. And I have Kim's mother's place SOUTH of thr Medina's, not north

[Lavindar]

[QUOTE=Rachel Cory;8927064]I have already apologized for my mistake on the Highland and Covena intersection. Allow me to now amend it and state Edgebrook and Covena intersect. Okay? Did you look at the map? That large, vacant area on the NORTH of Encina belongs to the Gallo family. Do you know which house belongs to Kim's mother? It's right next to the large, vacant, TILLED acreage to the north of the street. Swimming pool in the backyard, backyard adjoins the Medina property, and I don't need Susan's testimony to prove that Sage lives to the north of Amie, or to be more explicit, right next door. She made that clear in HER testimony. The link to the Covena neighborhood indicating the respective addresses is DEAD, or you can bet your paycheck I'd post it for you. By the way, the van sitting in front of the Medina's that morning, seen by Kristen Dempewolf, the city inspector at the Medina home who had to drive around it to exit their driveway, and Scott himself, held the abductors who snatched Laci at or about 10:38AM as she was nearing the entrance to the park with McKenzie. Said van did not have a thing to do with what Diane Jackson witnessed at 11:40AM the same morning. Believe me, it was long gone by then.[/QUOTI
Interesting that you know what Kristen Dempewolfe allegedly saw. All I know is that she talked to Scott on her walk and we know he was at the warehosue by 10:38, Can you give us the source for your information?

[woohoo]

Woo, I was not AT ALL laughing at you, or being entertained by your post. I was laughing at Lavindar's remark " I would hate to play sports with this guy."

I can see that it may have looked like I was laughing at you/your post, and for that, I do apologize. :rose:

Sorry Top, I didn't get back online until late to read your post. Thanks for explaining. No problemo........:)

[woohoo]

I have already apologized for my mistake on the Highland and Covena intersection. Allow me to now amend it and state Edgebrook and Covena intersect. Okay? Did you look at the map? That large, vacant area on the NORTH of Encina belongs to the Gallo family. Do you know which house belongs to Kim's mother? It's right next to the large, vacant, TILLED acreage to the north of the street. Swimming pool in the backyard, backyard adjoins the Medina property, and I don't need Susan's testimony to prove that Sage lives to the north of Amie, or to be more explicit, right next door. She made that clear in HER testimony. The link to the Covena neighborhood indicating the respective addresses is DEAD, or you can bet your paycheck I'd post it for you. By the way, the van sitting in front of the Medina's that morning, seen by Kristen Dempewolf, the city inspector at the Medina home who had to drive around it to exit their driveway, and Scott himself, held the abductors who snatched Laci at or about 10:38AM as she was nearing the entrance to the park with McKenzie. Said van did not have a thing to do with what Diane Jackson witnessed at 11:40AM the same morning. Believe me, it was long gone by then.

Well he**!! I finally get time to get back on and everyone is gone:( Oh well since I'm by myself, I'll just talk to myself~~~~This is a very interesting theory! It DOES bring up a few flashes of some reports AND testimony for that matter, concerning VANS! Yep! I said the "V" word.

I remember the Krigbaum kid had a van on the street, and Amie mentioned another van (maybe a pickup) and didn't Laci's friend who drove by around 9:30 see a van? Yes she DID see a van. Then there was the Renfrowe van, and the van the woman was raped in, most thought that was one & the same but I don't think so, then Geragos bought a van....(just thinking out loud here) hummm ...I'll have to look and see if I can find some information about the Dempewolf & city inspector Van siteing. :eek:

[woohoo]

Well! That was interesting surfing! While I didn't find evidence of a Kristin D. van siteing I did find interesting dialog in the recorded motions involving the old dreaded "Amber tapes" - or wiretaps.

I will preface this by saying I do not need to be reminded that Judge D. let the tapes come in. But those of us who feel they were of no evidentiary value, I think Rick Distaso's argument was interesting. Very interesting. While arguing why the wiretaps were necessary he says:

Excerpt:
Rick Distaso: Regarding the necessity issue, it's -- I'm going to be brief. But it's solely a legal question it's reviewed for. Actually, Investigator Jacobson, in my opinion, his testimony completely supported necessity. He talked about all of the things that the government, or the people in this case, had done to try to help him make an effective case. And that's the standard. It's whether or not there is evidence sufficient to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. And in this particular case, as he states in the affidavit, there were no -- on January 10th, there were no even bodies in this case. So I don't see how you can get around that fact, how can you have a murder case without any bodies? I mean I guess technically you can, and in some instances they have done that. In this particular case, and what the Court's heard, the state of the evidence certainly was such that there was no case without the bodies being found. And on January 10th they had not been found. So clearly the wiretaps, by that definition alone, were necessary. And, your Honor, with that I'll submit on the necessity question. End

They already knew about the affair, and the tapes sure didn't help them find the bodies, so were the tapes necessary? :shrug: You betcha! They proved adultery and inflamed the jury. IMO Going to bed~~yall can rip it up now! LOL:seeya:

Excerpt from http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Pretrial/wire.htm

[attorneywan2be]

Well! That was interesting surfing! While I didn't find evidence of a Kristin D. van siteing I did find interesting dialog in the recorded motions involving the old dreaded "Amber tapes" - or wiretaps.

I will preface this by saying I do not need to be reminded that Judge D. let the tapes come in. But those of us who feel they were of no evidentiary value, I think Rick Distaso's argument was interesting. Very interesting. While arguing why the wiretaps were necessary he says:

Excerpt:
Rick Distaso: Regarding the necessity issue, it's -- I'm going to be brief. But it's solely a legal question it's reviewed for. Actually, Investigator Jacobson, in my opinion, his testimony completely supported necessity. He talked about all of the things that the government, or the people in this case, had done to try to help him make an effective case. And that's the standard. It's whether or not there is evidence sufficient to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. And in this particular case, as he states in the affidavit, there were no -- on January 10th, there were no even bodies in this case. So I don't see how you can get around that fact, how can you have a murder case without any bodies? I mean I guess technically you can, and in some instances they have done that. In this particular case, and what the Court's heard, the state of the evidence certainly was such that there was no case without the bodies being found. And on January 10th they had not been found. So clearly the wiretaps, by that definition alone, were necessary. And, your Honor, with that I'll submit on the necessity question. End

They already knew about the affair, and the tapes sure didn't help them find the bodies, so were the tapes necessary? :shrug: You betcha! They proved adultery and inflamed the jury. IMO Going to bed~~yall can rip it up now! LOL:seeya:

Excerpt from http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Pretrial/wire.htm


Thanks woo for posting this..it's very interesting indeed..! and to add to the list of vans you listed..Thomas Harshman also saw a van..he saw a pregnant woman being pushed into a van...

Kristen Reed sighting of a van:

Mark Geragos: Now, the, there was also a interview with Kristen Reed; is that correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And specifically,
Judge Delucchi: Just for the record, now, this is not coming in for the truth, again. This is coming in to explain the reasonableness of the officer's conduct, okay?
Mark Geragos: And Kristen Reed was interviewed by Detective Brocchini in September of 2003?
Craig Grogan: I don't know. I'm sorry.
Mark Geragos: 39987. I've got it here if you just want to go through this.
And she had suggested that when she had come down the street, she also saw a van that was parked across the street; is that right? I'll lead you through it, if you want. She described, when she was talking to Brocchini, it wasn't a white car, I know it was a larger vehicle parked across the street, correct?
Craig Grogan: Correct.
Mark Geragos: And then Brocchini asked her it could have been a truck, do you know whether it could have been a truck; she said no, it was a van, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: She said it was a larger type vehicle, it wasn't white, but I know for sure there was another vehicle on that street, correct?
Craig Grogan: Correct.
Mark Geragos: And specifically she said it was older, it was either an older Chevy Astro or it was older like a Dodge brown van; it was one of those two, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And she said Yeah, it was like a brown metallic for the Dodge, seemed like it was a Dodge kind of make; it was tapered up is how she described it, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes, that's part of the description.

[Heyes]

No, that's not why I want to call Geragos an ass.

lol, I can think of many many reasons. I would bet scott himself has a few too!.
Mr. Geragos why did you park that boat in front of your office?
Tacky, tacky, tacky!
Mr. geragos how is it that even message board posters knew the verdict was likely to come in that day but you didn't?
Can you imagine sitting there and hearing Guilty and your attorney is hiding in another city? (so is your father) Unbelievable.

[accordn2me]

So, you really think that even though Todd and Pearce passed polygraphs and there was apparently no sign of their involvement in Laci's disappearance in any way, shape, or form, that police purposely had her hypnotized by an unlicensed hypnotist to ruin her from testifying in a trial not yet even planned of a suspect not yet even charged?

Let me ask the entire forum a question.

If LE used a licensed hypnotist, is testimony and any reports based on the results of the hypnosis now admissable and fair game for both the prosecution and the defense?IDK :shrug: To me a hypnotist falls in the polygraph category. Helpful but inadmissible. Memory is too weird and can be manipulated. Not saying a hypnotist might do that but a person's own mind can alter memory. I'm not sure a hypnotist is getting an accurate "reading" any more than the person doing it on their own.

That said, I don't think LE intentionally had an unapproved hypnotist question these witnesses. IIRC, MG wanted one of the witnesses to testify, but not the other one (a prosecution witness). The prosecution certainly didn't want their own witness excluded! To suggest they hired a hypnotist to prevent testimony is ludicrous.

[Lavindar]

Well he**!! I finally get time to get back on and everyone is gone:( Oh well since I'm by myself, I'll just talk to myself~~~~This is a very interesting theory! It DOES bring up a few flashes of some reports AND testimony for that matter, concerning VANS! Yep! I said the "V" word.

I remember the Krigbaum kid had a van on the street, and Amie mentioned another van (maybe a pickup) and didn't Laci's friend who drove by around 9:30 see a van? Yes she DID see a van. Then there was the Renfrowe van, and the van the woman was raped in, most thought that was one & the same but I don't think so, then Geragos bought a van....(just thinking out loud here) hummm ...I'll have to look and see if I can find some information about the Dempewolf & city inspector Van siteing. :eek:


Garegos bought the RENFROW van. There are many many vans in Modesto.

City inspectors do not usually drive vans and in my experience with them when living in MODESTO, they also do NOT park in the driveway(in case a resident needs to get out). Good example is that he arrived there at 8:34. If there were children in the house, they would have to get to school and parking in the driveway could prevent someone from transporting them. So how could he see a van parked in the spot he would have parked in.

There's nothing to support this mystery van that Rachel never reported to the police other than her own words. Not one fact.

BTW Laci's friend never testified. So you can't consider that evidence

[Lavindar]

Thanks woo for posting this..it's very interesting indeed..! and to add to the list of vans you listed..Thomas Harshman also saw a van..he saw a pregnant woman being pushed into a van...

Kristen Reed sighting of a van:

Mark Geragos: Now, the, there was also a interview with Kristen Reed; is that correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And specifically,
Judge Delucchi: Just for the record, now, this is not coming in for the truth, again. This is coming in to explain the reasonableness of the officer's conduct, okay?Mark Geragos: And Kristen Reed was interviewed by Detective Brocchini in September of 2003?
Craig Grogan: I don't know. I'm sorry.
Mark Geragos: 39987. I've got it here if you just want to go through this.
And she had suggested that when she had come down the street, she also saw a van that was parked across the street; is that right? I'll lead you through it, if you want. She described, when she was talking to Brocchini, it wasn't a white car, I know it was a larger vehicle parked across the street, correct?
Craig Grogan: Correct.
Mark Geragos: And then Brocchini asked her it could have been a truck, do you know whether it could have been a truck; she said no, it was a van, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: She said it was a larger type vehicle, it wasn't white, but I know for sure there was another vehicle on that street, correct?
Craig Grogan: Correct.
Mark Geragos: And specifically she said it was older, it was either an older Chevy Astro or it was older like a Dodge brown van; it was one of those two, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And she said Yeah, it was like a brown metallic for the Dodge, seemed like it was a Dodge kind of make; it was tapered up is how she described it, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes, that's part of the description.

To beg the question again, WHY didn't she testify? She was available; her husband did. And I believe the van she allegedly sited was NOT on Covena

[adnoid]

...There are many many vans in Modesto...

OMG! The conspiracy is bigger than I imagined! ALL MODESTO VANS CONNECT 100%!!!!

[frydaddy]

CALIFORNIA CODES
EVIDENCE CODE
SECTION 795

795. (a) The testimony of a witness is not inadmissible in a
criminal proceeding by reason of the fact that the witness has
previously undergone hypnosis for the purpose of recalling events
which are the subject of the witness' testimony, if all of the
following conditions are met:
(1) The testimony is limited to those matters which the witness
recalled and related prior to the hypnosis.
(2) The substance of the prehypnotic memory was preserved in
written, audiotape, or videotape form prior to the hypnosis.
(3) The hypnosis was conducted in accordance with all of the
following procedures:
(A) A written record was made prior to hypnosis documenting the
subject's description of the event, and information which was
provided to the hypnotist concerning the subject matter of the
hypnosis.
(B) The subject gave informed consent to the hypnosis.
(C) The hypnosis session, including the pre- and post-hypnosis
interviews, was videotape recorded for subsequent review.
(D) The hypnosis was performed by a licensed medical doctor,
psychologist, licensed clinical social worker, or a licensed marriage
and family therapist experienced in the use of hypnosis and
independent of and not in the presence of law enforcement, the
prosecution, or the defense.
(4) Prior to admission of the testimony, the court holds a hearing
pursuant to Section 402 of the Evidence Code at which the proponent
of the evidence proves by clear and convincing evidence that the
hypnosis did not so affect the witness as to render the witness'
prehypnosis recollection unreliable or to substantially impair the
ability to cross-examine the witness concerning the witness'
prehypnosis recollection. At the hearing, each side shall have the
right to present expert testimony and to cross-examine witnesses.
(b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the
ability of a party to attack the credibility of a witness who has
undergone hypnosis, or to limit other legal grounds to admit or
exclude the testimony of that witness.

Reading this, I see nothing more than oversight on the part of LE on the licensing issue. No malicious intent here... just one more strike against the Jackson ruse. Anyone agree with my translation?

[USAHICK]

CALIFORNIA CODES
EVIDENCE CODE
SECTION 795

795. (a) The testimony of a witness is not inadmissible in a
criminal proceeding by reason of the fact that the witness has
previously undergone hypnosis for the purpose of recalling events
which are the subject of the witness' testimony, if all of the
following conditions are met:
(1) The testimony is limited to those matters which the witness
recalled and related prior to the hypnosis.
(2) The substance of the prehypnotic memory was preserved in
written, audiotape, or videotape form prior to the hypnosis.
(3) The hypnosis was conducted in accordance with all of the
following procedures:
(A) A written record was made prior to hypnosis documenting the
subject's description of the event, and information which was
provided to the hypnotist concerning the subject matter of the
hypnosis.
(B) The subject gave informed consent to the hypnosis.
(C) The hypnosis session, including the pre- and post-hypnosis
interviews, was videotape recorded for subsequent review.
(D) The hypnosis was performed by a licensed medical doctor,
psychologist, licensed clinical social worker, or a licensed marriage
and family therapist experienced in the use of hypnosis and
independent of and not in the presence of law enforcement, the
prosecution, or the defense.
(4) Prior to admission of the testimony, the court holds a hearing
pursuant to Section 402 of the Evidence Code at which the proponent
of the evidence proves by clear and convincing evidence that the
hypnosis did not so affect the witness as to render the witness'
prehypnosis recollection unreliable or to substantially impair the
ability to cross-examine the witness concerning the witness'
prehypnosis recollection. At the hearing, each side shall have the
right to present expert testimony and to cross-examine witnesses.
(b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the
ability of a party to attack the credibility of a witness who has
undergone hypnosis, or to limit other legal grounds to admit or
exclude the testimony of that witness.

Reading this, I see nothing more than oversight on the part of LE on the licensing issue. No malicious intent here... just one more strike against the Jackson ruse. Anyone agree with my translation?


ITA!!!:beer:

[attorneywan2be]

To beg the question again, WHY didn't she testify? She was available; her husband did. And I believe the van she allegedly sited was NOT on Covena

MG probably thought she was going to testify..! As far as I know, she was on the prosecution witness list, but they didn't call her to testify...

[Lavindar]

OMG! The conspiracy is bigger than I imagined! ALL MODESTO VANS CONNECT 100%!!!!
I can top that one, adnoid. At the time I knew a Donnie and he had no vehicle but sometimes drove his aunt's BROWN van!!!!!!!!

Odd, isn't it that the van is white, tan, brown, blue, or yellowish brown, has a fiberglass top, or doesn't, has a strip on it or doesn't. That pretty much covers most of the vans in Modesto - that is except for the green ones and black ones, silver ones (can't think of any other colors off the top of my head)

[adnoid]

...Anyone agree with my translation?

Absolutely.

[adnoid]

MG probably thought she was going to testify..! As far as I know, she was on the prosecution witness list, but they didn't call her to testify...

So why didn't MG? I'm no attorney, but it seems to me that witnesses that are not called tend to offer very little testimony. If he thought her testimony was needed he should have put her on his list. Both sides called these folks:

Buehler, Jon - MPD - Prosecution: 9/7 and 9/9, Defense: 10/25
Grogan, Craig - MPD - Prosecution: 9/20-9/30, Defense: 10/25
Peterson, Lee - Scott's Dad - Prosecution: 9/9, Defense: 10/25

So Geragos didn't have a habit of expecting the prosecution to list witnesses he wanted. And the prosecution went first, so he knew who had testified and could have called anyone he wanted. He chose not to.

[adnoid]

I can top that one, adnoid. At the time I knew a Donnie and he had no vehicle but sometimes drove his aunt's BROWN van!!!!!!!!

LAVINDAR CONNECTS TO SATAN WORSHIPERS 100%!!!! IT'S GETTING HOT IN HERE!!!!!!

[I'mSun]

Anyone agree with my translation?I do, 100%
Thanks for posting this, FD

[Lavindar]

MG probably thought she was going to testify..! As far as I know, she was on the prosecution witness list, but they didn't call her to testify...


That did NOT preclude Garegos from calling her. Notice also, that Geragos does NOT indicate the street she was driving down. This is an attempt to fuzzy the issue. The Reeds do not and have NEVER lived on Covena. I also notice how you left out that Reed said Laci ALWAYS walked with the dog.

She lives several blocks away from Covena and Covena is out of the way for her to be driving to another destination. Most likely she saw the van on Encina, not Covena.

[ekg]

So, you really think that even though Todd and Pearce passed polygraphs and there was apparently no sign of their involvement in Laci's disappearance in any way, shape, or form, that police purposely had her hypnotized by an unlicensed hypnotist to ruin her from testifying in a trial not yet even planned of a suspect not yet even charged?

Not necessarily like that no....... But I do think LE just did whatever they wanted and figured the ends would justify the means..... and to see ppl agreeing with that scares the crap outta me..

The whole thing is more about being sick of watching MG and the Petersons being slammed and drug thru pond-scum b/c they supported Scott. MG did what he was supposed to do by arguing it was NOT his fault LE screwed up with DJ and Scott shouldn't pay the price b/c of it. It was not his fault and he shouldn't have lost out on the testimony...


LE and the DA work on the same side.... It's only fair that they should lose their witness they screwed up and MG keep his that THEY, not HE screwed... Why should the def suffer from their mistake? have you got an answer for that?

and I didn't see an answer yet....... what if DJ was 100% right? What if she saw the van and the safe at the time and day she said she did? Is that reasonable doubt at the least and complete corruption at the most? and something the jury deserved to here in a death penalty case?

Think about that....and honestly, what if she's right?

sometimes I feel like some of you guys would be much happier if Scott would have not put on any case and just sat there thru the entire trial twiddling his thumbs.... sometimes I feel like that's all some of you guys think he deserved to do and anything else makes him pond scum and anyone helping him makes them lower than pond scum...everything that could show he's non-involvement is just made up lies by MG and Jackie Peterson.. some of you mock any kind of LE involvement in a rush to judgment as 'conspiracy' like it's never happened before..

some of you call the judge brilliant but then say that MG committed lies and perjury an used fake documents and didn't know the meaning of the word no.. etc etc etc.... either JD was a good judge for making the intricate rulings he did that can never be appealed b/c he's so brilliant.... or MG rolled right over him, got some past him and just didn't get caught lying and committing fraud on him...

so which is it? and if MG was able to get away with all those lies and fraudulent things....... don't you think the DA was able to also?

but no, the DA wouldn't do that would they? the DA and LE can make the massive mistakes they did b/c they are just........ well, I'd say corrupt/incompetent but some would say over-worked and understandable....

it just gets old to see one side forgiven for their mistakes and the other not given a millimeter for pointing out those mistakes...



MG did what our constitution gives him the right to do...the state should be questioned and countered and held responsible since they are the ones who can lock you up forever..anything less resembles China, Russia or the Mid-east..IMO

[Lavindar]

Not necessarily like that no....... But I do think LE just did whatever they wanted and figured the ends would justify the means..... and to see ppl agreeing with that scares the crap outta me..

The whole thing is more about being sick of watching MG and the Petersons being slammed and drug thru pond-scum b/c they supported Scott. MG did what he was supposed to do by arguing it was NOT his fault LE screwed up with DJ and Scott shouldn't pay the price b/c of it. It was not his fault and he shouldn't have lost out on the testimony...


LE and the DA work on the same side.... It's only fair that they should lose their witness they screwed up and MG keep his that THEY, not HE screwed... Why should the def suffer from their mistake? have you got an answer for that?

and I didn't see an answer yet....... what if DJ was 100% right? What if she saw the van and the safe at the time and day she said she did? Is that reasonable doubt at the least and complete corruption at the most? and something the jury deserved to here in a death penalty case?

Think about that....and honestly, what if she's right?

sometimes I feel like some of you guys would be much happier if Scott would have not put on any case and just sat there thru the entire trial twiddling his thumbs.... sometimes I feel like that's all some of you guys think he deserved to do and anything else makes him pond scum and anyone helping him makes them lower than pond scum...everything that could show he's non-involvement is just made up lies by MG and Jackie Peterson.. some of you mock any kind of LE involvement in a rush to judgment as 'conspiracy' like it's never happened before..

some of you call the judge brilliant but then say that MG committed lies and perjury an used fake documents and didn't know the meaning of the word no.. etc etc etc.... either JD was a good judge for making the intricate rulings he did that can never be appealed b/c he's so brilliant.... or MG rolled right over him, got some past him and just didn't get caught lying and committing fraud on him...

so which is it? and if MG was able to get away with all those lies and fraudulent things....... don't you think the DA was able to also?

but no, the DA wouldn't do that would they? the DA and LE can make the massive mistakes they did b/c they are just........ well, I'd say corrupt/incompetent but some would say over-worked and understandable....

it just gets old to see one side forgiven for their mistakes and the other not given a millimeter for pointing out those mistakes...



MG did what our constitution gives him the right to do...the state should be questioned and countered and held responsible since they are the ones who can lock you up forever..anything less resembles China, Russia or the Mid-east..IMO


Did it ever occur to you that the DA also lost Diane Jackson and her original statement where she did NOT mention "SAFE"

Yes, we can forgive them for honest errors....how can you forgive Geragos for his bold-faced lies? PRoven from the testimony. I would like to see proof of the prosecution lies. I gave detailed examples of Geragos's lies in his opening statements.

[Lavindar]

Not necessarily like that no....... But I do think LE just did whatever they wanted and figured the ends would justify the means..... and to see ppl agreeing with that scares the crap outta me..

The whole thing is more about being sick of watching MG and the Petersons being slammed and drug thru pond-scum b/c they supported Scott. MG did what he was supposed to do by arguing it was NOT his fault LE screwed up with DJ and Scott shouldn't pay the price b/c of it. It was not his fault and he shouldn't have lost out on the testimony...


LE and the DA work on the same side.... It's only fair that they should lose their witness they screwed up and MG keep his that THEY, not HE screwed... Why should the def suffer from their mistake? have you got an answer for that?

and I didn't see an answer yet....... what if DJ was 100% right? What if she saw the van and the safe at the time and day she said she did? Is that reasonable doubt at the least and complete corruption at the most? and something the jury deserved to here in a death penalty case?

Think about that....and honestly, what if she's right?

sometimes I feel like some of you guys would be much happier if Scott would have not put on any case and just sat there thru the entire trial twiddling his thumbs.... sometimes I feel like that's all some of you guys think he deserved to do and anything else makes him pond scum and anyone helping him makes them lower than pond scum...everything that could show he's non-involvement is just made up lies by MG and Jackie Peterson.. some of you mock any kind of LE involvement in a rush to judgment as 'conspiracy' like it's never happened before..

some of you call the judge brilliant but then say that MG committed lies and perjury an used fake documents and didn't know the meaning of the word no.. etc etc etc.... either JD was a good judge for making the intricate rulings he did that can never be appealed b/c he's so brilliant.... or MG rolled right over him, got some past him and just didn't get caught lying and committing fraud on him...

so which is it? and if MG was able to get away with all those lies and fraudulent things....... don't you think the DA was able to also?

but no, the DA wouldn't do that would they? the DA and LE can make the massive mistakes they did b/c they are just........ well, I'd say corrupt/incompetent but some would say over-worked and understandable....

it just gets old to see one side forgiven for their mistakes and the other not given a millimeter for pointing out those mistakes...



MG did what our constitution gives him the right to do...the state should be questioned and countered and held responsible since they are the ones who can lock you up forever..anything less resembles China, Russia or the Mid-east..IMO
You do NOT want to go there. I have stories about her that would curl your hair. IMOShe's a nasty piece of work and a huge liar, even under oath. I saw her damn behavior when she was in Modesto, and she's lucky she wasn't run out of town by the citizens in Modesto imo

I think her behavior toward the Rochas was reprehensible even at the trial. To blame The Rochas, the town of Modesto, and everyone else on earth for her son's bad deeds goes far beyond "denial."

[ekg]

Did it ever occur to you that the DA also lost Diane Jackson and her original statement where she did NOT mention "SAFE"

Yes, we can forgive them for honest errors....how can you forgive Geragos for his bold-faced lies? PRoven from the testimony.

point, proven....... thank you


I would like to see proof of the prosecution lies. I gave detailed examples of Geragos's lies in his opening statements.



RD opening
189. He tells Detective Brocchini that when he leaves, Laci Peterson was watching the Martha Stewart Show. And he, on the show, remembers, that they were cooking something with meringue. When the Modesto Police Department ordered those shows from Martha Stewart for the 23rd and the 24th, what they found was Martha Stewart didn't cook anything with meringue on the 24th. She actually cooked a segment about 9:40. That show -- I'm sorry -- broadcast at 9:00 o'clock. It's an hour long.



190. At 9:40, 40 minutes into the show on the 23rd, she cooks a segment with meringue. He says that he remembers Laci Peterson was doing this because that was her favorite show. That was the show she watched all the time. On the 24th Martha Stewart didn't have a segment with meringue.






RD closing
35. Let's talk about some of the evidence that the defense presented to you. One of which they spent a lot of time sometime on was this curling iron. Do you remember the curling iron? Well, this proves -- the curling iron that's here on the 24th, picture on the 24th, this curling iron proves that Laci Peterson got up in the morning to curl her hair, because Margarita Nava was at the house. She cleaned the house. And did -- I guess she put it away. I'll concede that. I don't even care if she put the curling iron away. She left the house on the 23rd.

36. What the defense didn't tell you -- and my guess is that they just simply forgot. But what they didn't tell you is, Amy Rocha testified that when Laci went to the salon that night, she brought her curling iron with her. So we know without any doubt that Laci Peterson, whether Margarita put the curling iron away or not, we know she went back to it that day, because she took it to the salon at 5:45 in the afternoon.

where did Amy testify to this?

there's 2 pretty big ones right there...

now, you going to answer my other question or just leave it for someone else?

[Lavindar]

point, proven....... thank you





RD opening







RD closing


where did Amy testify to this?

there's 2 pretty big ones right there...

now, you going to answer my other question or just leave it for someone else?


Read Garegos's cross of Amy. HE brings up the curling iron and Amy teaching her how to curl her hair into a "fun flip"

272) Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, when you were, you said you were helping her style her hair. Is that something called a fun flip?
273) Amy Rocha: Well, we did her hair flipped out, yes.
274) Mark Geragos: Okay. And you were showing her how to take a,
275) Amy Rocha: Curling iron.
276) Mark Geragos: curling iron?
277) Amy Rocha: And flip it out.
278) Mark Geragos: Excuse me for not having this down, taking a curling iron and basically flipping the hair out?
279) Amy Rocha: Yes.
280) Mark Geragos: Okay. And she was having trouble doing that?
281) Amy Rocha: Yes.
282) Mark Geragos: Okay. Can you tell me what you were showing her specifically?
283) Amy Rocha: She had just been using the curling iron, like she was doing it the wrong way, so I just showed her how to flip it without getting a kink in it.
284) Mark Geragos: Okay. Is that something because she had just recently tried this? Or what?
285) Amy Rocha: Well, we had just recently cut her hair, so it was like a new hairstyle for her.
286) Mark Geragos: Okay. So that's something that you would do in the morning when you got up in order to style the hair?
287) Amy Rocha: Yeah. If she were styling her hair, she would flip it out.
288) Mark Geragos: She would flip it out. And you were showing her how to do it because she was complaining that she didn't, it wasn't working?
289) Amy Rocha: Yes.

[USAHICK]

The curling iron will not be an appeal issue.

[ekg]

Read Garegos's cross of Amy. HE brings up the curling iron and Amy teaching her how to curl her hair into a "fun flip"

272) Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, when you were, you said you were helping her style her hair. Is that something called a fun flip?
273) Amy Rocha: Well, we did her hair flipped out, yes.
274) Mark Geragos: Okay. And you were showing her how to take a,
275) Amy Rocha: Curling iron.
276) Mark Geragos: curling iron?
277) Amy Rocha: And flip it out.
278) Mark Geragos: Excuse me for not having this down, taking a curling iron and basically flipping the hair out?
279) Amy Rocha: Yes.
280) Mark Geragos: Okay. And she was having trouble doing that?
281) Amy Rocha: Yes.
282) Mark Geragos: Okay. Can you tell me what you were showing her specifically?
283) Amy Rocha: She had just been using the curling iron, like she was doing it the wrong way, so I just showed her how to flip it without getting a kink in it.
284) Mark Geragos: Okay. Is that something because she had just recently tried this? Or what?
285) Amy Rocha: Well, we had just recently cut her hair, so it was like a new hairstyle for her.
286) Mark Geragos: Okay. So that's something that you would do in the morning when you got up in order to style the hair?
287) Amy Rocha: Yeah. If she were styling her hair, she would flip it out.
288) Mark Geragos: She would flip it out. And you were showing her how to do it because she was complaining that she didn't, it wasn't working?
289) Amy Rocha: Yes.

yes, but where does Amy say Laci brought in her Curling Iron.

RD said in his closing that Amy testified to this....... I can't find that bit of testimony from Amy... can you?


in fact this testimony

286) Mark Geragos: Okay. So that's something that you would do in the morning when you got up in order to style the hair?
287) Amy Rocha: Yeah. If she were styling her hair, she would flip it out.

along with this picture
http://www.courttv.com/graphics/photos/trials/laci-peterson/evidence-photogallery/21-evidence-gallery-062804.jpg

tell me Laci was up that morning....

[Lavindar]

yes, but where does Amy say Laci brought in her Curling Iron.

RD said in his closing that Amy testified to this....... I can't find that bit of testimony from Amy... can you?


in fact this testimony



along with this picture
http://www.courttv.com/graphics/photos/trials/laci-peterson/evidence-photogallery/21-evidence-gallery-062804.jpg

tell me Laci was up that morning....

It is against the law for a cosmetologist to allow a lay person to use the equipment - cosmetologists are trainled to look for hair and scalp diseases and bugs. Amy's boss was there that evening - he testified. Do you think he'd let a lay person use the equipment?

Title 16, Division 9, California Code of Regulations Board of Barbering and Cosmetology
Article 12. Health and Safety

978. Minimum Equipment and Supplies

(a) Establishments and schools shall have and maintain the following minimum equipment and supplies:

(1) At least one covered waste receptacle for the disposal of hair.

(2) Closed receptacles to hold all soiled towels, gowns and sheets in public areas.

(3) Closed, clean cabinets to hold all clean towels.

(4) Containers for disinfectant solution for instruments and equipment to be disinfected.

(5) Each container shall contain sufficient disinfectant solution to allow for the total immersion of tools and instruments.

(6) If electrolysis is performed, a steam or dry heat sterilizer that meets the requirements of Section 982.

(b) Establishments and schools shall have disinfectant solution mixed according to manufacturer's directions, available for use at all times.

(c) A manufacturer-labeled container for the disinfectant used must be available at all times in the establishment or school.

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 7312, Business and Professions Code. Reference: Section 7312(e), Business and Professions Code.

979. Disinfecting Non-Electrical Instruments and Equipment

(a) Before use upon a patron, all non-electrical instruments shall be disinfected in the following manner:

(1) Clean with soap or detergent and water.

(2) Then totally immerse in an EPA-registered disinfectant with demonstrated bactericidal, fungicidal, and virucidal activity, used according to manufacturer's instructions.

(b) The disinfectant solutions specified in subdivision (a) shall:

(1) Remain covered at all times.

(2) Be changed at least once per week or whenever visibly cloudy or dirty.

(c) All instruments that have been used on a patron or soiled in any manner shall be placed in a properly labeled receptacle.

(d) All disinfected instruments shall be stored in a clean, covered place which is labeled as such.

(e) If instruments and equipment specified in this section are sterilized in accordance with the requirements outlined in Section 982, the requirements of this section will be deemed to have been met.

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 7312, Business and Professions Code. Reference: Section 7312(e), Business and Professions Code.


980. Disinfecting Electrical Instruments

(a) Clippers, vibrators, and other electrical instruments shall be disinfected prior to each use by:

(1) First removing all foreign matter; and

(2) Disinfecting with an EPA-registered disinfectant with demonstrated bactericidal, fungicidal, and virucidal activity used according to manufacturer's instructions.





The house had two bathrooms

[deputydi]

yes, but where does Amy say Laci brought in her Curling Iron.

RD said in his closing that Amy testified to this....... I can't find that bit of testimony from Amy... can you?
<snip>
It has no chance of being an appeal issue unless you can show me where MG put an objection on the record. If he didn't object to the testimony or the statement, it cannot be used in any appeal.

[ekg]

It is against the law for a cosmetologist to allow a lay person to use the equipment - cosmetologists are trainled to look for hair and scalp diseases and bugs. Amy's boss was there that evening - he testified. Do you think he'd let a lay person use the equipment?

snipped

The house had two bathrooms

Thank you....

where does Amy testify that Laci brought in her iron?

But what they didn't tell you is, Amy Rocha testified that when Laci went to the salon that night, she brought her curling iron with her. So we know without any doubt that Laci Peterson, whether Margarita put the curling iron away or not, we know she went back to it that day, because she took it to the salon at 5:45 in the afternoon.



and what does 2 bathrooms have to do with the curling iron being out for her use that morning?

[frydaddy]

Not necessarily like that no....... But I do think LE just did whatever they wanted and figured the ends would justify the means..... and to see ppl agreeing with that scares the crap outta me..

The whole thing is more about being sick of watching MG and the Petersons being slammed and drug thru pond-scum b/c they supported Scott. MG did what he was supposed to do by arguing it was NOT his fault LE screwed up with DJ and Scott shouldn't pay the price b/c of it. It was not his fault and he shouldn't have lost out on the testimony...


LE and the DA work on the same side.... It's only fair that they should lose their witness they screwed up and MG keep his that THEY, not HE screwed... Why should the def suffer from their mistake? have you got an answer for that?

and I didn't see an answer yet....... what if DJ was 100% right? What if she saw the van and the safe at the time and day she said she did? Is that reasonable doubt at the least and complete corruption at the most? and something the jury deserved to here in a death penalty case?

Think about that....and honestly, what if she's right?

sometimes I feel like some of you guys would be much happier if Scott would have not put on any case and just sat there thru the entire trial twiddling his thumbs.... sometimes I feel like that's all some of you guys think he deserved to do and anything else makes him pond scum and anyone helping him makes them lower than pond scum...everything that could show he's non-involvement is just made up lies by MG and Jackie Peterson.. some of you mock any kind of LE involvement in a rush to judgment as 'conspiracy' like it's never happened before..

some of you call the judge brilliant but then say that MG committed lies and perjury an used fake documents and didn't know the meaning of the word no.. etc etc etc.... either JD was a good judge for making the intricate rulings he did that can never be appealed b/c he's so brilliant.... or MG rolled right over him, got some past him and just didn't get caught lying and committing fraud on him...

so which is it? and if MG was able to get away with all those lies and fraudulent things....... don't you think the DA was able to also?

but no, the DA wouldn't do that would they? the DA and LE can make the massive mistakes they did b/c they are just........ well, I'd say corrupt/incompetent but some would say over-worked and understandable....

it just gets old to see one side forgiven for their mistakes and the other not given a millimeter for pointing out those mistakes...



MG did what our constitution gives him the right to do...the state should be questioned and countered and held responsible since they are the ones who can lock you up forever..anything less resembles China, Russia or the Mid-east..IMO

A little bit fired up this weekend I've noticed. Not sure why, but I'm sure there's a reason. Anyway...

Which officer specifically made the decision to bring in a hypnotist?
When did Distaso find out that witnesses were hypnotized by an unlicensed agent?

Unless you know for certain the answer to either of these questions, then your angst towards LE and the DA on this issue is based on assumption and what I perceive to be your bias towards state authority. If I am mistaken on the bias issue, I apologize. Having said that...

You seem to want fairness, for us to judge the state the same as the defendant. Is that what you do? Have you given anyone with the state the benefit of the doubt? This seemed to be the perfect opportunity, given the posts of the last couple days, but you went the opposite direction for some reason.

As for "what if DJ was right"...she wasn't...not based on what we know as fact. And while I know this statement is going to prompt yet another posting of Grogan's testimony for me to ignore, I'm standing by this for one reason. Mark Geragos. The man had Scott's life in his hands and was being paid to defend him. His head was turned around! If he had conclusive proof that the DJ thing had merit, I have the upmost faith that he'd have brought it with everything but the kitchen sink. The man was simply too full of himself to pass up an opportunity to prove her story right and ridicule the DA's office. See cross of Brocchini for evidence of that.

Now, if we're being fair, can you say that you don't see that trait in Mark? Take a look at all of his witnesses...they all lacked big time, yet all the folks who could have done the trick on a number of issues were non existent in the trial. IAC? Heck no. The man had nothing to work with. See the mock cross for evidence of that. I looked at this CIC and his cross and saw nothing that I would consider worthy of turning an experienced attorney's head around. I think that was posturing and at the end of the day, his best effort to CREATE reasonable doubt failed. It's just that simple.

[Rachel Cory]

Hi Rach ~ I know it's getting late, but I think you just said that the abductors who snatched Laci at or about 10:38 AM was she was nearing the entrance to the park with McKenzie was seen by Dempewolf, the city inspector and Scott...........?

Ummm.....impossible. Time-line is off, dogs never picked up her scent anywhere but the Marina, nothing Scott said counts, the city inspector never testified to seeing a van with abductors and Laci inside, nor did Dempenwolf for that matter.
LOL! It WAS late, and I'm old, too. Let me try to clarify. There was an unidentified van parked across the street from the Peterson house that morning. The inspector at the Medinas was there to okay a patio or something along that line. When he left, the van was blocking his exit, so he had to maneuver around it. Kristen stopped to talk to Scott as he was loading the umbrellas and she was walking her dog. They both saw the van, but of course, Kristen didn't testify and neither did Scott. If I can find the information about the city inspector in Susan Medina's testimony, I will post it tomorrow afternoon. I don't think any of these people saw Laci in the van with the abductors.

When Cindee Valentin was called in on the 26th, she started her bloodhound at the corner of the Peterson lot with Laci's sunglasses. He took off across the lawn, went north on Covena, made the curve on Edgebrook and then directly onto Highland. He didn't go into the entrance to the park, but stayed on the streets. (Except for that moment when he entered the backyard of the house that backed up to the Peterson property, kind of kitty-corner. He may have caught her scent from her own property.) I understand that Ms. Valentin's Preliminary testimony was not allowed, but that doesn't make it any less true, IMO. I kinda like the dog, Merlin. :D

[ekg]

It has no chance of being an appeal issue unless you can show me where MG put an objection on the record. If he didn't object to the testimony or the statement, it cannot be used in any appeal.


MG closing

106. And this is significant. Look what -- this is the picture they take on the night of 24th. That's the curling iron.

107. Why is that significant? We've got specific information from Margarita Nava that when she cleaned the bathroom she put everything that was out away. There was nothing in disarray. So, sometime between when Margarita Nava left on the 23rd, somebody got out and somebody put that curling iron out.

108. Well, what testimony do we have from Amy? Amy said: Now, when you were -- you said that you were helping her style her hair, is that something called a fun flip? Well, we did her hair flipped out, we were showing her how to take a -- and she says "curling iron." Not me.

109. Okay. And was she having trouble doing that? Amy says yes. So that was something that you would do in the morning when you get up in order to style your hair? Yeah.

110. Another piece of circumstantial evidence showing that Laci Peterson was alive the morning of the 24th. You don't have to take it from me, you don't have to take it from Scott. This is their evidence.



RD's lie



35. Let's talk about some of the evidence that the defense presented to you. One of which they spent a lot of time sometime on was this curling iron. Do you remember the curling iron? Well, this proves -- the curling iron that's here on the 24th, picture on the 24th, this curling iron proves that Laci Peterson got up in the morning to curl her hair, because Margarita Nava was at the house. She cleaned the house. And did -- I guess she put it away. I'll concede that. I don't even care if she put the curling iron away. She left the house on the 23rd.

36. What the defense didn't tell you -- and my guess is that they just simply forgot. But what they didn't tell you is, Amy Rocha testified that when Laci went to the salon that night, she brought her curling iron with her. So we know without any doubt that Laci Peterson, whether Margarita put the curling iron away or not, we know she went back to it that day, because she took it to the salon at 5:45 in the afternoon.

37. Now, I don't think this is any big deal. I'm only pointing this out to you, because I don't want you to get -- based on the defense argument, selective version of the evidence.

IDK if it was objected to or not....... but RD's lie sure changes the story doesn't...

funny how he calls it's the defenses selective version of events..:rolleyes:

[deputydi]

A little bit fired up this weekend I've noticed. Not sure why, but I'm sure there's a reason. Anyway...

Which officer specifically made the decision to bring in a hypnotist?
When did Distaso find out that witnesses were hypnotized by an unlicensed agent?

Unless you know for certain the answer to either of these questions, then your angst towards LE and the DA on this issue is based on assumption and what I perceive to be your bias towards state authority. If I am mistaken on the bias issue, I apologize. Having said that...

You seem to want fairness, for us to judge the state the same as the defendant. Is that what you do? Have you given anyone with the state the benefit of the doubt? This seemed to be the perfect opportunity, given the posts of the last couple days, but you went the opposite direction for some reason.

As for "what if DJ was right"...she wasn't...not based on what we know as fact. And while I know this statement is going to prompt yet another posting of Grogan's testimony for me to ignore, I'm standing by this for one reason. Mark Geragos. The man had Scott's life in his hands and was being paid to defend him. His head was turned around! If he had conclusive proof that the DJ thing had merit, I have the upmost faith that he'd have brought it with everything but the kitchen sink. The man was simply too full of himself to pass up an opportunity to prove her story right and ridicule the DA's office. See cross of Brocchini for evidence of that.

Now, if we're being fair, can you say that you don't see that trait in Mark? Take a look at all of his witnesses...they all lacked big time, yet all the folks who could have done the trick on a number of issues were non existent in the trial. IAC? Heck no. The man had nothing to work with. See the mock cross for evidence of that. I looked at this CIC and his cross and saw nothing that I would consider worthy of turning an experienced attorney's head around. I think that was posturing and at the end of the day, his best effort to CREATE reasonable doubt failed. It's just that simple.
Absolutely, positively an awesome post! I agree with every word.

[Rachel Cory]

Do you have any links to any of this information? Have you notified the police? If not, you are obstructing justice. And I have Kim's mother's place SOUTH of thr Medina's, not north
Yep, southeast to be exact. 1519 Encina. I was pointing out that the Gallo property is north of Encina and east of the Williams home. I did find a link for the neighborhood:

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/33.JPG.

I hope this isn't the unmentionable site. :eek: If it is, I'm sorry. If it isn't, which one is?

[deputydi]

<snip>IDK if it was objected to or not....... but RD's lie sure changes the story doesn't...<snip>
I'm sorry. I thought this thread was about possible appeal issues. It doesn't matter one bit if RD said in his closing that Laci had her hair dyed green that night -- the curling iron "controversy" is moot. MG had to put an objection on the record to preserve it as an appeal issue and, as far as I know, he did not.

I'm sure you know, but maybe it slipped your mind -- opening and closing statements are not evidence.

[Lavindar]

LOL! It WAS late, and I'm old, too. Let me try to clarify. There was an unidentified van parked across the street from the Peterson house that morning. The inspector at the Medinas was there to okay a patio or something along that line. When he left, the van was blocking his exit, so he had to maneuver around it. Kristen stopped to talk to Scott as he was loading the umbrellas and she was walking her dog. They both saw the van, but of course, Kristen didn't testify and neither did Scott. If I can find the information about the city inspector in Susan Medina's testimony, I will post it tomorrow afternoon. I don't think any of these people saw Laci in the van with the abductors.

When Cindee Valentin was called in on the 26th, she started her bloodhound at the corner of the Peterson lot with Laci's sunglasses. He took off across the lawn, went north on Covena, made the curve on Edgebrook and then directly onto Highland. He didn't go into the entrance to the park, but stayed on the streets. (Except for that moment when he entered the backyard of the house that backed up to the Peterson property, kind of kitty-corner. He may have caught her scent from her own property.) I understand that Ms. Valentin's Preliminary testimony was not allowed, but that doesn't make it any less true, IMO. I kinda like the dog, Merlin. :D


The timeline does not fit. The inspector (from Medina's testimony was there at 8:34. Scott was outside between 9:48 and about 10. The medinas left at 10:30 Karen put the dog in the yard 10:18-10:30 AND NONE OF THEM SAW ANYTHING. The postman was on Covena (per his testimony 10:35-10:50 and notice nothing unusual. If this van was blocking the Medina's driveway, don't you think they might have noticed?

[ekg]

snipped

I'm sure you know, but maybe it slipped your mind -- opening and closing statements are not evidence.

maybe you missed Lavindar's question to me?

I would like to see proof of the prosecution lies. I gave detailed examples of Geragos's lies in his opening statements.

[Mysteri]

Ho Hum. MOre Garegos "not fair" crapola. If the hypnotism of one was not ok, then the hypnotism of the other is not ok. Garegos does not get his cake and eat it too - even tho he thinks he does.

There's no difference in this than in his claiming that the dismissal of "his" jurors is unfair, but the dismissal of the other one is completely fair. I would hate to play sports with this guy.

Don't think he's ever heard 'What's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander.' Or 'It's a two way street.' Which puts him at a loss and makes him unappealing, no pun intended.

The hypnotist saga had very little bearing on this case and is too trivial for an appeal issue. All that came out of the Jurist drama was the coining of the inept phrase, 'stealth juror.' Comical , really.
It sticks out a mile that with all his 'catch phrases' that Geragos wanted to be remembered for this long-winded trial and he is; for all the wrong reasons. imo

[ekg]

A little bit fired up this weekend I've noticed. Not sure why, but I'm sure there's a reason. Anyway...

yes..... and yes..had horrible news from Iraq and I was sick of seeing ppl trample on someone else's rights b/c they don't like that person.... ppl are dying so other ppl can have the rights some of us are willing to take away from Scott Peterson. namely the right to defend himself. and believe me, in Iraq, that would be a welcomed right.

Which officer specifically made the decision to bring in a hypnotist?
When did Distaso find out that witnesses were hypnotized by an unlicensed agent?

this is all I could find on the hypnosis..its alot about KD, but maybe some of it helps you?

17 Jan 2003 Kristen Dempewolf hypnotized

Dr. Dale Pennington interviewed Dempewolf and then hypnotized her. The purpose of the hypnosis was to help Dempewolf remember her encounter with Scott on Christmas Eve morning. Dempewolf's pre-hypnosis memory was preserved in a 2-page report on the January 9 interview by Detective Schmierer, a 3-page police report on the January 13 interview by Detective Rick House, and a video-tape of the January 17 pre-hypnosis interview by Pennington.



According to defense documents filed Feb 9, 2004, LE never asked Dempewolf to read and attest to the accuracy of the two police reports or sign a written statement in which she related her full pre-hypnosis recollection of the events. Pennington's interview of Dempewolf disclosed that prior to the hypnosis, she could not recall the date of the incidents, but during the hypnotic interview Pennington questioned her in a manner that required remembering the relevant date. Detective Stough "gave Dr. Pennington a brief on the burglary and on the reports of the suspicious van on or about the 24th of December 2002 in front of 516 Covena." After the briefing, Det. Banks took Pennington to the scene so he could view the area, raising concerns that Pennington could have unwittingly or intentionally given Dempewolf cues that would have permanently altered her recollection.



21 Aug 2003 Kristen Dempewolf & Hypnosis

Information surfaced about the use of a "cognitive interview where hypnosis techniques were used" on Kristen Dempewolf, a La Loma woman who had her baby on January 10. Dempewolf, 33, had shoulder-length brown hair and regularly walked her mid-sized brown dog, which is not a golden retriever, a source said. The hypnosis came to light when prosecutors responded to a defense request for information about hypnotized prosecution witnesses. Investigators won't say why they used the hypnotist, but it could be to enhance her memory of what she was doing Christmas Eve morning. If she was walking her dog that morning, it could counter other witnesses who say they saw Laci walking MacKenzie that morning. However, neighbor Tammy Thomas believes it's unlikely a witness would mistake Kristen for Laci. "Kristen is a blonde, Laci was a brunette," she said. "Kristen's dog looks nothing like McKenzie. And Kristen always takes her 2-year-old daughter with her when she walks the dog."





15 Oct 2003 Dempewolf won't testify at Prelim

Prosecutors announced they will not introduce from Kristen Dempewolf, who was hypnotized by investigators, at the preliminary hearing, but still intend to call her at the trial. They also claim that the defense objections to Dempewolf must also apply to Diane Jackson, the witness who saw the van parked across the street from the Petersons. Jackson, too, was hypnotized.


On September 12, 2003, the Modesto Bee reported:

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.


http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Media/articles/hypnotize.htm




You seem to want fairness, for us to judge the state the same as the defendant. Is that what you do? Have you given anyone with the state the benefit of the doubt? This seemed to be the perfect opportunity, given the posts of the last couple days, but you went the opposite direction for some reason.
As for "what if DJ was right"...she wasn't...not based on what we know as fact. And while I know this statement is going to prompt yet another posting of Grogan's testimony for me to ignore, I'm standing by this for one reason. Mark Geragos. The man had Scott's life in his hands and was being paid to defend him. His head was turned around! If he had conclusive proof that the DJ thing had merit, I have the upmost faith that he'd have brought it with everything but the kitchen sink. The man was simply too full of himself to pass up an opportunity to prove her story right and ridicule the DA's office. See cross of Brocchini for evidence of that.

Now, if we're being fair, can you say that you don't see that trait in Mark? Take a look at all of his witnesses...they all lacked big time, yet all the folks who could have done the trick on a number of issues were non existent in the trial. IAC? Heck no. The man had nothing to work with. See the mock cross for evidence of that. I looked at this CIC and his cross and saw nothing that I would consider worthy of turning an experienced attorney's head around. I think that was posturing and at the end of the day, his best effort to CREATE reasonable doubt failed. It's just that simple.
'
I believe I give the state and the def both the benefit of the doubt.....but I am just sick of seeing how the defense is the only one out there lying and misrepresenting things......

RD and LE did their fair share... but just like L said (which proved my point btw)

"Yes, we can forgive them for honest errors....how can you forgive Geragos for his bold-faced lies?"

RD and LE make only honest errors while MG makes only bald-face lies...

now you tell me, is that the benefit of the doubt?

lets not forget about the meringue lie that Broc had to tell Jacobson so Jacobson could get the wire-tap... IMO it was sloppy police work not an out and out lie but on here, there can't even be any sloppy le work... no I was told this wasn't a lie or an error, it was police tactic that AB pulled so when it was brought up in court, Scott could tangle himself up and force his timeline to be solidified...:rolleyes:

I hold LE and the state to a much higher standard than I do defense attorneys..... Def att. are supposed to be the scum of the earth right? well when the DA and LE are right there doing the same manipulting,lying and dirty tricks I don't give them a pass like some ppl do...... they are supposed to be above that, they HAVE to be above that.....the whole process starts with them doesn't it. If LE was 'dirty' then the case is 'dirty' and the DA has to prosecute by using the 'dirty'.... So when the Def att. comes in he has to use the same tactics just to get on an even playing field..

it's why the State has the burden of proof and not the Def.

you don't think DJ was right b/c MG didn't try to get her testimony in hard enough?? he fought over it like crazy in motions to get in what little he did get in...... He couldn't get her up there so he got LE to give her statement and her call in to the tipline FOR THE TRUTH and not for hearsay.... do you know how hard he had to work for that, FOR THE TRUTH part? especially on the tip line statement, but he got it in there..... as he should have... and it was a huge coup if you ask me...

he did rub their nose in it.. along with many other things..it wasn't just that he wanted to use everything but the kitchen sink to distract ppl..... it was b/c everything except the kitchen sink was WRONG with LE's investigation and the States case...

[TopGunner]

It has no chance of being an appeal issue unless you can show me where MG put an objection on the record. If he didn't object to the testimony or the statement, it cannot be used in any appeal.

Not to hammer on the curling iron once again, but I feel compelled to add my 2 cents. I never understood why MG went round and round with that one. Laci could have done her hair in order to go out, TO the salon. I always primp a second or third time in a day if I'm going out again. The maid saying she put it away when she cleaned never meant anything, to me.

[Otter]

yes..... and yes..had horrible news from Iraq and I was sick of seeing ppl trample on someone else's rights b/c they don't like that person.... ppl are dying so other ppl can have the rights some of us are willing to take away from Scott Peterson. namely the right to defend himself. and believe me, in Iraq, that would be a welcomed right.

Everyone is upset by news from Iraq, IMO. What rights were taken away from SP? I'm baffled by your statement. And actually rather offended that you would compare the lives of our soldiers to the life of a murderer.

Snipped


I hold LE and the state to a much higher standard than I do defense attorneys..... Def att. are supposed to be the scum of the earth right? well when the DA and LE are right there doing the same manipulting,lying and dirty tricks I don't give them a pass like some ppl do...... they are supposed to be above that, they HAVE to be above that.....the whole process starts with them doesn't it. If LE was 'dirty' then the case is 'dirty' and the DA has to prosecute by using the 'dirty'.... So when the Def att. comes in he has to use the same tactics just to get on an even playing field..

it's why the State has the burden of proof and not the Def.

you don't think DJ was right b/c MG didn't try to get her testimony in hard enough?? he fought over it like crazy in motions to get in what little he did get in...... He couldn't get her up there so he got LE to give her statement and her call in to the tipline FOR THE TRUTH and not for hearsay.... do you know how hard he had to work for that, FOR THE TRUTH part? especially on the tip line statement, but he got it in there..... as he should have... and it was a huge coup if you ask me...

he did rub their nose in it.. along with many other things..it wasn't just that he wanted to use everything but the kitchen sink to distract ppl..... it was b/c everything except the kitchen sink was WRONG with LE's investigation and the States case...

Ya know EKG, I hold the state to a higher standard too. And they came through! I don't need you to explain the burden of proof to me either, but thanks anyway.

Now, your last statement rubs me the wrong way, not anywhere near as much as your first statement mind you.

Why do you believe that distracting from the TRUTH is good? Can you show proof that LE and the prosecution didn't offer the truth?

12 reasonable people found that MG did not present the truth and sent a guilty double murderer to death row because the state did just that. The TRUTH!

[Lavindar]

Everyone is upset by news from Iraq, IMO. What rights were taken away from SP? I'm baffled by your statement. And actually rather offended that you would compare the lives of our soldiers to the life of a murderer.

Snipped



Ya know EKG, I hold the state to a higher standard too. And they came through! I don't need you to explain the burden of proof to me either, but thanks anyway.

Now, your last statement rubs me the wrong way, not anywhere near as much as your first statement mind you.

Why do you believe that distracting from the TRUTH is good? Can you show proof that LE and the prosecution didn't offer the truth?

12 reasonable people found that MG did not present the truth and sent a guilty double murderer to death row because the state did just that. The TRUTH!

May I add to that. The defense gets many chances (they are called appeals). The prosecution gets ONE chance only. If that isn't skewed in favor of the defense, I don't know what is.

[deputydi]

Not to hammer on the curling iron once again, but I feel compelled to add my 2 cents. I never understood why MG went round and round with that one. Laci could have done her hair in order to go out, TO the salon. I always primp a second or third time in a day if I'm going out again. The maid saying she put it away when she cleaned never meant anything, to me.
I don't understand this curling iron thing either. So what if MN put it away on the 23rd -- does that mean that Laci wouldn't have done her hair at some point during the day of the 24th? Wasn't the appointment for Scott's haircut -- not Laci's? Why does anyone think she wouldn't have done her hair that day? I've also been known to come home from the hairdresser's and re-do my hair. This whole issue seems kind of petty to me.

[attorneywan2be]

Snip

I would like to see proof of the prosecution lies. I gave detailed examples of Geragos's lies in his opening statements.

I just read few paragraphs of Distaso's opening statementand I found several lies:

1-

He goes directly to the neighbors across the street, and the neighbors that live there, Amy Krigbaum and Tara Venable. He comes walking up the drive. They have been home the entire day. They will tell you that they woke up that morning at 10: 30. Amy I think played hooky from work that day. Tara was off. And they have been home the entire day,

We know that they went shopping that day..so they weren't home the entire day...

---------------------
2-

the defendant asked them, he said, well, have you seen Laci today? You know, I can't find her. She said, well, no, we haven't. We have been home all day, and have been in and out of the front yard. Their house looks directly across to the Peterson home at 523 Covena. She said we haven't seen her. We have seen her car parked in the driveway all day, but the blinds were down in the house, and the house looks closed. We didn't think anybody was home. They asked, why, what's going on? What's the problem? He told them, he said, well, you know, Laci is missing. She says missing? What do you mean? Where have you been all day? He said I was out golfing all day

(a) Amy Krigbaum testified that they went shopping...(b) Terra testified that they thought Laci was going to be home alone for Christmas..(c) they didn't testify that Scott told them that Laci was missing..

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

3-

She is yelling at him. "Scott, Scott, Scott," and she's like maybe twenty or thirty yards away. She is screaming at him. No response. She comes running up to him, and she says, you know, "What's going on?" No real response. She says, she says, well, you know what happened? Laci is missing. Well, where were you today? Fishing. Where were you fishing? Berkeley. She's getting these one-word response answers. And at the end of that, "Where were you fishing? Berkeley," the defendant walked off.

(a) Sharon testified that it was Zachary that went right up to Scott and that was when he acknowledged that anybody was there..so he did respond when he was approached.. (b) she testified that she walked over to where they were and asked Scott if the house was unlocked and asked him if Laci's purse was there...and Scott responded to both questions (c) she testified that she didn't ask him where he had been all day when they were in the park..the exact opposite of what Distaso said in his opening statement...she didn't testify that he replied that Laci was missing when they were in the park.. (d) she testified that she turned around and walked towards the parking lot where the officers were standing..so it was not Scott who walked off...!

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

4-

I didn't re-read his closing argument..I just remember he lied about this:

Remember, Susan Medina, the neighbors across the street. They were out on Covena a couple of times. They had a city inspector come at some time in the morning. Bob Nickerson. He was, he was there between 10:20 and 10:30.
He didn't see anything. Remember what she said? They left their home between 10:30 and 10:33 on the 24th. And the way they know that is because Susan Medina has her cell phone records.

Susan Medina testified that the inspector arrived between 8:20 am and 8:35 am and he left around 9:32 am..

[TopGunner]

I just read few paragraphs of Distaso's opening statementand I found several lies:

1-

He goes directly to the neighbors across the street, and the neighbors that live there, Amy Krigbaum and Tara Venable. He comes walking up the drive. They have been home the entire day. They will tell you that they woke up that morning at 10: 30. Amy I think played hooky from work that day. Tara was off. And they have been home the entire day,

We know that they went shopping that day..so they weren't home the entire day...

---------------------
2-

the defendant asked them, he said, well, have you seen Laci today? You know, I can't find her. She said, well, no, we haven't. We have been home all day, and have been in and out of the front yard. Their house looks directly across to the Peterson home at 523 Covena. She said we haven't seen her. We have seen her car parked in the driveway all day, but the blinds were down in the house, and the house looks closed. We didn't think anybody was home. They asked, why, what's going on? What's the problem? He told them, he said, well, you know, Laci is missing. She says missing? What do you mean? Where have you been all day? He said I was out golfing all day

(a) Amy Krigbaum testified that they went shopping...(b) Terra testified that they thought Laci was going to be home alone for Christmas..(c) they didn't testify that Scott told them that Laci was missing..

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

3-

She is yelling at him. "Scott, Scott, Scott," and she's like maybe twenty or thirty yards away. She is screaming at him. No response. She comes running up to him, and she says, you know, "What's going on?" No real response. She says, she says, well, you know what happened? Laci is missing. Well, where were you today? Fishing. Where were you fishing? Berkeley. She's getting these one-word response answers. And at the end of that, "Where were you fishing? Berkeley," the defendant walked off.

(a) Sharon testified that it was Zachary that went right up to Scott and that was when he acknowledged that anybody was there..so he did respond when he was approached.. (b) she testified that she walked over to where they were and asked Scott if the house was unlocked and asked him if Laci's purse was there...and Scott responded to both questions (c) she testified that she didn't ask him where he had been all day when they were in the park..the exact opposite of what Distaso said in his opening statement...she didn't testify that he replied that Laci was missing when they were in the park.. (d) she testified that she turned around and walked towards the parking lot where the officers were standing..so it was not Scott who walked off...!

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

4-

I didn't re-read his closing argument..I just remember he lied about this:

Remember, Susan Medina, the neighbors across the street. They were out on Covena a couple of times. They had a city inspector come at some time in the morning. Bob Nickerson. He was, he was there between 10:20 and 10:30.
He didn't see anything. Remember what she said? They left their home between 10:30 and 10:33 on the 24th. And the way they know that is because Susan Medina has her cell phone records.

Susan Medina testified that the inspector arrived between 8:20 am and 8:35 am and he left around 9:32 am..

How is this lying?

[Miss Bootsie]

I just read few paragraphs of Distaso's opening statementand I found several lies:

1-

He goes directly to the neighbors across the street, and the neighbors that live there, Amy Krigbaum and Tara Venable. He comes walking up the drive. They have been home the entire day. They will tell you that they woke up that morning at 10: 30. Amy I think played hooky from work that day. Tara was off. And they have been home the entire day,

We know that they went shopping that day..so they weren't home the entire day...


Amy Krigbaum and Tara Venable were both home until approximately 1:00, long after Karen Servas found McKenzie. In fact, Amy's son stayed. He did not go shopping.

They were both home for several hours after Scott left for the warehouse. Both were home before Scott returned from the Marina.

They were both home during the entire period most relevant to Laci's disappearance.
The time period that was most important.

Would it have made a difference if Distaso had stated both were at home until approximately 1:00 - 4:15?






DISTASO: Were you guys home the rest, you said you left at some point, so you were home until when? When did you leave the house?

KRIGBAUM: 12:30 or 1:00 we left.

DISTASO: Where did you go?

KRIGBAUM: We went shopping. We went numerous places.

DISTASO: Did all three of you leave?

KRIGBAUM: No, Michael stayed.

DISTASO: How old is Michael now?

KRIGBAUM: He is going to be 14 in July.



VENABLE: I believe 1:00, 1:30. I don't know the exact time that we left the house.

DISTASO: Okay. And what happened when you left? Where did you go?

VENABLE: To miscellaneous stores just to do some Christmas shopping, and we also went to the grocery store to buy groceries for a dinner we were going to have that night.

DISTASO: Okay. Other than when you went out shopping, were you and Amie and Michael home the rest of the part of the day?

VENABLE: Yes.

DISTASO: What, so,

[attorneywan2be]

Amy Krigbaum and Tara Venable were both home until approximately 1:00, long after Karen Servas found McKenzie. In fact, Amy's son stayed. He did not go shopping.

They were both home for several hours after Scott left for the warehouse. Both were home before Scott returned from the Marina.

They were both home during the entire period most relevant to Laci's disappearance.
The time period that was most important.

Would it have made a difference if Distaso had stated both were at home until approximately 1:00 - 4:15?

IMO, Distaso knew exactly what he was doing..he was giving the jury a false idea that Amy Krigbaum and Terra were home all day and didn't see anything unusual...

[frydaddy]

yes..... and yes..had horrible news from Iraq and I was sick of seeing ppl trample on someone else's rights b/c they don't like that person.... ppl are dying so other ppl can have the rights some of us are willing to take away from Scott Peterson. namely the right to defend himself. and believe me, in Iraq, that would be a welcomed right.



this is all I could find on the hypnosis..its alot about KD, but maybe some of it helps you?

17 Jan 2003 Kristen Dempewolf hypnotized

Dr. Dale Pennington interviewed Dempewolf and then hypnotized her. The purpose of the hypnosis was to help Dempewolf remember her encounter with Scott on Christmas Eve morning. Dempewolf's pre-hypnosis memory was preserved in a 2-page report on the January 9 interview by Detective Schmierer, a 3-page police report on the January 13 interview by Detective Rick House, and a video-tape of the January 17 pre-hypnosis interview by Pennington.



According to defense documents filed Feb 9, 2004, LE never asked Dempewolf to read and attest to the accuracy of the two police reports or sign a written statement in which she related her full pre-hypnosis recollection of the events. Pennington's interview of Dempewolf disclosed that prior to the hypnosis, she could not recall the date of the incidents, but during the hypnotic interview Pennington questioned her in a manner that required remembering the relevant date. Detective Stough "gave Dr. Pennington a brief on the burglary and on the reports of the suspicious van on or about the 24th of December 2002 in front of 516 Covena." After the briefing, Det. Banks took Pennington to the scene so he could view the area, raising concerns that Pennington could have unwittingly or intentionally given Dempewolf cues that would have permanently altered her recollection.



21 Aug 2003 Kristen Dempewolf & Hypnosis

Information surfaced about the use of a "cognitive interview where hypnosis techniques were used" on Kristen Dempewolf, a La Loma woman who had her baby on January 10. Dempewolf, 33, had shoulder-length brown hair and regularly walked her mid-sized brown dog, which is not a golden retriever, a source said. The hypnosis came to light when prosecutors responded to a defense request for information about hypnotized prosecution witnesses. Investigators won't say why they used the hypnotist, but it could be to enhance her memory of what she was doing Christmas Eve morning. If she was walking her dog that morning, it could counter other witnesses who say they saw Laci walking MacKenzie that morning. However, neighbor Tammy Thomas believes it's unlikely a witness would mistake Kristen for Laci. "Kristen is a blonde, Laci was a brunette," she said. "Kristen's dog looks nothing like McKenzie. And Kristen always takes her 2-year-old daughter with her when she walks the dog."





15 Oct 2003 Dempewolf won't testify at Prelim

Prosecutors announced they will not introduce from Kristen Dempewolf, who was hypnotized by investigators, at the preliminary hearing, but still intend to call her at the trial. They also claim that the defense objections to Dempewolf must also apply to Diane Jackson, the witness who saw the van parked across the street from the Petersons. Jackson, too, was hypnotized.


On September 12, 2003, the Modesto Bee reported:

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.


http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Media/articles/hypnotize.htm




'
I believe I give the state and the def both the benefit of the doubt.....but I am just sick of seeing how the defense is the only one out there lying and misrepresenting things......

RD and LE did their fair share... but just like L said (which proved my point btw)

"Yes, we can forgive them for honest errors....how can you forgive Geragos for his bold-faced lies?"

RD and LE make only honest errors while MG makes only bald-face lies...

now you tell me, is that the benefit of the doubt?

lets not forget about the meringue lie that Broc had to tell Jacobson so Jacobson could get the wire-tap... IMO it was sloppy police work not an out and out lie but on here, there can't even be any sloppy le work... no I was told this wasn't a lie or an error, it was police tactic that AB pulled so when it was brought up in court, Scott could tangle himself up and force his timeline to be solidified...:rolleyes:

I hold LE and the state to a much higher standard than I do defense attorneys..... Def att. are supposed to be the scum of the earth right? well when the DA and LE are right there doing the same manipulting,lying and dirty tricks I don't give them a pass like some ppl do...... they are supposed to be above that, they HAVE to be above that.....the whole process starts with them doesn't it. If LE was 'dirty' then the case is 'dirty' and the DA has to prosecute by using the 'dirty'.... So when the Def att. comes in he has to use the same tactics just to get on an even playing field..

it's why the State has the burden of proof and not the Def.

you don't think DJ was right b/c MG didn't try to get her testimony in hard enough?? he fought over it like crazy in motions to get in what little he did get in...... He couldn't get her up there so he got LE to give her statement and her call in to the tipline FOR THE TRUTH and not for hearsay.... do you know how hard he had to work for that, FOR THE TRUTH part? especially on the tip line statement, but he got it in there..... as he should have... and it was a huge coup if you ask me...

he did rub their nose in it.. along with many other things..it wasn't just that he wanted to use everything but the kitchen sink to distract ppl..... it was b/c everything except the kitchen sink was WRONG with LE's investigation and the States case...

I don't think Diane Jackson was right because my evaluation of human behavior tells me that no one waits two days to call in a burglary. Three strange men...giving her a menacing stare...a safe in the front yard, if you are going to think enough of that to call police, why would you wait two days to do so? The only thing MG did by not doing more (not calling Ed Steele, not entering tip sheet as exhibit, not entering any reports on Diane Jackson as exhibits, not calling Ermoian to testify, not fighting tooth and nail to get Diane Jackson approved as a witness, etc.) was corroborate for me that her story was bogus and irrelevant as it relates to Laci's disappearance.

As for the two questions I posed to you, I was not looking for you to provide answers to me. I was trying to point out that if you don't know who made the decisions to hypnotize and you don't know when Distaso knew the hypnotist wasn't licensed, then aren't you basing your claims, on this issue specifically, on assumption? How can you state that there was some nefarious plan without this information, if not by assumption?

As for the rest of your post, most of it pertains to other posters. If you have something you want to address or discuss with me, feel free. I disagree that this case against Scott was filled with "dirty" actions by LE or the DA. I think that at times, MG was guilty of creating doubt where none existed. I've speculated on whether or not his actions were honest all the time. If you want to discuss integrity of LE, the DA, or MG - with me - then you now have a starting point.

[Lili007]

I'm not saying that a wife accepts that her husband would go on cheating on her..or that it is ok with her that he cheats on her..

I'm saying that IMO:

A wife accepts her husband's infidelity = she stays with him and works things out..

A wife doesn't accept her husband's infidelity = she leaves him and asks for a divorce..

So which was it that Scott couldn't live with?

I don't suppose it was the former, do you? I don't see Laci as the sort of person who would "accept" infidelity and live with it, particularly wheh she's about to give birth to her and her husband's child.

DID she ask him for a divorce? I don't see an 8 month pregnant woman doing that, regardless of all the cretin-like behaviour Scott engaged in at the time. She was more preocuppied with Conner than with she could have been with Scott, at that stage, IMO. And if Scott felt left out, that's his problem. He had a temper and he was getting out of control and he was getting horny and angry at the same time, running around buying boats, carrying on affairs and "fishing for sturgeon" while his wife was SUPPOSEDLY at home preparing a Christmas breakfast.

What a lot of bunkum. That guy never wanted to see his wife again, let alone expect it. He didn't care about pancakes and syrup in the morning, he just wanted he out of his life forever. When people went looking for Laci, he'd sit in his car talking to his mistress.

When people were trawling the bay looking for Laci, he was looking on and talking to his mistress about great coats. When Laci's body was finally recovered from the spot where Scott went "FISHING FOR STURGEORN", Laci's torso was just about all they could recover.

Laci's mother tried to ring him to tell him. Did he even bother to answer his phone? No. He was busy driving to a golf course and avoiding LE. I don't suppose all that survival gear in his trunk had anything to do with it either. Neither that his car was registered in his mother's name and that he was, supposedly, a boy named Jackie. I won't bother with the rest, because it's just too well worn. Everyone knows it. It's almost embarassing repeating it again.

I don't know how the guy can live with himself, let alone "apply" for an "appeal". Poor Laci and Conner - they can't apply for any appeal, but that's OK - they don't need to. God looks after them.

As for Scott... there's another story altogether. He can't get over himself. He's the most important person in his world. That's OK - he's in a universe of One.

JMO

[Miss Bootsie]

I didn't re-read his closing argument..I just remember he lied about this:

Remember, Susan Medina, the neighbors across the street. They were out on Covena a couple of times. They had a city inspector come at some time in the morning. Bob Nickerson. He was, he was there between 10:20 and 10:30.
He didn't see anything. Remember what she said? They left their home between 10:30 and 10:33 on the 24th. And the way they know that is because Susan Medina has her cell phone records.



I would like to address each of your accusations against Distaso, but am running short on time this A.M.
Will have to address them one at a time as time permits.

First,in briefly going over Distaso's closing argument, I was unable to find the statement you admit is based on your recollection.
Not saying it is not there. Just that I was unable to find it.

Before you accuse Distaso of lying, will you please quote directly from the closing argument, instead of making an accusation based on your recollection.

According to your recollection of the statement - no, he did not lie.

You failed to acknowledge, Medina stated the Inspector was still there on the patio at 9:32.


HARRIS: And it was your recollection that the building inspector actually left sometime around 9:30? If you need to refer to your notes, please.

MEDINA: Yes. There was a telephone call that was made on 9:32 a.m.

HARRIS: Hm-hmm.

MEDINA: And that was made by my husband to the guy who was wanting to, for him to play golf that day. So I gave him the phone in the patio and Mr. Nickerson was still there and I said please call your son. He called earlier inviting you to play golf and tell him no.

HARRIS: And do you know approximately what time it was?

MEDINA: When he made that call?

HARRIS: Yes.

MEDINA: It's 9:32 am.



Medina made a phone call to her son at 10:33. The call was made after the Medina's left their house - made a stop on Encina to make a right turn.

According to Medina, it would have taken approximately a minute to go from the house to the point where they made the stop.


HARRIS: And was there a phone call that came in or you made when Mr. Nickerson left?

MEDINA: Yes.

HARRIS: And do you need to look at your phone bill to see about what time that was?

MEDINA: It is 10:33 a.m.

Distaso stated -Remember what she said? They left their home between 10:30 and 10:33 on the 24th
This statement was based on Medina's testimony.

Distaso didn't state Medina testified the Inspector was there until 10:20 - 10:33.
He stated the Inspector (Bob Nickerson), was there between 10:20 - 10:30.


What time did the Inspector leave the Medinas?
Do you know? Can you post testimony of the exact time he left?

Based on the testimony, the 10:20 - 10:30 was an approximation of the time the Inspector left the Medinas.

He did not lie.

[attorneywan2be]

I would like to address each of your accusations against Distaso, but am running short on time this A.M.
Will have to address them one at a time as time permits.

First,in briefly going over Distaso's closing argument, I was unable to find the statement you admit is based on your recollection.
Not saying it is not there. Just that I was unable to find it.

Before you accuse Distaso of lying, will you please quote directly from the closing argument, instead of making an accusation based on your recollection.

According to your recollection of the statement - no, he did not lie.

You failed to acknowledge, Medina stated the Inspector was still there on the patio at 9:32.



Medina made a phone call to her son at 10:33. The call was made after the Medina's left their house - made a stop on Encina to make a right turn.

According to Medina, it would have taken approximately a minute to go from the house to the point where they made the stop.



Distaso stated -Remember what she said? They left their home between 10:30 and 10:33 on the 24th
This statement was based on Medina's testimony.

Distaso didn't state Medina testified the Inspector was there until 10:20 - 10:33.
He stated the Inspector (Bob Nickerson), was there between 10:20 - 10:30.


What time did the Inspector leave the Medinas?
Do you know? Can you post testimony of the exact time he left?

Based on the testimony, the 10:20 - 10:30 was an approximation of the time the Inspector left the Medinas.

He did not lie.

I stated that based on my recollection he lied about that particular point..I was making it clear that I didn't re-read his closing argument..I simply searched his closing argument for that particular lie, copied it and pasted it..so IMO, there are more lies..

He stated the inspector WAS THERE BETWEEN 10:20 am and 10:30 am

Susan Medina testified that the inspector arrived around 8:34 and was there until 9:32..so obviously Distaso misstated the evidence...

Distaso's CA:

Remember, Susan Medina, the neighbors across the street. They were out on Covena a couple of times. They had a city inspector come at some time in the morning. Bob Nickerson. He was, he was there between 10:20 and 10:30.
He didn't see anything. Remember what she said? They left their home between 10:30 and 10:33 on the 24th. And the way they know that is because Susan Medina has her cell phone records.

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

Susan Medina's testimony:

Susan Medina: Yes. It was 8:34 a.m. there was an incoming call in one of the cell phones.
David Harris: Is that when he arrived? Or when he left?
Susan Medina: No, he was still there. When he, when he arrived.

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

Pat Harris: And it was your recollection that the building inspector actually left sometime around 9:30? If you need to refer to your notes, please.
Susan Medina: Yes. There was a telephone call that was made on 9:32 a.m.

[Lavindar]

I think this sums it up well:

Circumstantial evidence, you know, look at these things like this. Is it a coincidence that the bodies were in the exact same area where the defendant went fishing?
Is it a coincidence that the defendant was lying about being in Paris and Europe, and not?
Is it a coincidence that he wanted to sell Laci's house, her furniture, her car?
Is it a coincidence he lied about the affair?
How many of these coincidences does the defense want you to swallow and have you still call yourselves reasonable people? If the explanation for all of these facts taken together is not reasonable as defense is trying to present, you must reject it.

[Lavindar]

I just read few paragraphs of Distaso's opening statementand I found several lies:

1-

He goes directly to the neighbors across the street, and the neighbors that live there, Amy Krigbaum and Tara Venable. He comes walking up the drive. They have been home the entire day. They will tell you that they woke up that morning at 10: 30. Amy I think played hooky from work that day. Tara was off. And they have been home the entire day,

We know that they went shopping that day..so they weren't home the entire day... No, but SOMEONE was



---------------------
2-

the defendant asked them, he said, well, have you seen Laci today? You know, I can't find her. She said, well, no, we haven't. We have been home all day, and have been in and out of the front yard. Their house looks directly across to the Peterson home at 523 Covena. She said we haven't seen her. We have seen her car parked in the driveway all day, but the blinds were down in the house, and the house looks closed. We didn't think anybody was home. They asked, why, what's going on? What's the problem? He told them, he said, well, you know, Laci is missing. She says missing? What do you mean? Where have you been all day? He said I was out golfing all day

(a) Amy Krigbaum testified that they went shopping...(b) Terra testified that they thought Laci was going to be home alone for Christmas..(c) they didn't testify that Scott told them that Laci was missing..

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

3-

She is yelling at him. "Scott, Scott, Scott," and she's like maybe twenty or thirty yards away. She is screaming at him. No response. She comes running up to him, and she says, you know, "What's going on?" No real response. She says, she says, well, you know what happened? Laci is missing. Well, where were you today? Fishing. Where were you fishing? Berkeley. She's getting these one-word response answers. And at the end of that, "Where were you fishing? Berkeley," the defendant walked off.

(a) Sharon testified that it was Zachary that went right up to Scott and that was when he acknowledged that anybody was there..so he did respond when he was approached.. (b) she testified that she walked over to where they were and asked Scott if the house was unlocked and asked him if Laci's purse was there...and Scott responded to both questions (c) she testified that she didn't ask him where he had been all day when they were in the park..the exact opposite of what Distaso said in his opening statement...she didn't testify that he replied that Laci was missing when they were in the park.. (d) she testified that she turned around and walked towards the parking lot where the officers were standing..so it was not Scott who walked off...!

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

4-

I didn't re-read his closing argument..I just remember he lied about this:

Remember, Susan Medina, the neighbors across the street. They were out on Covena a couple of times. They had a city inspector come at some time in the morning. Bob Nickerson. He was, he was there between 10:20 and 10:30.
He didn't see anything. Remember what she said? They left their home between 10:30 and 10:33 on the 24th. And the way they know that is because Susan Medina has her cell phone records.

Susan Medina testified that the inspector arrived between 8:20 am and 8:35 am and he left around 9:32 am..

How can you compare the level of this lie with Scott is STONE COLD INNOCENT??????

[Lavindar]

You know it was amazing yesterday when we were looking at the vigil pictures, and my immediate thought, in talking about this prism idea, my immediate thought is that I've got a very good friend who coincidentally his name is Scott, and I won't give you his last name because I don't think he wants it reported, but Scott in December 2000 and 2, virtually two days after this incident happened, was up here in San Francisco attending his mother's funeral.
He was with his wife and three sons, the youngest of which is my son's best friend.
They're driving down I-5, the 15 year old is driving, and Debby, his wife, is in the passenger's seat. And a horrific thing, to leave your mother's funeral, car rolls, the Suburban rolls, killing his middle son and his wife, leaving him as the only survivor with his two sons with great injuries.
At the memorial service, which was -- I think was the exact same day as the memorial service here, Scott was there, and everybody was a mess, because nobody thought -- how could you get on, you -- how could you move through something like that?
Scott, on the other hand, knew that he had to be strong for Graham and for Andrew, his two remaining sons. And after the memorial service when people were saying things that were wonderful, and he was sitting there and beaming, actually, to the boys, and beaming to be strong, and he went over to the house of a mutual friend of ours, did the same thing, he was beaming, he was telling jokes, I shook his hand. You have no idea how to react to something like that.
But nobody thought that was inappropriate. Nobody for a minute thought that because he was smiling three days, four days removed from Debby dying and from Michael dying, that that was something that was inappropriate.
Yet here, when that prism changes on June -- or January 15, all of a sudden the guy who was trying to be strong, who was trying to bring his family back, who did not -- you know, Mr. Distaso referred to it as a memorial service, the candlelight vigil? It was not a memorial service. He did not for a second want to believe that Laci Peterson was dead. And so his acting strong, people telling things about Laci and how much they loved Laci and things of that nature, is then construed or turned around to make it seem as if this guy was happy as could be; he could hardly wait

But was Garegos's friend talking on the phone to his MISTRESS during this time? More apples and oranges. This comparison is worthless imo

[Lavindar]

Whether it was the breaking of the TradeCorp lease, whether it was the P.O. Box, whether it was paying health insurance, everything else, all of these things you'll see all predated Amber.


He broke the TradeCorp lease on Jan 13 - at least that was when he tried to break it IIRC. The PO Box opening was Dec 23rd IIRC. The health insurance was NEVER testified to as being paid. He paid the Doctor on the 23rd IIRC

Amber began in NOVEMBER NONE OF THIS PRE-DATED AMBER

[Miss Bootsie]

(a) Amy Krigbaum testified that they went shopping...(b) Terra testified that they thought Laci was going to be home alone for Christmas..(c) they didn't testify that Scott told them that Laci was missing..

Will you please quote the testimony to support your statements instead of relying on your recollection.
Where is the testimony where Terra stated they thought Laci was going to be home alone for Christmas?

Amy stated they thought Scott and Laci were out of town.
KRIGBAUM: I had told him no, and he, he had told me, he told me he was golfing all day and he had tried to phone her, and I said that we hadn't seen her, we hadn't seen any movement, we thought they were out of town because the house had not moved at all, and we just thought the neighborhood was weird because it was so silent. We just figured everybody was out of town but us.

Also note, Amy stated in her trial testimony, she could not recall how the conversation went verbatim.

This was a statement made by Distaso in his opening.

Do you know exactly what Amy stated early on when giving her first recollection of the conversation?

What was in her report? Do you know? Could Amy have stated that Scott told her "Laci is missing" and the same is referenced in her report?

If not, how can you say for a fact, Distaso was lying?




KRIGBAUM: You know, I don't really know how the conversation went, verbatim. I just remember him telling me, you know, that he tried to call her all day and that he was golfing.

DISTASO: Uh-huh.

KRIGBAUM: So I mean he, he was distraught; it kind of made me a little distraught, so I didn't really know how to handle the situation, so

[attorneywan2be]

How can you compare the level of this lie with Scott is STONE COLD INNOCENT??????

That's not a lie----> "Scott is stone cold innocent" ..IMO, he is indeed FACTUALLY innocent..the problem is MG didn't try to prove it..he depended on the fact that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt..IMO, they didn't prove their case....

[deputydi]

I think this sums it up well:

Circumstantial evidence, you know, look at these things like this. Is it a coincidence that the bodies were in the exact same area where the defendant went fishing?
Is it a coincidence that the defendant was lying about being in Paris and Europe, and not?
Is it a coincidence that he wanted to sell Laci's house, her furniture, her car?
Is it a coincidence he lied about the affair?
How many of these coincidences does the defense want you to swallow and have you still call yourselves reasonable people? If the explanation for all of these facts taken together is not reasonable as defense is trying to present, you must reject it.
Truer words were never spoken. I, personally, don't give a hoot what either side said in their opening or closing. The jury had the real, first hand testimony to go by. They had their notes to refer to and, if there was a discrepancy, they could request a read-back of the actual transcript. As I've said before (and many others before me) -- nothing said by the attorneys for either side can be considered evidence.

These little dissected snippets taken out of either side's opening or closing statements are not going to get Scott a new trial, nor do they have any responsibility for his conviction.

Having said that, however, MG made a fatal mistake (IMO) in his opening. A good attorney NEVER promises something in his opening statement that he can not deliver. It is only natural for the jury to expect witnesses that will testify to what the defense has promised. When that doesn't happen, the jury is left wondering WHY?? Just as the lack of foreign DNA at a home crime scene speaks loudly -- the lack of promised testimony also speaks loudly to a jury.

[attorneywan2be]

Will you please quote the testimony to support your statements instead of relying on your recollection.
Where is the testimony where Terra stated they thought Laci was going to be home alone for Christmas?

Also, note Amy stated in her trial testimony, she could not recall how the conversation went verbatim.

This was a statement made by Distaso in his opening.

Do you know exactly what Amy stated early when giving her first recollection of the conversation?

What was in her report? Do you know?

If not, how can you say for a fact, Distaso was lying?

According to the trial record, there was no evidence, report, interview or whatever, where Amy Krigbaum or Terra stated that Scott told them "Laci is missing"..IMO, that was Distaso's fabrication....

Terra Venable: So we had the conversation about that while we were cooking dinner, getting prepared. And we were talking about it was maybe sad that Scott wasn't there and Laci was going to be home alone for Christmas. We just assumed her being there because the lights came on. And then, and then it was about 6:00 o'clock when we got the knock on the door and Scott came up to the door

[Wearing A Halo]

Whoa Nelly, it...is...starting to get hot in here!

Ekg, you are really setting up DRISP to be 'the martyr for the DP.'

You, ekg, are sooo much trying to defend DRISP more than he would ever do to defend himself. DRISP had every opportunity to take the stand and set the the record straight. He could have put away with all the mumble-jumble and tell the God's Honest Truth and set aside any prejudice, preconceptions, misconceptions as to what, where, when and why he was not responsible for the murders of Laci and Conner. Instead, DRISP afforded his legal right not to take the stand and let justice be done and not damned.

You, ekg, can cry all you want that life is not fair, but, for me life is about right or wrong. Fair or unfair is for excuses; right or wrong is for reasonableness & responsibleness.

Ekg, you ought to check yourself before you wreck yourself and go about defending a sociopathic double murderer. IOW, you shouldn't care since DRISP didn't care. I know that you live your life absolving everybody else's responsibility. Nobody is at fault in your little world unless you feel threatend. It reeks of paranoia.

Putting blame on LE and the DA is pure nonsense when everything was laid out for everyone (pro and def) to sort out. The rightful person to blame is DRISP himself. It is one thing to lie to ones family and friends, but to lie to LE is another thing entirely when LE is the entity organzing the search and directing the investigation of "missing Laci."

It is my understanding that any and all reports done by LE were done for the reasonableness of the investigation and the testimony given by the Dets. about the reports were done for the truth which the jury would weigh as to its trustworthiness.

Now AW2B is looking for "lies" from Rick Distaso's openning statement and clarifying by bringing out testimony to which the jury is actually to base their decision upon. Keep'em coming 'cause you sure aren't doin' any favors for DRISP.

Go figure.

[thinkaboutit]

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

Please quote the portion of Geragos' opening statement where he said that the jury would hear from the 2 witnesses who saw Scott put his boat in the water. I can not find it.

Please also quote the portion of Geragos os where he says that "the evidence would show that one of Scott's friends knew about the boat". Can't find that either.

He DID say that Laci was in the boat. Please provide something that proves this is a lie.

[deputydi]

Please quote the portion of Geragos' opening statement where he said that the jury would hear from the 2 witnesses who saw Scott put his boat in the water. I can not find it.

Please also quote the portion of Geragos os where he says that "the evidence would show that one of Scott's friends knew about the boat". Can't find that either.

He DID say that Laci was in the boat. Please provide something that proves this is a lie.
I'm at work right now and can't look it up, but I just read both of these statements recently. I'm sure someone else will post the actual words -- they are there.

[attorneywan2be]

One more lie for Distaso's opening statement...Kristen Reed didn't testify...

You are going to hear from a woman by of the name of Kristin Reed, who was a friend of Scott and Laci’s. And what she's going to tell you is on December 24th, she was actually driving to, driving to work that morning. She was running late. She knows exactly what time it was. She drove past the defendant's house, and their house at the end of the street. She lives on Covena, goes down this way. She is driving straight. She looks out of her passenger window, so she drove by just out of habit to see if there was someone there. She said she did that, she is going to tell you she did that because if she had seen the defendant or Laci, she was going to go down and say, "Hi", or something to them since it was Christmas Eve. She knows what their cars look like. She knows exactly what time it was, because I looked down at my clock right before I looked up. And at 9: 39 she did this. She said she looked out the window there, and she says Laci’s car was parked in the drive, and Scott’s truck parked in the drive...

[Miss Bootsie]

That's not a lie----> "Scott is stone cold innocent" ..IMO, he is indeed FACTUALLY innocent..the problem is MG didn't try to prove it..he depended on the fact that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt..IMO, they didn't prove their case....

Are you trying to tell us, Geragos could have proven Scott did not buy a boat a few weeks prior to Laci's disappearance - or proven Scott did not make the statement, "I lost my wife".:eek:

Are you trying to tell us, Geragos could have proven Scott did not put that boat in the Bay on Dec. 24th - the same day Laci was reported missing?:eek:

Are you trying to tell us, Geragos could have proven the bodies were not found on the shores of the SF Bay?:eek:

[USAHICK]

Are you trying to tell us, Geragos could have proven Scott did not buy a boat a few weeks prior to Laci's disappearance - or proven Scott did not make the statement, "I lost my wife".:eek:

Are you trying to tell us, Geragos could have proven Scott did not put that boat in the Bay on Dec. 24th - the same day Laci was reported missing?:eek:

Are you trying to tell us, Geragos could have proven the bodies were not found on the shores of the SF Bay?:eek:

Haha Ms. Bootsie, fat chance. :beer:

[thinkaboutit]

One more lie for Distaso's opening statement...Kristen Reed didn't testify...

You are going to hear from a woman by of the name of Kristin Reed, who was a friend of Scott and Laci’s. And what she's going to tell you is on December 24th, she was actually driving to, driving to work that morning. She was running late. She knows exactly what time it was. She drove past the defendant's house, and their house at the end of the street. She lives on Covena, goes down this way. She is driving straight. She looks out of her passenger window, so she drove by just out of habit to see if there was someone there. She said she did that, she is going to tell you she did that because if she had seen the defendant or Laci, she was going to go down and say, "Hi", or something to them since it was Christmas Eve. She knows what their cars look like. She knows exactly what time it was, because I looked down at my clock right before I looked up. And at 9: 39 she did this. She said she looked out the window there, and she says Laci’s car was parked in the drive, and Scott’s truck parked in the drive...

Maybe we should start a new thread for all these lies? Distaso's failures to deliver are bolded.

Click on that. Ralph Cheng is a hydrologist, PhD from US Geological Society, that you are going to hear from. And he's pretty much the main water expert in the Bay. He knows all about the tide, the current, how things work. That's what he's going to come here and talk to you about. He did this little chart there for the Modesto Police Department. Here's Brooks Island. Here's where Laci's body was recovered. Here is where Conner's body was recovered. The reason that this is dark on this chart is because that's those, it's a tidal flat. That means it's land in low tide, it's water in high tide. He's going to tell you that based on where these two bodies drifted from, where they had to separate from, and where one ended up, and then the other one, he's going to tell you where his best scientific guess is where those bodies had to go into the water to start their journey to shore to separate based on the currents, and the wind, and everything else that he used to figure this out, where, I mean where they had to separate to land and end up where they did. And that was the area right there on the chart where the red dot is. You can see this is that end of Brooks Island there is a no-landing sign this. Those were those areas that you saw earlier

...........He walks, over and he finds Conner Peterson's body washed up on the shore right ahead of the tide line.............

.............Doctor Cheng is going to tell you the way things wash up with the tide, as the tide's receding heavy items are deposited first. They come over with the waves. As the tides recede, the heavy items settle first, and then the lighter items settle last. As the tide recedes, you can see that's what happened. Here's Conner's body. Obviously heavier than these areas of sea grass, and what not, debris, trash. And he's right ahead of it

Cheng could not track a trajectory for Laci.

He never testified as to how things wash ashore.

[attorneywan2be]

Are you trying to tell us, Geragos could have proven Scott did not buy a boat a few weeks prior to Laci's disappearance - or proven Scott did not make the statement, "I lost my wife".:eek:

Are you trying to tell us, Geragos could have proven Scott did not put that boat in the Bay on Dec. 24th - the same day Laci was reported missing?:eek:

Are you trying to tell us, Geragos could have proven the bodies were not found on the shores of the SF Bay?:eek:

IMO :

The purchase of the boat is not incriminating evidence..

The fact that he went to the bay on Dec 24th... the same day Laci disappeared is not incriminating evidence..

I think MG could have proven that the bodies DIDN'T WASH ASHORE..they were simply found on the shore..which is a totally different story...

I think MG could have proven that Conner was handled outside her uterus and a twine was wrapped and knotted around his neck..

I think MG could have proven that the mineral deposits found in the crotch area of her pants were not consistent with saltwater...

ETC...

[deputydi]

IMO :

The purchase of the boat is not incriminating evidence..

The fact that he went to the bay on Dec 24th... the same day Laci disappeared is not incriminating evidence..

I think MG could have proven that the bodies DIDN'T WASH ASHORE..they were simply found on the shore..which is a totally different story...

I think MG could have proven that Conner was handled outside her uterus and a twine was wrapped and knotted around his neck..

I think MG could have proven that the mineral deposits found in the crotch area of her pants were not consistent with saltwater...

ETC...
I'm so glad you said this.

"The purchase of the boat is not incriminating evidence" unless you put it together with the rest of the facts as we know them.

"The fact that he went to the Bay on the 24th is not incriminating evidence" unless you consider his purchase of a boat no one seemed to know about and considering where the bodies were found.

You have just described exactly what comprises CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

You think . . .
You think . . .
You think . . .

Have you ever asked yourself why he didn't present evidence refuting the prosecutions theory about all of this? Could it be that he COULDN'T? If all these things were so obvious and easy to prove, I can't imagine that ANY attorney would just let them slide by without trying to counter them in some way. The only conclusion I can reach (and I'm sure the one the jury reached also) is the exonerating witnesses just didn't exist. The testimony they promised would probably have done more damage and he just wasn't willing to take that chance.

[Lavindar]

That's not a lie----> "Scott is stone cold innocent" ..IMO, he is indeed FACTUALLY innocent..the problem is MG didn't try to prove it..he depended on the fact that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt..IMO, they didn't prove their case....

You are being "empirical"? I don't understand the "factually" comment. Did he not go to the Berkeley Marina on the 24th. Did not Laci and Conner's body wash ashore very near there? Those are facts and PROVEN by testimony of experts. Anything else is wishful thinking. Even Geragos couldn't come up with a credible "expert" that he could put on the stand. Dr. March's expertise was not in anything other than infertility, Here is his testimony

MARCH: After my four years of training in obstetrics and gynecology, I took a fellowship in reproductive endocrinology and infertility, which began in 1973, and therefore since that time my practice has been limited to gynecology, reproductive endocrinology, and infertility, and telescopic surgery.


He is NOT a medical examiner, a forensic pathologist, a forensic anthropology, does he have the following specialty?

: In obstetrics and gynecology, which is the profession of caring for women, there are three subspecialties that require special training. And one of those is called maternal-fetal medicine. That is caring for the mother or the fetus that may to be at high risk. And that involves doing ultrasound as one of the main things that we do to evaluate the fetus.

I believe Dr. March also admitted her refers patients to Dr. Devore. Sounds like he trusts his judgment.

Dr. March is not an expert in using ultrsound to evaluate fetuses, yet he attempted to testify to that. He does not have the special training to do that, So he is not a qualified expert to judge that.

Surely MG could have found someone to counter the experts? Maybe like Cole reported....Dr Stephens. But wait, didn't Dr. Stephens describle Laci's condition to Grogan to a T when asked a different scenario than Cole had reported?

[Lavindar]

Please quote the portion of Geragos' opening statement where he said that the jury would hear from the 2 witnesses who saw Scott put his boat in the water. I can not find it.

Please also quote the portion of Geragos os where he says that "the evidence would show that one of Scott's friends knew about the boat". Can't find that either.

He DID say that Laci was in the boat. Please provide something that proves this is a lie.


Please steer me to the testimony that proves she WAS in that boat. Without that, it is a lie.

[Lavindar]

Please quote the portion of Geragos' opening statement where he said that the jury would hear from the 2 witnesses who saw Scott put his boat in the water. I can not find it.

Please also quote the portion of Geragos os where he says that "the evidence would show that one of Scott's friends knew about the boat". Can't find that either.

He DID say that Laci was in the boat. Please provide something that proves this is a lie.


As you should know because you have posted on the Geragos promises to deliver thread, the entire opening statement is posted there. You have already quoted from it - so go and read it again.

[enlightenme]

Please quote the portion of Geragos' opening statement where he said that the jury would hear from the 2 witnesses who saw Scott put his boat in the water. I can not find it.

Please also quote the portion of Geragos os where he says that "the evidence would show that one of Scott's friends knew about the boat". Can't find that either.

He DID say that Laci was in the boat. Please provide something that proves this is a lie.


And he also hired an investigator to go and search for witnesses that would have seen him at the boat launch, because, as you saw yesterday from that marina picture, as you are putting that boat into the water, it's, when you see this boat, my guess is we are going to have a jury view, and we'll go all out to the marina, you are going to be stunned by the fact that when you get over there, that when you are putting that boat into the water, there is no way that there is, if there is a pregnant dead woman with weights in it, that you would not see it.
In fact, those witnesses have been located. And witnesses who were there, who saw him put the boat into the water, were located. In fact, one of them remarked that he laughed at Scott, because he kind of hit one of the pylons there as he was trying to back it into the water, the boat into the water.


He and Laci were excited about having the kid. They had just purchased this country club membership. And that was this December. This idea that somehow there is a timeline, he's going to chuck his whole life I think is belied by the evidence of the fact that they spent quite a bit of money to buy this country club membership. It was in excess of $20,000 to buy the country club membership. Was excited about that.
He purchased this boat which, by the way, they say he didn't tell anybody about. There is a friend who knew about the boat. One of the reasons they didn't tell Ron is they specifically were going to tell Ron on Christmas morning, because Ron was an avid fisherman. And this idea that Laci didn't know about the boat, they know better than that. They know that there is a witness, and that witness will tell you that Laci was at the warehouse on December 20th. She was there at the warehouse on December 20th had seen the boat, was in the boat, and then went from that location because she couldn't, Mr. Distaso accurately, on one point yesterday, indicated you couldn't get to the bathroom in the back of the warehouse, because it's stacked up with the fertilizer. She was worried about getting anywhere near that liquid fertilizer, so she went next door to use the bathroom in one of the other warehouses. And a woman there saw her and talked to her.
And they know that. They know that she was there, that she saw the boat.


It never came out in testimony that a friend knew about the boat. It never came out that Laci saw the boat and most certainly there is no testimony that she was IN the boat.

I guess Geragos wasn't aware at this point that Scott's mother had purchased the country club membership, not Scott.

IMO

[thinkaboutit]

I'm so glad you said this.

"The purchase of the boat is not incriminating evidence" unless you put it together with the rest of the facts as we know them.

.........snipped

And disregard other facts as we know them....

such as.....

Ron talked about having a boat all the time.

Ron had invited Scott fishing with him on more than one occasion.

It was Scott's idea that the family start spending more time together.

[thinkaboutit]

Please steer me to the testimony that proves she WAS in that boat. Without that, it is a lie.

In my book - it doesn't work that way. You claim to know it is a lie - the burden is on you to prove it's a lie - it's not my job to prove it wasn't a lie.

[thinkaboutit]

As you should know because you have posted on the Geragos promises to deliver thread, the entire opening statement is posted there. You have already quoted from it - so go and read it again.

Sorry - but I can't read what is not there.

[thinkaboutit]

And he also hired an investigator to go and search for witnesses that would have seen him at the boat launch, because, as you saw yesterday from that marina picture, as you are putting that boat into the water, it's, when you see this boat, my guess is we are going to have a jury view, and we'll go all out to the marina, you are going to be stunned by the fact that when you get over there, that when you are putting that boat into the water, there is no way that there is, if there is a pregnant dead woman with weights in it, that you would not see it.
In fact, those witnesses have been located. And witnesses who were there, who saw him put the boat into the water, were located. In fact, one of them remarked that he laughed at Scott, because he kind of hit one of the pylons there as he was trying to back it into the water, the boat into the water.


He and Laci were excited about having the kid. They had just purchased this country club membership. And that was this December. This idea that somehow there is a timeline, he's going to chuck his whole life I think is belied by the evidence of the fact that they spent quite a bit of money to buy this country club membership. It was in excess of $20,000 to buy the country club membership. Was excited about that.
He purchased this boat which, by the way, they say he didn't tell anybody about. There is a friend who knew about the boat. One of the reasons they didn't tell Ron is they specifically were going to tell Ron on Christmas morning, because Ron was an avid fisherman. And this idea that Laci didn't know about the boat, they know better than that. They know that there is a witness, and that witness will tell you that Laci was at the warehouse on December 20th. She was there at the warehouse on December 20th had seen the boat, was in the boat, and then went from that location because she couldn't, Mr. Distaso accurately, on one point yesterday, indicated you couldn't get to the bathroom in the back of the warehouse, because it's stacked up with the fertilizer. She was worried about getting anywhere near that liquid fertilizer, so she went next door to use the bathroom in one of the other warehouses. And a woman there saw her and talked to her.
And they know that. They know that she was there, that she saw the boat.


It never came out in testimony that a friend knew about the boat. It never came out that Laci saw the boat and most certainly there is no testimony that she was IN the boat.

I guess Geragos wasn't aware at this point that Scott's mother had purchased the country club membership, not Scott.

IMO

Geragos never said it would come out in testimony that a friend knew about the boat. Nor did he say that anyone was going to testify that Laci saw the boat or that she was in the boat.

And he absolutely did not say that the two witnesses - that were located - who saw Scott putting his boat in the water - were going to testify.

[Miss Bootsie]

I'm so glad you said this.

"The purchase of the boat is not incriminating evidence" unless you put it together with the rest of the facts as we know them.

"The fact that he went to the Bay on the 24th is not incriminating evidence" unless you consider his purchase of a boat no one seemed to know about and considering where the bodies were found.

You have just described exactly what comprises CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

You think . . .
You think . . .
You think . . .

Have you ever asked yourself why he didn't present evidence refuting the prosecutions theory about all of this? Could it be that he COULDN'T? If all these things were so obvious and easy to prove, I can't imagine that ANY attorney would just let them slide by without trying to counter them in some way. The only conclusion I can reach (and I'm sure the one the jury reached also) is the exonerating witnesses just didn't exist. The testimony they promised would probably have done more damage and he just wasn't willing to take that chance.

You're right dd.


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


Some people have a difficult time accepting this.
The standard of proof to them is scrutinizing various pieces of the evidence separately. Of course, anyone guilty would look innocent if the evidence was considered separately.

Per Judge Delucchi: Everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt.

[USAHICK]

IMO :

The purchase of the boat is not incriminating evidence..

The fact that he went to the bay on Dec 24th... the same day Laci disappeared is not incriminating evidence..

I think MG could have proven that the bodies DIDN'T WASH ASHORE..they were simply found on the shore..which is a totally different story...

I think MG could have proven that Conner was handled outside her uterus and a twine was wrapped and knotted around his neck..

I think MG could have proven that the mineral deposits found in the crotch area of her pants were not consistent with saltwater...

ETC...\

The purchase of the boat that nobody knew about was incriminating evidence.

MG did not prove that the bodies didn't wash ashore.

MG did not prove that Conner was handled outside her uterus and a twine was wrapped and knotted around his neck.

MG did not prove that mineral deposits found in the croch area of her pants was not consistent with salterwater, hence:

He was convicted of first degree premeditated murder and sits on Death Row in San Quentin Prison, overlooking the bay where he threw his wife and son away.

None of this will be used in the appeal.

[Lavindar]

And he also hired an investigator to go and search for witnesses that would have seen him at the boat launch, because, as you saw yesterday from that marina picture, as you are putting that boat into the water, it's, when you see this boat, my guess is we are going to have a jury view, and we'll go all out to the marina, you are going to be stunned by the fact that when you get over there, that when you are putting that boat into the water, there is no way that there is, if there is a pregnant dead woman with weights in it, that you would not see it.
In fact, those witnesses have been located. And witnesses who were there, who saw him put the boat into the water, were located. In fact, one of them remarked that he laughed at Scott, because he kind of hit one of the pylons there as he was trying to back it into the water, the boat into the water.


He and Laci were excited about having the kid. They had just purchased this country club membership. And that was this December. This idea that somehow there is a timeline, he's going to chuck his whole life I think is belied by the evidence of the fact that they spent quite a bit of money to buy this country club membership. It was in excess of $20,000 to buy the country club membership. Was excited about that.
He purchased this boat which, by the way, they say he didn't tell anybody about. There is a friend who knew about the boat. One of the reasons they didn't tell Ron is they specifically were going to tell Ron on Christmas morning, because Ron was an avid fisherman. And this idea that Laci didn't know about the boat, they know better than that. They know that there is a witness, and that witness will tell you that Laci was at the warehouse on December 20th. She was there at the warehouse on December 20th had seen the boat, was in the boat, and then went from that location because she couldn't, Mr. Distaso accurately, on one point yesterday, indicated you couldn't get to the bathroom in the back of the warehouse, because it's stacked up with the fertilizer. She was worried about getting anywhere near that liquid fertilizer, so she went next door to use the bathroom in one of the other warehouses. And a woman there saw her and talked to her.
And they know that. They know that she was there, that she saw the boat.


It never came out in testimony that a friend knew about the boat. It never came out that Laci saw the boat and most certainly there is no testimony that she was IN the boat.

I guess Geragos wasn't aware at this point that Scott's mother had purchased the country club membership, not Scott.

IMO


You know what makes it even more embarrassing. Scott told the detectives that the witnesses saw him trying to put the boat BACK ON THE TRAILER, not when he first put it in the water so they would NOT have seen any body in the boat then.

[deputydi]

And disregard other facts as we know them....

such as.....

Ron talked about having a boat all the time.

Ron had invited Scott fishing with him on more than one occasion.

It was Scott's idea that the family start spending more time together.
Ron talked about WHO having a boat all the time? If you mean Scott purchased this boat for Ron as a surprise, I find that laughable. It was Christmastime and no one I know spends $1,400 on a gift for a father in law that he isn't particularly close to.

On how many occasions did Ron invite Scott to go fishing --- and on how many occasions did he accept? His lack of interest in fishing is exemplified by his sporatic purchase of licenses.

How was Scott going to achieve #3 considering his "extracurricular" activities. If he was so into togetherness, how was a boat going to ensure his family (Laci and Conner) would spend this time with him? Laci didn't like boating and Conner would have been an infant.

[thinkaboutit]

You're right dd.




Some people have a difficult time accepting this.
The standard of proof to them is scrutinizing various pieces of the evidence separately. Of course, anyone guilty would look innocent if the evidence was considered separately.

Per Judge Delucchi: Everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt.


I respectfully, strongly disagree.

[thinkaboutit]

You know what makes it even more embarrassing. Scott told the detectives that the witnesses saw him trying to put the boat BACK ON THE TRAI LER, not when he first put it in the ware

Actually.....

what you stated was Brocchini's interpretation of what Scott told him.

Grogan testified that Scott told him it was when he was backing the boat into the water.

GERAGOS: And he told you in one of those interviews that he, in fact, had, somebody had seen him specifically backing the boat up in on the launch ramp, correct?

GROGAN: Trying to think if that's in both statements he gave to me and to Detective Brocchini, or which statement that actually comes out of. He did make that statement to someone, yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. So at least to one or another police officer, he had told either you or Brocchini, and I have got tons of interviews here, I'm going to try to get through this quickly. He had told somebody, either you or Brocchini, look, somebody saw me backing my boat up. And he described what happened, didn't he? Either you or Brocchini?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And the way he described it is, is when he was backing the boat down the launch ramp, that he actually kind of backed into either the pier or one of the pylons; is that right?

GROGAN: That sounds correct, yes.

GERAGOS: And that he said that the person who watched him, saw him do this, actually started laughing at him, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Also, specifically you became aware, I think at some point, that not only was he trying to find that witness, but that he had a private investigator who was trying to find those witnesses up at the marina, correct?

GROGAN: I heard that at some point, yes.

[Lavindar]

Actually.....

what you stated was Brocchini's interpretation of what Scott told him.

Grogan testified that Scott told him it was when he was backing the boat into the water.

GOSH, and with all that, they never found a witness. Scott made five trips to the Marina, never got out of his car, yet was trying to find that witness? Come on, you want us to suspend reality here.

[thinkaboutit]

Ron talked about WHO having a boat all the time? If you mean Scott purchased this boat for Ron as a surprise, I find that laughable. It was Christmastime and no one I know spends $1,400 on a gift for a father in law that he isn't particularly close to.

On how many occasions did Ron invite Scott to go fishing --- and on how many occasions did he accept? His lack of interest in fishing is exemplified by his sporatic purchase of licenses.

How was Scott going to achieve #3 considering his "extracurricular" activities. If he was so into togetherness, how was a boat going to ensure his family (Laci and Conner) would spend this time with him? Laci didn't like boating and Conner would have been an infant.

Don't laugh too soon - I wasn't saying it was a gift for Ron.

Ron talked about having a boat all the time. Ron wished he had a boat.

Maybe Scott didn't accept the fishing invitations because he didn't have a float tube - or wasn't interested in that type of fishing.

I highly doubt the boat was for Laci and Conner to go fishing with Scott. But I'm sure Ron would have enjoyed fishing in it though.

I don't happen to think that Scott had any intentions of pursuing his extracurricular activities after Conner was born. I think he thought by then - Amber would get frustrated and go away.

Are you saying you don't believe Sharon when she says that Laci told her that it was Scott's idea for them to start spending more time together?

[deputydi]

I respectfully, strongly disagree.
What is it exactly that you "strongly disagree" with? Lots of people buy boats and pay cash for them. I would imagine some even keep the purchase a secret. Taken by itself, there would be no problem.

When you are on tape telling your "secret" girlfriend that you will have more time to spend with her in a month (which would be roughly 30 days after your wife has gone missing) and how sad and emotional you are because you "lost" your wife and this will be the first holiday without her (roughly 30 days prior to her disappearance). Then, you are recorded telling said girlfriend THE MOST outrageous lies when the whole world is worried about finding your wife and unborn child. AND THEN, miracle of miracles -- the body of your missing wife and child wash ashore almost exactly where you had taken that "secret" boat -- well, things start to smell a little rotten.

This is only part of all those collective pieces that start to be defined as circumstantial evidence.

[thinkaboutit]

GOSH, and with all that, they never found a witness. Scott made five trips to the Marina, never got out of his car, yet was trying to find that witness? Come on, you want us to suspend reality here.


As usual we are getting way off topic here. I'm not saying those witnesses are real - I'm not saying they were located - I'm just saying that Geragos did NOT say that they were going to testify.

[deputydi]

<snip>

Are you saying you don't believe Sharon when she says that Laci told her that it was Scott's idea for them to start spending more time together?
I believe Laci told Sharon that and I believe Scott said it to Laci. I just don't think Scott had any intention of spending more time with THIS family. IMO it was just another one of his lies.

[thinkaboutit]

What is it exactly that you "strongly disagree" with? Lots of people buy boats and pay cash for them. I would imagine some even keep the purchase a secret. Taken by itself, there would be no problem.

When you are on tape telling your "secret" girlfriend that you will have more time to spend with her in a month (which would be roughly 30 days after your wife has gone missing) and how sad and emotional you are because you "lost" your wife and this will be the first holiday without her (roughly 30 days prior to her disappearance). Then, you are recorded telling said girlfriend THE MOST outrageous lies when the whole world is worried about finding your wife and unborn child. AND THEN, miracle of miracles -- the body of your missing wife and child wash ashore almost exactly where you had taken that "secret" boat -- well, things start to smell a little rotten.

This is only part of all those collective pieces that start to be defined as circumstantial evidence.

That's not what I was disagreeing with.

I disagree with the bolded parts of Miss Bootsies post - that any case involving only circumstantial evidence - if taken piece by piece - could be viewed as not guilty.


When you are on tape telling your "secret" girlfriend that you will have more time to spend with her in a month (which would be roughly 30 days after your wife has gone missing) ......

Do we really have any of this "on tape" - or do we only have Amber's word?

I'm not being funny.....I genuinely am asking whether this promise to spend more time with Amber after the holidays is on any of the tapes?

[thinkaboutit]

I believe Laci told Sharon that and I believe Scott said it to Laci. I just don't think Scott had any intention of spending more time with THIS family. IMO it was just another one of his lies.

But this was in response to Ron's asking why they were spending more time together - so they WERE spending more time together - and Laci told Sharon it was Scott's idea.

[USAHICK]

And disregard other facts as we know them....

such as.....

Ron talked about having a boat all the time.

Ron had invited Scott fishing with him on more than one occasion.

It was Scott's idea that the family start spending more time together.

Ron NEVER talked about having a boat "all the time" at all. Read Sharon's book.

Scott went fishing with Ron ONCE. A year and a half later ISP pole remained in the Rocha's garage where he left it that day, passionate golfisherman that he is.

Scott's idea to "spend more time with the family" was a clever way of disguising his secret champane and strawberry life - because we all now know that he didn't make a MOVE unless it benefited him.

[deputydi]

<snip>Do we really have any of this "on tape" - or do we only have Amber's word?

I'm not being funny.....I genuinely am asking whether this promise to spend more time with Amber after the holidays is on any of the tapes?
The original conversation is not on tape, but Scott's confirmation of the statement is on tape.

[deputydi]

But this was in response to Ron's asking why they were spending more time together - so they WERE spending more time together - and Laci told Sharon it was Scott's idea.
I'll have to dig out Sharon's book to find this conversation. I don't recall it quite that way.

[thinkaboutit]

Ron NEVER talked about having a boat "all the time" at all. Read Sharon's book.

Scott went fishing with Ron ONCE. A year and a half later ISP pole remained in the Rocha's garage where he left it that day, passionate golfisherman that he is.

Scott's idea to "spend more time with the family" was a clever way of disguising his secret champane and strawberry life - because we all now know that he didn't make a MOVE unless it benefited him.

I read the book - thanks.

Not only did Grantski testify that there were "timeS" that he had mentioned he wished he had a boat - he testified that he had talked about being able to catch some better fish (maybe the saltwater kind?)

GRANTSKI: No. Not at all. I, I mentioned at times I wished I had a boat, but I couldn't really afford one, so I had a float tube. That's what I have.

DISTASO: All right. Let me ask you about that. So had you mentioned to Laci or Scott that, because you're fishing, that you would like to have some kind of boat to use?

GRANTSKI: Yeah. There are times I would like,

DISTASO: Okay.

GRANTSKI: to catch some better fish, probably different areas, so

DISTASO: And the type of fishing you do is either from the bank,

GRANTSKI: It's always pretty much from a bank. Once in a while, you know, I go out with a friend with a boat or in a float tube. I go out in a float tube.



Sharon Rocha's pre-lim testimony:

Q. All right. Now, regarding the boat, is -- Ron Grantski is your long-time companion; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And how long have you been together?

A. Twenty-six years almost.

Q. Regarding the boat that the defendant owned, would that have been something that Ron would have been interested in?

A. Yes.

Q. And why is that?

A. Because he's an avid fisherman and he's mentioned it several times.

[thinkaboutit]

I'll have to dig out Sharon's book to find this conversation. I don't recall it quite that way.

Ron testified to it.

GERAGOS: And would that also involve having you and Sharon, as she progressively got more pregnant, or the due date approached, coming over on Sundays, for instance, for dinners?

GRANTSKI: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And that he wanted to spend more time or have the families get closer together?

GRANTSKI: About two weeks before Laci,

GERAGOS: Disappeared?

GRANTSKI: disappeared, I made a point of asking Sharon about that, you know, it's kind of strange, we're all starting to get together. She said that Scott, Laci said, Scott wanted us to spend more time together because of the baby.

[Miss Bootsie]

And disregard other facts as we know them....

such as.....

Ron talked about having a boat all the time.
Everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt.
I don't believe Ron talked about acquiring a boat all the time. If he did, what does this prove?





Ron had invited Scott fishing with him on more than one occasion.
Everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt
If I recall correctly, Scott refused to go fishing with Scott on more than one occasion.
So, Ron did invite Scott to go fishing with him?
What does this prove?





It was Scott's idea that the family start spending more time together.
Everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt.

What was his objective?
Is it possible he was entertaining the idea of murdering his wife at that time? Scott was well aware he would need support from the family after he carried out his plan?


Scott - "I lost my wife"
Scott - purchased boat
Laci - disappeared - Dec. 24th
Scott - put boat in the SF Bay - Dec. 24th
Bodies found ashore in the same vicinity of SF Bay

None of these facts have anything whatsoever to do with Ron's interest in boats, Ron's invitations, or Scott's idea.

There can be many reasonable explanations of why a person purchased a murder weapon if one analyzes this evidence separately.


i.e.
Gun- Many men buy guns. The defendant purchased the gun for his protection or to protect his family.
A relative of the defendant was shown to have interest in guns. This relative invited the defendant to go hunting on more than one occasion.

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

Everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt.

[enlightenme]

Geragos never said it would come out in testimony that a friend knew about the boat. Nor did he say that anyone was going to testify that Laci saw the boat or that she was in the boat.

And he absolutely did not say that the two witnesses - that were located - who saw Scott putting his boat in the water - were going to testify.

Even though opening and closing statements by the attorneys are not considered evidence, there are rules that must be followed by both sides.

If Geragos did not even intend to call these witnesses or bring out these facts by other testimony, he should not have mentioned them in his opening statement. They are supposed to outline what the "evidence will show" during the trial, not just sneak "facts" in there that they have no intention of proving.

:rolleyes:

[deputydi]

I read the book - thanks.

Not only did Grantski testify that there were "timeS" that he had mentioned he wished he had a boat - he testified that he had talked about being able to catch some better fish (maybe the saltwater kind?)



Sharon Rocha's pre-lim testimony:
I've mentioned to family and friends on numerous occasions that I wish I had a '56 T-Bird but so far no one has bought one for me.

[deputydi]

Ron testified to it.
He mentioned it ONCE??? TWO WEEKS before Laci disappeared??? And, this is his idea of togetherness -- good grief.

[Lavindar]

IMO :

The purchase of the boat is not incriminating evidence..

The fact that he went to the bay on Dec 24th... the same day Laci disappeared is not incriminating evidence..

I think MG could have proven that the bodies DIDN'T WASH ASHORE..they were simply found on the shore..which is a totally different story...

I think MG could have proven that Conner was handled outside her uterus and a twine was wrapped and knotted around his neck..

I think MG could have proven that the mineral deposits found in the crotch area of her pants were not consistent with saltwater...

ETC...


Read the testimony. The knot was by his LEFT SHOULDER, not by his neck. There were no ligature marks.

[Lavindar]

IMO :

The purchase of the boat is not incriminating evidence..

The fact that he went to the bay on Dec 24th... the same day Laci disappeared is not incriminating evidence..

I think MG could have proven that the bodies DIDN'T WASH ASHORE..they were simply found on the shore..which is a totally different story...

I think MG could have proven that Conner was handled outside her uterus and a twine was wrapped and knotted around his neck..

I think MG could have proven that the mineral deposits found in the crotch area of her pants were not consistent with saltwater...

ETC...The qualified EXPERTS testified that Laci's body was in a marine environment for 3-7 months. Mr, Garegos's expert witness said
NADA

The qualified experts testified that conner was in a protected environment prior to his washing ashore. Mr Garegos's expert witness said nada.

Martinez (who picked up Conner's body) said it was so fragile he was afraid to touch it. Who could have put it there without leaving evidence or damaging the body more? The homeless who are so well versed in medicine that they knew how to do this? You are continually graspoing at straws

[Lavindar]

And he also hired an investigator to go and search for witnesses that would have seen him at the boat launch, because, as you saw yesterday from that marina picture, as you are putting that boat into the water, it's, when you see this boat, my guess is we are going to have a jury view, and we'll go all out to the marina, you are going to be stunned by the fact that when you get over there, that when you are putting that boat into the water, there is no way that there is, if there is a pregnant dead woman with weights in it, that you would not see it.
In fact, those witnesses have been located. And witnesses who were there, who saw him put the boat into the water, were located. In fact, one of them remarked that he laughed at Scott, because he kind of hit one of the pylons there as he was trying to back it into the water, the boat into the water.


He and Laci were excited about having the kid. They had just purchased this country club membership. And that was this December. This idea that somehow there is a timeline, he's going to chuck his whole life I think is belied by the evidence of the fact that they spent quite a bit of money to buy this country club membership. It was in excess of $20,000 to buy the country club membership. Was excited about that.
He purchased this boat which, by the way, they say he didn't tell anybody about. There is a friend who knew about the boat. One of the reasons they didn't tell Ron is they specifically were going to tell Ron on Christmas morning, because Ron was an avid fisherman. And this idea that Laci didn't know about the boat, they know better than that. They know that there is a witness, and that witness will tell you that Laci was at the warehouse on December 20th. She was there at the warehouse on December 20th had seen the boat, was in the boat, and then went from that location because she couldn't, Mr. Distaso accurately, on one point yesterday, indicated you couldn't get to the bathroom in the back of the warehouse, because it's stacked up with the fertilizer. She was worried about getting anywhere near that liquid fertilizer, so she went next door to use the bathroom in one of the other warehouses. And a woman there saw her and talked to her.
And they know that. They know that she was there, that she saw the boat.


It never came out in testimony that a friend knew about the boat. It never came out that Laci saw the boat and most certainly there is no testimony that she was IN the boat.

I guess Geragos wasn't aware at this point that Scott's mother had purchased the country club membership, not Scott.

IMO Since some people do not read things that are posted in response to their statenentsm I am bumping this hoping it will be read - this is about the 3rd or 4th time it has been posted for her benefit

[Riviera]

It appears new topics have been started for the following subjects---->

Geragos fails to deliver - in the courtroom
Distaso's Failure to Deliver/Misstatements in OS

Let's get back on topic please----> Scott Peterson's appeal

Thank you

[TopGunner]

Everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt.
I don't believe Ron talked about acquiring a boat all the time. If he did, what does this prove?





Everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt
If I recall correctly, Scott refused to go fishing with Scott on more than one occasion.
So, Ron did invite Scott to go fishing with him?
What does this prove?





Everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt.

What was his objective?
Is it possible he was entertaining the idea of murdering his wife at that time? Scott was well aware he would need support from the family after he carried out his plan?


Scott - "I lost my wife"
Scott - purchased boat
Laci - disappeared - Dec. 24th
Scott - put boat in the SF Bay - Dec. 24th
Bodies found ashore in the same vicinity of SF Bay

None of these facts have anything whatsoever to do with Ron's interest in boats, Ron's invitations, or Scott's idea.

There can be many reasonable explanations of why a person purchased a murder weapon if one analyzes this evidence separately.


i.e.
Gun- Many men buy guns. The defendant purchased the gun for his protection or to protect his family.
A relative of the defendant was shown to have interest in guns. This relative invited the defendant to go hunting on more than one occasion.

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

Everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt.


Boots - as always, you are right on. Sharon writes in her book that Ron invited Scott numerous times to go fishing and he always said no. Finally, they went once. Read that again, in eight years, they went fishing together ONE TIME. They spoke very little on that fishing trip, ISP caught nothing, Ron caught one fish. When they got home from that ONE trip in eight years, ISP put his fishing pole in their garage, and when her murdered Laci almost 2 years later, that same pole sat in the same spot in the same gargage.

Ron did not go around saying he wanted a boat. More Geregos spin, trying to make everyone belive that THEE most self-centered/selfish person on earth would spend $1,400.00 on a father in law he wasn't the least bit close to, and yet they were about to have a baby, they lost Laci's income, and IIRC Laci and Scott were converting an old dresser into a changing table because they could not afford a new one.

Yup - I'd buy it. If I was drunk off my a*s. :lol:

[TopGunner]

I've mentioned to family and friends on numerous occasions that I wish I had a '56 T-Bird but so far no one has bought one for me.

I actually sent a friend of mine, who's doing quite WELL, a picture of a convertible Jag (hint hint)...but there's still an echo in the driveway. LOL!!!

[I'mSun]

I actually sent a friend of mine, who's doing quite WELL, a picture of a convertible Jag (hint hint)...but there's still an echo in the driveway. LOL!!!Echo is gone in my driveway ;) http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m140/ImSun/jag.jpg

[deputydi]

Per Riviera's request let's get back on topic. I'll start with a question.

Some people are saying that the Amber tapes served no purpose other than to inflame the jury. Even though there was no confession on any of them, I believe Scott incriminated himself in many of his statements. I do believe these tapes will be challenged on appeal and, IMO, it may be the defense's strongest chance. Could someone explain the difference between the phrase "more prejudicial than probative". What standard does the judge use in determining the evidentiary value in something like these tapes?

[TopGunner]

Per Riviera's request let's get back on topic. I'll start with a question.

Some people are saying that the Amber tapes served no purpose other than to inflame the jury. Even though there was no confession on any of them, I believe Scott incriminated himself in many of his statements. I do believe these tapes will be challenged on appeal and, IMO, it may be the defense's strongest chance. Could someone explain the difference between the phrase "more prejudicial than probative". What standard does the judge use in determining the evidentiary value in something like these tapes?

Weren't these tapes allowed in to show ISP state of mind before, during, and after?

IIRC - other tapes were not allowed in because they could be considered for inflaming the jury.

Personally, I think Delucchi knew exactly what he was doing, and I think the tapes were highly revelent in showing ISP frame of mind/character. Put the spotlight right ont he truth.

[deputydi]

Weren't these tapes allowed in to show ISP state of mind before, during, and after?

IIRC - other tapes were not allowed in because they could be considered for inflaming the jury.

Personally, I think Delucchi knew exactly what he was doing, and I think the tapes were highly revelent in showing ISP frame of mind/character. Put the spotlight right ont he truth.
I think he knew what he was doing also, but I don't know how it is determined whether something is "more prejudicial than probative". To me, this seems like a judgment call but there must be some sort of guideline.

Of the tapes that weren't allowed in, the most memorable (and telling) to me was the "deny, deny, deny" statement made by Jackie. I would dearly love to have been privvy to the entire conversation. I totally understand why this would have been viewed as "prejudicial".

[TopGunner]

I think he knew what he was doing also, but I don't know how it is determined whether something is "more prejudicial than probative". To me, this seems like a judgment call but there must be some sort of guideline.

Of the tapes that weren't allowed in, the most memorable (and telling) to me was the "deny, deny, deny" statement made by Jackie. I would dearly love to have been privvy to the entire conversation. I totally understand why this would have been viewed as "prejudicial".

Or Lee telling Anne "just say you don't recall..."

But, IMO, the WINNER is (ding-ding-ding) "Amber, you guessed at everything, you guessed everything right".

And since the ONLY thing she said was he was responsible, I'd say that one hangs him.:tongue:

[TopGunner]

That's not a lie----> "Scott is stone cold innocent" ..IMO, he is indeed FACTUALLY innocent..the problem is MG didn't try to prove it..he depended on the fact that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt..IMO, they didn't prove their case....

WHAt?!:eek:

His home of 4 1/2 years measures 4 x 6. Is that because he's stone cold innocent? :seeya:

[cookiewench]

It just amazes me when I see people post that Scott/Geragos didn't have to prove anything, nor did they have to present exonerating evidence.

WHO in this world would hire a million-dollar defense attorney when their life is at stake, to have him sit there and say, "prove it!".

Of COURSE anyone is going to pull out all the stops and present anything they can that will save the client's life. If that weren't the case, an attorney in court wouldn't even be necessary - let alone a super high-priced one.

And yet, some people think that Scott and his family were content to just sit there smugly and say to themselves, "hah.....there's no evidence and they don't have a good case, and I don't have to prove anything".

[TopGunner]

Echo is gone in my driveway ;) http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m140/ImSun/jag.jpg


Oh man............................SUN!!!!! :punch:

[TopGunner]

It just amazes me when I see people post that Scott/Geragos didn't have to prove anything, nor did they have to present exonerating evidence.

WHO in this world would hire a million-dollar defense attorney when their life is at stake, to have him sit there and say, "prove it!".

Of COURSE anyone is going to pull out all the stops and present anything they can that will save the client's life. If that weren't the case, an attorney in court wouldn't even be necessary - let alone a super high-priced one.

And yet, some people think that Scott and his family were content to just sit there smugly and say to themselves, "hah.....there's no evidence and they don't have a good case, and I don't have to prove anything".


Great Point ! :beer:

I suppose OJ hired a HERD to just sit there and say "prove it!" too, LMAO!!!

[Lavindar]

Per Riviera's request let's get back on topic. I'll start with a question.

Some people are saying that the Amber tapes served no purpose other than to inflame the jury. Even though there was no confession on any of them, I believe Scott incriminated himself in many of his statements. I do believe these tapes will be challenged on appeal and, IMO, it may be the defense's strongest chance. Could someone explain the difference between the phrase "more prejudicial than probative". What standard does the judge use in determining the evidentiary value in something like these tapes?

As I understand it, probative is to show some kind of evidence or behavior (in this case). Prejudicial is that it just turns everyone off on the defendant.

I know there was an issue in Spectre with testimony from other women that Spectre pulled a gun on for that exact issue - the argument being that he never "shot" them.

I don't think they inflamed at all. I think they went to his state of mind. And a huge bonus was that they proved what a liar he was about anything and everything.

It's not like they were having phone sex or anything.

[adnoid]

...WHO in this world would hire a million-dollar defense attorney when their life is at stake, to have him sit there and say, "prove it!"...

Well then, they really don't have cause to complain when the jury files back in and says "We think they did. Guilty!"

[adnoid]

...Prejudicial is that it just turns everyone off on the defendant...

Under that standard Scott's personality would have to be excluded from the courtroom.

...It's not like they were having phone sex or anything...

Eeew.

[frydaddy]

As I understand it, probative is to show some kind of evidence or behavior (in this case). Prejudicial is that it just turns everyone off on the defendant.

I know there was an issue in Spectre with testimony from other women that Spectre pulled a gun on for that exact issue - the argument being that he never "shot" them.

I don't think they inflamed at all. I think they went to his state of mind. And a huge bonus was that they proved what a liar he was about anything and everything.

It's not like they were having phone sex or anything.

As I understand it and in my opinion, prior acts like arguments with past girlfriends, arrests or convictions for fighting, testimony Scott abused animals as a kid (it's just an example folks)...those are more prejudicial than probative because none are relevant to this case. However, the porn, the tapes, the testimony that showed his state of mind, all is probative more than prejudicial. It's not the state's fault Scott was a liar, a cheat, and completely unfazed by his wife's disappearance.

If the tapes are tossed, I think it will be based on the legality of the recordings. But, I'd place those chances between infinitely slim and none.

[Otter]

Great Point ! :beer:

I suppose OJ hired a HERD to just sit there and say "prove it!" too, LMAO!!!


If the sturgeon don't fit, you must convict.

Aww, poor avid fisherman had no luck that day. And Laci and Conner and the storm came back to make sure they didn't acquit.

[Lavindar]

It just amazes me when I see people post that Scott/Geragos didn't have to prove anything, nor did they have to present exonerating evidence.

WHO in this world would hire a million-dollar defense attorney when their life is at stake, to have him sit there and say, "prove it!".

Of COURSE anyone is going to pull out all the stops and present anything they can that will save the client's life. If that weren't the case, an attorney in court wouldn't even be necessary - let alone a super high-priced one.

And yet, some people think that Scott and his family were content to just sit there smugly and say to themselves, "hah.....there's no evidence and they don't have a good case, and I don't have to prove anything".

He!!s Be!!s. Garegos didn't even try to prove REASONABLE DOUBT. He went for the whole enchilada and lost.

[Lavindar]

As I understand it and in my opinion, prior acts like arguments with past girlfriends, arrests or convictions for fighting, testimony Scott abused animals as a kid (it's just an example folks)...those are more prejudicial than probative because none are relevant to this case. However, the porn, the tapes, the testimony that showed his state of mind, all is probative more than prejudicial. It's not the state's fault Scott was a liar, a cheat, and completely unfazed by his wife's disappearance.

If the tapes are tossed, I think it will be based on the legality of the recordings. But, I'd place those chances between infinitely slim and none.

Even without the tapes, they have Amber's testimony which the tapes corroborate and you have Shawn Sibley saying Scott told her his "lost" his soulmate in OCTOBER. So that's two people who testified that he'd "lost" someone. I think the tapes were just the icing on the cake

[TopGunner]

If the sturgeon don't fit, you must convict.

Aww, poor avid fisherman had no luck that day. And Laci and Conner and the storm came back to make sure they didn't acquit.


ROFLMAO......... !

[enlightenme]

Weren't these tapes allowed in to show ISP state of mind before, during, and after?

IIRC - other tapes were not allowed in because they could be considered for inflaming the jury.

Personally, I think Delucchi knew exactly what he was doing, and I think the tapes were highly revelent in showing ISP frame of mind/character. Put the spotlight right ont he truth.


Some tapes were played for the defense's purposes. My favorite was the one played to explain (excuse) why Scott said, "F___ you, Rita Crosby!" It was because Amber was upset at Rita for mentioning her nude pics on her show. That Scott, sticking up for his girlfriend like that! What a guy! :tongue:

[I'mSun]

Some tapes were played for the defense's purposes. My favorite was the one played to explain (excuse) why Scott said, "F___ you, Rita Crosby!" It was because Amber was upset at Rita for mentioning her nude pics on her show. That Scott, sticking up for his girlfriend like that! What a guy! :tongue:Yep, that's Scott - what a gentleman. :cuss:

[Lavindar]

Yep, that's Scott - what a gentleman. :cuss:
Funny you said that. I remember an article in the Bee about something in court and Susan Caudillo made almost the same statement - about what a gentleman he was.

[Miss Bootsie]

Interesting that the SII's believe "ineffective counsel" will become an appeals issue.

Harland Braun, (Attorney-Blake case), thinks Geragos did the best he could do. In fact, it is his opinion, no one would have had any success in getting SP off.
ITA

"The facts are what defeated Peterson, not Mark," said Harland Braun, who represented former TV actor Robert Blake, charged with murdering his wife. Braun resigned after Blake insisted on doing a TV interview against the lawyer's advice.

"With the public, there's this belief that if you have a big-name lawyer, you're going to get off," said Braun, who is a friend of Geragos'. "Do you think anybody else could have gotten (Peterson) off? I don't."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/12/15/MNG5EAC71U1.DTL

[Lavindar]

Interesting that the SII's believe "ineffective counsel" will become an appeals issue.

Harland Braun, (Attorney-Blake case), thinks Geragos did the best he could do. In fact, it is his opinion, no one would have had any success in getting SP off.
ITA



http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/12/15/MNG5EAC71U1.DTL
Given the standards of ineffective counsel, I don't think he would get a appeal based on that, either. Ineffective implies that the counsel did absolutely nothing and you can't say Geragos did that. I think his statement on LKL about ineffective counsel was just something to egg the Peterson fans on.

[deputydi]

Given the standards of ineffective counsel, I don't think he would get a appeal based on that, either. Ineffective implies that the counsel did absolutely nothing and you can't say Geragos did that. I think his statement on LKL about ineffective counsel was just something to egg the Peterson fans on.
You're right. For "ineffective counsel" to succeed, they would have to prove either MG slept through the entire trial or came to court under the influence of something. As far as I know, the only thing he was under the influence of was visions of fame and glory. Too bad it didn't work.

[enlightenme]

You're right. For "ineffective counsel" to succeed, they would have to prove either MG slept through the entire trial or came to court under the influence of something. As far as I know, the only thing he was under the influence of was visions of fame and glory. Too bad it didn't work.

Some THs on TV said it was because he said he was unprepared for the sentencing phase of the trial since he was so sure of an aquittal. Who believes that? Judge D. took care of that appeal issue by giving him 2 weeks to line up that pathetic group that testified in Scott's behalf.

MOO

[deputydi]

Some THs on TV said it was because he said he was unprepared for the sentencing phase of the trial since he was so sure of an aquittal. Who believes that? Judge D. took care of that appeal issue by giving him 2 weeks to line up that pathetic group that testified in Scott's behalf.

MOO
I've heard that, but I don't buy it either. I think that is the "official" excuse, but not the real reason.

If it is true that he was so certain of an acquittal, he is dumber than I thought. You can never predict what a jury will do and any attorney who thinks otherwise should be disbarred. His CIC was pathetic and I'd like to know what made him so sure he'd get Scott off. IMO, the pros got off to a slow start and MG did a good job on cross, but why on earth would he leave ANYTHING to chance? Why in heaven's name wouldn't he have called any of the witnesses who supposedly saw Laci walking, the witness who knew about the boat, the witness who could testify that Laci knew about the boat, Drs Wecht and Lee and on and on. My firm opinion is that these witnesses could absolutely NOT corroborate Scott's claims. They either didn't exist or their testimony would be contrary to what MG expected and would dig Scott a deeper hole.

There are trials where the defense doesn't have to present a case because, clearly, the pros has not met its burden. This wasn't one of them and I just will never understand what he was thinking. To defend his actions (or lack thereof) by saying he was convinced of an acquittal is pure bunk.

[USAHICK]

I've heard that, but I don't buy it either. I think that is the "official" excuse, but not the real reason.

If it is true that he was so certain of an acquittal, he is dumber than I thought. You can never predict what a jury will do and any attorney who thinks otherwise should be disbarred. His CIC was pathetic and I'd like to know what made him so sure he'd get Scott off. IMO, the pros got off to a slow start and MG did a good job on cross, but why on earth would he leave ANYTHING to chance? Why in heaven's name wouldn't he have called any of the witnesses who supposedly saw Laci walking, the witness who knew about the boat, the witness who could testify that Laci knew about the boat, Drs Wecht and Lee and on and on. My firm opinion is that these witnesses could absolutely NOT corroborate Scott's claims. They either didn't exist or their testimony would be contrary to what MG expected and would dig Scott a deeper hole.

There are trials where the defense doesn't have to present a case because, clearly, the pros has not met its burden. This wasn't one of them and I just will never understand what he was thinking. To defend his actions (or lack thereof) by saying he was convinced of an acquittal is pure bunk.


I agree DeputyDi --

Not a chance that MG was convinced he'd be aquitted. What, and miss the glory? He was all about HIS celebrity -- he'd miss the birth of his frist child before he'd miss being handed the trophy. Please.

[Spencer]

For many years now, I have read everything that pertains to this trial. I have read the insults, sarcasm, inaccuracies and downright lies. Later, when step by step, the books came out, I saw how often they were quoted by others as being the truth and only the truth with never any sense of how just possibly, the "authors" of these books could have written anything they wanted to knowing full well that nobody in the position to do so would dispute any of it publicly.

As a novice in the legal world, Scott had no idea of what to do, how to handle it or whom to hire. Starting with the premise that he was innocent, one would have thought the rest was going to be easy but as we know now, it wasn't, anymore than it has been easy for all of the rest of the wrongfully convicted and their families. It cannot be ignored that many of these people are now free and completely exonerated of the crimes they were charged with and while nothing can make up for the years they lost or the suffering they and their families went through, they are now free and serve as a testament to what quiet determination and the truth can produce.

People may not like how Scott acted, how he treated Laci with his affair or how he did or did not show emotion. They may not like his taped calls with Amber and how he behaved. They may not like that he inquired about possibly selling the house, furnished or unfurnished or that he sold her car. They may even think he didn't treat Sharon right but not knowing both sides, it would be impractical to make that call. None of it matters anyway when it comes to the question of murder....and a reasonable person could ask themselves, why would he do all of the above if he were in fact guilty? One could think that he should have acted like a grieving husband and played the role to the hilt ( Susan Smith) but he didn't do that for any number of reasons. One, it's not his nature, two, he didn't need to prove to anybody how he felt or three, he didn't feel the need to put on a show when he knew he was innocent no matter what it looked like to the public or anybody else.

Many have taken the words of Anne Bird, Amber Frey, Sharon Rocha and Catherine Crier and made them their own. They have used the so called "facts" in these book to make their case much like the writers of these books did...........but where is the other side of the inaccuracies in these books? You don't have them because they haven't been written and that alone says a lot to me. The others have made a tidy sum from their books and managed to profit in more ways than one from the conviction of an innocent man. Maybe even like prior authors whose targets have now been exonerated.......

What bothers me the most is if one was guilty of murder...or even planning it:

Why would you buy the boat with a paper trail?
Why would you start let alone continue an affair?
Why put the leash on the dog and then NOT make a big deal out of it?
Why if you used anchors, would you not clean up the mess of "circles"?
Why use your computer and look at places where you planned to dump the body?
Why "dump" the body where you would say you were....(or if you weren't going to say that) where witnesses could see you. (and did)?
Why stop at your warehouse in public view with a dead body in your truck?

There is more....but.....one could answer because he is stupid...he made mistakes...but if that's the case, then why was he so brilliant to not leave any evidence anywhere that would prove his guilt? That includes the home, his truck, the boat, the toolbox and his warehouse. The "hair" is the most ridiculous piece of evidence of all so it's not even worth discussing although it has mightily impressed some.

Forums like this one will exist as long as people like to dispute the merits of the case. Since the murder of Laci has been "solved" to most here, I have often questioned in my own mind, why is the interest still so alive and well? I assume for some, it's to make sure Scott Peterson gets his sentence carried out. For myself and others who think he is innocent, I will make the same assumption only in the reverse, we want to see him exonerated and free to go home again where he belongs.

This has been written by me not so much for those who post here but for perhaps the hundreds of others who simply read. All things are not what they seem and all that you read in books is not always true or accurate. Despite the best intentions, the truth does not always come out in a trial and it's for those reasons that we even have the appeals process......to correct the wrong rulings of the judge, errors or misconduct by the DA or defendant's lawyer or jury error. It's also the place to produce new evidence. Unfortunately, it all takes time.

Scott is a good man who cheated on his wife. That's where this case begins and ends with nothing in between. And that is why the appeals process will be successful and prove once and for all that this tragedy took 3 lives.......... with sadly, only one left to be saved.

I have the patience, the time and the persistence to wait this out. For anybody else that feels as I do, don't worry, don't get down, don't let people convince you this is hopeless. It's not. The appeals will be successful and justice will finally be served with Scott a free man. For the rest of you, take comfort in the fact that as Scott walks out of San Quentin, another will take his place who should have been there from the start and then you will finally know who really killed Laci.

[Miss Bootsie]

Some THs on TV said it was because he said he was unprepared for the sentencing phase of the trial since he was so sure of an aquittal. Who believes that? Judge D. took care of that appeal issue by giving him 2 weeks to line up that pathetic group that testified in Scott's behalf.

MOO

I don't buy he was sure of an aquittal. In fact, I believe Geragos knew going in he was fighting a losing battle.
I also believe he was upfront with Jackie and Lee.

[Luke Davis]

For many years now, I have read everything that pertains to this trial. I have read the insults, sarcasm, inaccuracies and downright lies. Later, when step by step, the books came out, I saw how often they were quoted by others as being the truth and only the truth with never any sense of how just possibly, the "authors" of these books could have written anything they wanted to knowing full well that nobody in the position to do so would dispute any of it publicly.

As a novice in the legal world, Scott had no idea of what to do, how to handle it or whom to hire. Starting with the premise that he was innocent, one would have thought the rest was going to be easy but as we know now, it wasn't, anymore than it has been easy for all of the rest of the wrongfully convicted and their families. It cannot be ignored that many of these people are now free and completely exonerated of the crimes they were charged with and while nothing can make up for the years they lost or the suffering they and their families went through, they are now free and serve as a testament to what quiet determination and the truth can produce.

People may not like how Scott acted, how he treated Laci with his affair or how he did or did not show emotion. They may not like his taped calls with Amber and how he behaved. They may not like that he inquired about possibly selling the house, furnished or unfurnished or that he sold her car. They may even think he didn't treat Sharon right but not knowing both sides, it would be impractical to make that call. None of it matters anyway when it comes to the question of murder....and a reasonable person could ask themselves, why would he do all of the above if he were in fact guilty? One could think that he should have acted like a grieving husband and played the role to the hilt ( Susan Smith) but he didn't do that for any number of reasons. One, it's not his nature, two, he didn't need to prove to anybody how he felt or three, he didn't feel the need to put on a show when he knew he was innocent no matter what it looked like to the public or anybody else.

Many have taken the words of Anne Bird, Amber Frey, Sharon Rocha and Catherine Crier and made them their own. They have used the so called "facts" in these book to make their case much like the writers of these books did...........but where is the other side of the inaccuracies in these books? You don't have them because they haven't been written and that alone says a lot to me. The others have made a tidy sum from their books and managed to profit in more ways than one from the conviction of an innocent man. Maybe even like prior authors whose targets have now been exonerated.......

What bothers me the most is if one was guilty of murder...or even planning it:

Why would you buy the boat with a paper trail?
Why would you start let alone continue an affair?
Why put the leash on the dog and then NOT make a big deal out of it?
Why if you used anchors, would you not clean up the mess of "circles"?
Why use your computer and look at places where you planned to dump the body?
Why "dump" the body where you would say you were....(or if you weren't going to say that) where witnesses could see you. (and did)?
Why stop at your warehouse in public view with a dead body in your truck?

There is more....but.....one could answer because he is stupid...he made mistakes...but if that's the case, then why was he so brilliant to not leave any evidence anywhere that would prove his guilt? That includes the home, his truck, the boat, the toolbox and his warehouse. The "hair" is the most ridiculous piece of evidence of all so it's not even worth discussing although it has mightily impressed some.

Forums like this one will exist as long as people like to dispute the merits of the case. Since the murder of Laci has been "solved" to most here, I have often questioned in my own mind, why is the interest still so alive and well? I assume for some, it's to make sure Scott Peterson gets his sentence carried out. For myself and others who think he is innocent, I will make the same assumption only in the reverse, we want to see him exonerated and free to go home again where he belongs.

This has been written by me not so much for those who post here but for perhaps the hundreds of others who simply read. All things are not what they seem and all that you read in books is not always true or accurate. Despite the best intentions, the truth does not always come out in a trial and it's for those reasons that we even have the appeals process......to correct the wrong rulings of the judge, errors or misconduct by the DA or defendant's lawyer or jury error. It's also the place to produce new evidence. Unfortunately, it all takes time.

Scott is a good man who cheated on his wife. That's where this case begins and ends with nothing in between. And that is why the appeals process will be successful and prove once and for all that this tragedy took 3 lives.......... with sadly, only one left to be saved.

I have the patience, the time and the persistence to wait this out. For anybody else that feels as I do, don't worry, don't get down, don't let people convince you this is hopeless. It's not. The appeals will be successful and justice will finally be served with Scott a free man. For the rest of you, take comfort in the fact that as Scott walks out of San Quentin, another will take his place who should have been there from the start and then you will finally know who really killed Laci.

Justice will be served, many years from now, when Scott is served his final meal then guided to a bed to take his final rest. Laci and Conner will be a vague memory in the conscieness of society, their lives cut short during a season of joy.

imo

[Luke Davis]

I don't buy he was sure of an aquittal. In fact, I believe Geragos knew going in he was fighting a losing battle.
I also believe he was upfront with Jackie and Lee.You are right. Scott is such a loser.

imo

[attorneywan2be]

For many years now, I have read everything that pertains to this trial. I have read the insults, sarcasm, inaccuracies and downright lies. Later, when step by step, the books came out, I saw how often they were quoted by others as being the truth and only the truth with never any sense of how just possibly, the "authors" of these books could have written anything they wanted to knowing full well that nobody in the position to do so would dispute any of it publicly.

As a novice in the legal world, Scott had no idea of what to do, how to handle it or whom to hire. Starting with the premise that he was innocent, one would have thought the rest was going to be easy but as we know now, it wasn't, anymore than it has been easy for all of the rest of the wrongfully convicted and their families. It cannot be ignored that many of these people are now free and completely exonerated of the crimes they were charged with and while nothing can make up for the years they lost or the suffering they and their families went through, they are now free and serve as a testament to what quiet determination and the truth can produce.

People may not like how Scott acted, how he treated Laci with his affair or how he did or did not show emotion. They may not like his taped calls with Amber and how he behaved. They may not like that he inquired about possibly selling the house, furnished or unfurnished or that he sold her car. They may even think he didn't treat Sharon right but not knowing both sides, it would be impractical to make that call. None of it matters anyway when it comes to the question of murder....and a reasonable person could ask themselves, why would he do all of the above if he were in fact guilty? One could think that he should have acted like a grieving husband and played the role to the hilt ( Susan Smith) but he didn't do that for any number of reasons. One, it's not his nature, two, he didn't need to prove to anybody how he felt or three, he didn't feel the need to put on a show when he knew he was innocent no matter what it looked like to the public or anybody else.

Many have taken the words of Anne Bird, Amber Frey, Sharon Rocha and Catherine Crier and made them their own. They have used the so called "facts" in these book to make their case much like the writers of these books did...........but where is the other side of the inaccuracies in these books? You don't have them because they haven't been written and that alone says a lot to me. The others have made a tidy sum from their books and managed to profit in more ways than one from the conviction of an innocent man. Maybe even like prior authors whose targets have now been exonerated.......

What bothers me the most is if one was guilty of murder...or even planning it:

Why would you buy the boat with a paper trail?
Why would you start let alone continue an affair?
Why put the leash on the dog and then NOT make a big deal out of it?
Why if you used anchors, would you not clean up the mess of "circles"?
Why use your computer and look at places where you planned to dump the body?
Why "dump" the body where you would say you were....(or if you weren't going to say that) where witnesses could see you. (and did)?
Why stop at your warehouse in public view with a dead body in your truck?

There is more....but.....one could answer because he is stupid...he made mistakes...but if that's the case, then why was he so brilliant to not leave any evidence anywhere that would prove his guilt? That includes the home, his truck, the boat, the toolbox and his warehouse. The "hair" is the most ridiculous piece of evidence of all so it's not even worth discussing although it has mightily impressed some.

Forums like this one will exist as long as people like to dispute the merits of the case. Since the murder of Laci has been "solved" to most here, I have often questioned in my own mind, why is the interest still so alive and well? I assume for some, it's to make sure Scott Peterson gets his sentence carried out. For myself and others who think he is innocent, I will make the same assumption only in the reverse, we want to see him exonerated and free to go home again where he belongs.

This has been written by me not so much for those who post here but for perhaps the hundreds of others who simply read. All things are not what they seem and all that you read in books is not always true or accurate. Despite the best intentions, the truth does not always come out in a trial and it's for those reasons that we even have the appeals process......to correct the wrong rulings of the judge, errors or misconduct by the DA or defendant's lawyer or jury error. It's also the place to produce new evidence. Unfortunately, it all takes time.

Scott is a good man who cheated on his wife. That's where this case begins and ends with nothing in between. And that is why the appeals process will be successful and prove once and for all that this tragedy took 3 lives.......... with sadly, only one left to be saved.

I have the patience, the time and the persistence to wait this out. For anybody else that feels as I do, don't worry, don't get down, don't let people convince you this is hopeless. It's not. The appeals will be successful and justice will finally be served with Scott a free man. For the rest of you, take comfort in the fact that as Scott walks out of San Quentin, another will take his place who should have been there from the start and then you will finally know who really killed Laci.

:beer:

I agree with you Spencer..IMO, Scott was demonized by the media..there was ZERO evidence he committed any crime..and I firmly believe that the jurors that convicted him were influenced by the false stories spread by the media..I too believe that he will win his appeal..and one day he will be fully exonerated...!

[I'mSun]

Justice will be served, many years from now, when Scott is served his final meal then guided to a bed to take his final rest. Laci and Conner will be a vague memory in the conscieness of society, their lives cut short during a season of joy.

imoIt is so sad to think that by the time Scott is given his final meal and 3 drug cocktail, Laci and Conner will be only a vague memory to many. It shouldn't take so long for justice to be served.

[USAHICK]

For many years now, I have read everything that pertains to this trial. I have read the insults, sarcasm, inaccuracies and downright lies. Later, when step by step, the books came out, I saw how often they were quoted by others as being the truth and only the truth with never any sense of how just possibly, the "authors" of these books could have written anything they wanted to knowing full well that nobody in the position to do so would dispute any of it publicly.

As a novice in the legal world, Scott had no idea of what to do, how to handle it or whom to hire. Starting with the premise that he was innocent, one would have thought the rest was going to be easy but as we know now, it wasn't, anymore than it has been easy for all of the rest of the wrongfully convicted and their families. It cannot be ignored that many of these people are now free and completely exonerated of the crimes they were charged with and while nothing can make up for the years they lost or the suffering they and their families went through, they are now free and serve as a testament to what quiet determination and the truth can produce.

People may not like how Scott acted, how he treated Laci with his affair or how he did or did not show emotion. They may not like his taped calls with Amber and how he behaved. They may not like that he inquired about possibly selling the house, furnished or unfurnished or that he sold her car. They may even think he didn't treat Sharon right but not knowing both sides, it would be impractical to make that call. None of it matters anyway when it comes to the question of murder....and a reasonable person could ask themselves, why would he do all of the above if he were in fact guilty? One could think that he should have acted like a grieving husband and played the role to the hilt ( Susan Smith) but he didn't do that for any number of reasons. One, it's not his nature, two, he didn't need to prove to anybody how he felt or three, he didn't feel the need to put on a show when he knew he was innocent no matter what it looked like to the public or anybody else.

Many have taken the words of Anne Bird, Amber Frey, Sharon Rocha and Catherine Crier and made them their own. They have used the so called "facts" in these book to make their case much like the writers of these books did...........but where is the other side of the inaccuracies in these books? You don't have them because they haven't been written and that alone says a lot to me. The others have made a tidy sum from their books and managed to profit in more ways than one from the conviction of an innocent man. Maybe even like prior authors whose targets have now been exonerated.......

What bothers me the most is if one was guilty of murder...or even planning it:

Why would you buy the boat with a paper trail?
Why would you start let alone continue an affair?
Why put the leash on the dog and then NOT make a big deal out of it?
Why if you used anchors, would you not clean up the mess of "circles"?
Why use your computer and look at places where you planned to dump the body?
Why "dump" the body where you would say you were....(or if you weren't going to say that) where witnesses could see you. (and did)?
Why stop at your warehouse in public view with a dead body in your truck?

There is more....but.....one could answer because he is stupid...he made mistakes...but if that's the case, then why was he so brilliant to not leave any evidence anywhere that would prove his guilt? That includes the home, his truck, the boat, the toolbox and his warehouse. The "hair" is the most ridiculous piece of evidence of all so it's not even worth discussing although it has mightily impressed some.

Forums like this one will exist as long as people like to dispute the merits of the case. Since the murder of Laci has been "solved" to most here, I have often questioned in my own mind, why is the interest still so alive and well? I assume for some, it's to make sure Scott Peterson gets his sentence carried out. For myself and others who think he is innocent, I will make the same assumption only in the reverse, we want to see him exonerated and free to go home again where he belongs.

This has been written by me not so much for those who post here but for perhaps the hundreds of others who simply read. All things are not what they seem and all that you read in books is not always true or accurate. Despite the best intentions, the truth does not always come out in a trial and it's for those reasons that we even have the appeals process......to correct the wrong rulings of the judge, errors or misconduct by the DA or defendant's lawyer or jury error. It's also the place to produce new evidence. Unfortunately, it all takes time.

Scott is a good man who cheated on his wife. That's where this case begins and ends with nothing in between. And that is why the appeals process will be successful and prove once and for all that this tragedy took 3 lives.......... with sadly, only one left to be saved.

I have the patience, the time and the persistence to wait this out. For anybody else that feels as I do, don't worry, don't get down, don't let people convince you this is hopeless. It's not. The appeals will be successful and justice will finally be served with Scott a free man. For the rest of you, take comfort in the fact that as Scott walks out of San Quentin, another will take his place who should have been there from the start and then you will finally know who really killed Laci.


This sounds like an advertisement for the Innocence Project which I'm sure isn't allowed here. Regardles, your "cause" does not pertain to the convicted killer who was found guilty of 1st and 2nd degree murder. He ended the lives of his family, planned it out, threw them away like trash. He ended the lives of many others who still walk the earth.

Best to walk your picket line elsewhere.

[USAHICK]

:beer:

I agree with you Spencer..IMO, Scott was demonized by the media..there was ZERO evidence he committed any crime..and I firmly believe that the jurors that convicted him were influenced by the false strories spread by the media..I too believe that he will win his appeal..and one day he will be fully exonerated...!

Oh cry me a river. Poor poor little murderer.

I've said this before, I'll say it again. He ain't never gonna walk, God ain't gonna let him.

[Spencer]

This sounds like an advertisement for the Innocence Project which I'm sure isn't allowed here. Regardles, your "cause" does not pertain to the convicted killer who was found guilty of 1st and 2nd degree murder. He ended the lives of his family, planned it out, threw them away like trash. He ended the lives of many others who still walk the earth.

Best to walk your picket line elsewhere.

I have been under the impression that this is a discussion board regarding Scott Peterson. I think I addressed all of the issues as I see them in a polite manner.

I am not a part of any orginization or cause and if my style of writing has caused you to think so, then I will take that as a compliment and I thank you for it.

I am just a regular person who has laid out this case and tragedy as I see it.......much like others from the opposing side have laid out their opinions. Just as you have no doubt that Scott will die in prison I am equally convinced that he will not.

[I'mSun]

......much like others from the opposing side have laid out their opinions. Just as you have no doubt that Scott will die in prison I am equally convinced that he will not.I have no doubt he will never be free, as his appeal will be denied, IMO. It's a shame we have to wait so many years for the outcome.

[JustMyOpinion]

People may not like how Scott acted, how he treated Laci with his affair or how he did or did not show emotion. They may not like his taped calls with Amber and how he behaved. They may not like that he inquired about possibly selling the house, furnished or unfurnished or that he sold her car. They may even think he didn't treat Sharon right but not knowing both sides, it would be impractical to make that call. None of it matters anyway when it comes to the question of murder....and a reasonable person could ask themselves, why would he do all of the above if he were in fact guilty? One could think that he should have acted like a grieving husband and played the role to the hilt ( Susan Smith) but he didn't do that for any number of reasons. One, it's not his nature, two, he didn't need to prove to anybody how he felt or three, he didn't feel the need to put on a show when he knew he was innocent no matter what it looked like to the public or anybody else.

.

How could you possibly purport to know "Scott's nature"?
How can you ignore his obvious calculating, deceiving, manipulative conduct?
He did try to put on a show with his media blitz, it backfired, iMO.
The comparison to Susan Smith is not apt, IMO. ( she never lawyered up, and she confessed to killing her children eleven days after reporting them missing).
I consider myself a reasonable person, and the evidence convinced me beyond a doubt that Scott Lee Peterson is a cold blooded murderer, and a very dangerous man......JMO